Category: Culture

When Are We Going To Start Refusing to Obey Illegal Laws?

The death of Eric Garner at the hands of Staten Island Cops is a good example of somebody not knowing when it is right to disobey orders. The Cops were ordered by their superiors (who were ordered by their superiors) to do something about Garner and his selling of individual cigarettes. As that order ran downhill people at several levels missed the opportunity to tell their superior giving that ridiculous order that the superior could go “beggar themselves,” because they were not going to obey a illegitimate order to arrest a guy simply because he was horning in on the Mafia State’s piece of the action. The State, via that illegitimate and confiscatory Tax law, was running a protection racket and Eric Garner got in the way of their profits and so like all protection racket “businesses” the Cop thugs, following the orders of the Statist Mafia Dons, took Garner down.

One thing one learns when working for Corporate America is that “you don’t touch the money.” Eric Garner was touching the money of the State by selling individual cigarettes (Loosies) and so the Statist Government Mafia, “made an example of him.” Think about it … how many people do you suppose will be selling Loosies in light of what happened to Garner? Everyone knows now that in NYC you can kill your unborn babies, you can purchase your high brow hookers, you can libel in the News Studios that dot New York, all with relative safety, but don’t you dare get caught selling Loosies or it could be your life.

Every legislator in the State of New York who voted to put an confiscatory sin tax on cigarettes in the State of New York, by all that is just, ought also to be charged with involuntary Manslaughter in the death of Eric Garner. Why only see the Cops fingerprints on this? Why not hold accountable the Statist Politicians and bureaucrats who pass and enforce the kind of dumb-ass laws that eventually find Cops choking to death people for selling single cigarettes? Eric Garner was murdered by Statists. The Cops were merely the executioners employed to that end.

Somebody along the chain of command should have stood up and said to whatever link in the chain that was passing on the order, “This is a illegitimate order and I’m not enforcing it.”

Disobedience to Tyrants is obedience to God.

Defining Deviance Down

The occurrence of Defining deviancy down as it manifests itself in a social order, happens when the social order standard is violated with such regularity that the inhabitants of the social order are forced to make a decision to either enforce the standard or to change the standard. As enforcing a standard that is routinely violated is almost impossible apart from draconian measures what typically happens is that the standard is changed. Once the standard is changed then a new definition of deviance is embraced, a standard that allows what was previously defined as deviance to be now normalized.

One reason that defining deviancy down works is because eventually there becomes a money interest that supports the new deviancy. The legalization of drugs finds a host of cottage industries that profit by the legalization and soat are willing to contribute money to politicians who will support the new deviancy. In such ways deviancy becomes the new standard.

The consequence of this is that those who refuse to embrace the new definition of deviancy will now be the ones who will be seen as “puritanical,” “mean,” “uncharitable,” and “bigoted.” Once deviancy is defined downward far enough those who refuse to accept the new definitions of deviance will become social outcasts and will suffer economic displacement. Defining deviancy downwards happens because the social order does not have an anchor that will not allow them to drift with the tide. The only place that anchor can be found is in God’s Law word. Disallow God’s Law word as the norm that norms all norms and the consequence will always be a “defining of deviancy down.”

Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who popularized the phrase “Defining Deviancy Down” gives an example

“Consider the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. In 1929 in Chicago during Prohibition, four gangsters killed seven gangsters on February. The nation was shocked. The event became legend. It merits not one but two entries in the World Book Encyclopedia.”

Moynihan goes on to explain that in our current social order we experience a “St Valentine’s Day Massacre,” nearly daily and no one blinks. As a social order we have come to accept a higher level of deviancy.

Ambrose contra Symmachus, Piper, Mohler & all R2K

“Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them.”

Proverbs 28:4

In the 4th century Emperor Gratian’s removal of the pagan altar of victory from the Senate was the occasion for a great debate between Symmachus, the leader of the pagan aristocracy, and the ablest Italian ecclesiastic, Bishop Ambrose of Milan (St. Ambrose). Symmachus was the classical Liberal in this debate and was arguing against Ambrose that all the ancient pagan religions should be reinstated in Rome and Christianity not be allowed to be the unique religion of the people. Symmachus had all the liberal qualities that arise when liberals are in the minority. Symmachus was tolerant, generous and simply wanted fairness. Symmachus argued that many roads lead to God — why should the old religion of Rome, under whose aegis the Roman state had prospered, not be left in Peace he reasoned.

“We demand then the restoration of that condition of religious affairs which was so long advantageous to the state. Let the rulers of each sect and of each opinion be counted up; a late one(3) practised the ceremonies of his ancestors, a later(4) did not put them away. If the religion of old times does not make a precedent, let the connivance of the last(5) do so….

(Formerly our Emperor) enquired about the origin of the temples, and expressed admiration for their builders. Although he himself followed another religion, he maintained its own for the empire, for everyone has his own customs, everyone his own rites…. Now if a long period gives authority to religious customs, we ought to keep faith with so many centuries, and to follow our ancestors, as they happily followed theirs….

Let me live after my own fashion, for I am free….

We ask, then, for peace for the gods of our fathers and of our country. It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; but this discussion is rather for persons at ease, we offer now prayers, not conflict.”

Read those words of the champion of the pagan cause, Symmachus again, and ask yourself how similar they sound to modern day Symmachus like Christian clergy.

“Well, Christians should step back for a moment and recognize that there is something important here at stake. There is no reason why Christians should argue against having a Muslim holiday on the school calendar if there is a significant group or percentage of Muslims in the community – that would simply be fair and it would simply makes sense. We should not claim the privilege of having our religious holidays on the calendar and consider it some kind of Christian victory to keep other religious holidays off the calendar.”

Albert “Symmachus” Mohler

“We express a passion for the supremacy of God… by making clear that God himself is the foundation for our commitment to a pluralistic democratic order-not because pluralism is his ultimate ideal, but because in a fallen world, legal coercion will not produce the kingdom of God. Christians agree to make room for non-Christian faiths (including naturalistic, materialistic faiths), not because commitment to God’s supremacy is unimportant, but because it must be voluntary, or it is worthless. We have a God-centered ground for making room for atheism.”

John Symmachus Piper

Contrary to Symmachus of old, and modern day Symmachus’, Ambrose was the man who stood upon the principle that Christianity as the one true religion must by necessity eclipse all other religions as the God of the Bible eclipses all other gods. Ambrose dealt with Symmachus’ arguments one by one exposing the fallacy in each of them. In that context he addressed Theodosius as to the need to put away the old pagan of religions as they were empty and ineffectual rites. In 392, after Theodosius gained control of the whole empire, he issued an official proscription of paganism, forbidding anyone in any place whatsoever, even in private, to exercise any of the ancient rites of the ancient religion. This action supporting the Christian faith the “Christian” clergy Piper and Mohler would be aghast over.

Ambrose argued against Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler such,

But, says Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler, let the altars be restored to the images, and their ornaments to the shrines. Let this demand be made of one who shares in their superstitions; a Christian Emperor has learnt to honour the altar of Christ alone. Why do they exact of pious hands and faithful lips the ministry to their sacrilege? Let the voice of our Emperor utter the Name of Christ alone, and speak of Him only, Whom he is conscious of, for, “the King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord.”(1) Has any heathen Emperor raised an altar to Christ? While they demand the restoration of things which have been, by their own example they show us how great reverence Christian Emperors ought to pay to the religion which they follow, since heathen ones offered all to their superstitions.

I have answered those who provoked me as though I had not been provoked, for my object was to refute the Memorial, not to expose superstition. But let their very memorial make you, O Emperor, more careful. For after narrating of former princes, that the earlier of them practised the ceremonies of their fathers, and the later did not abolish them; and saying in addition that, if the religious practice of the older did not make a precedent, the connivance of the later ones did; it plainly showed what you owe, both to your faith, viz., that you should not follow the example of heathen rites, and to your affection, that you should not abolish the decrees of your brother. For if for their own side alone they have praised the connivance of those princes, who, though Christians, yet in no way abolished the heathen decrees, how much more ought you to defer to brotherly love, so that you, who ought to overlook some things even if you did not approve them in order not to detract from your brother’s statutes, should now maintain what you judge to be in agreement both with your own faith, and the bond of brotherhood.

Now, it is true that our leaders are hardly Christian but the principle we see in Ambrose is a Christian contending that the one true faith should be honored as the recognized unique faith of the people. This is contrary to the argument that Symmachus, Piper, and Mohler (and all of R2K) advance when they contend that the one true faith of the people is that all the faiths are equal and should be equally honored.

Who will you stand with? Christian Ambrose of Milan or the consummate Liberals Symmachus, Piper, Mohler and R2K?

The full discussion between Symmachus and Ambrose can be found here,

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/ambrose-sym.asp

The Destructive Nature of Affirmative Action

The fault with affirmative action is,

1.) that by by trying to compensate a group for past injustices, affirmative action rewards people who have suffered no individual harm, and does so at the expense of those who have done no individual harm.

2.) that it proposes to achieve cultural color blindness by way of only seeing color. Recently, an Institution that I am associated with, has encouraged people to be colorblind and then turned around and resolved to gain racial-gender equality by hiring people because of their plumbing and pigment in order to reach a benchmark gender – racial goal.

3.) that it guarantees a lack of self respect and injury among those advanced via affirmative action so much so that no sense of accomplishment can ever be arrived at since the one advanced wrongly always knows he did not earn what he putatively achieved.

4.) that it punishes achievement and rewards mediocrity.

5.) that it guarantees tensions since those advanced, via affirmative action, will never be looked upon as being worthy of their positions since it is widely assumed that all those advanced via affirmative action are only where they are at because of their incidental attributes and not because of their abilities.

6.) that it continues racism and genderism due to how it subtly communicates that the beneficiaries of affirmative action are not qualified enough to achieve without being given advantages over people more qualified than them. This is commonly called “Tokenism.”

7.) that in destroying the natural nexus between ability, hard work, and achievement it disincentivizes hard work and creates a cynical citizenry pertaining to the professional class.

Marinov’s Mistakes On Immigration

Recently, a social media site found former Communist and Bulgarian Bojidar Marinov commenting on a Dr. Joel McDurmon thread. He is addressing a learned and mature Christian with whom he disagrees on the issue of immigration. I place it here in order to demonstrate Mr. Marinov’s dissembling and exaggeration techniques. I place the quote first followed by analysis.

Mr. Marinov wrote,

“Your pathetic attempts at sarcasm show you are out of arguments. Like I said, I don’t care for Sowell, Woods, or Hoppe; their thinking is not Biblical and therefore is schizophrenic and inconsistent where moral issues are involved. And like I said, Woods is not even following von Mises’s methodological individualism in his essay but speaks as a collectivist. And like I said, Rushdoony didn’t mention any immigration restrictions in the Law of God, and what he criticized was not free movement of individuals but forced movement by the state. If you have to say anything on my arguments, do it. If you are just going to babble in desperation, hoping to prove something about yourself, you are only exposing yourself in a not very favorable light. Thomas Jefferson couldn’t give the Barbary pirates work permits because “work permits” didn’t exist then as a policy of the Federal government. Unlike you, these men had at least some Biblical worldview, and they were not so eager to accept tyranny as you are.”

Mr. Marinov has a bad habit of exaggeration, pejorative, and creative dissembling. In this brief quote we see this in the following,

1.) Earlier Marinov complained about certain people that his target was quoting as not being Christians and yet here he seems to see the non-Christian Ludwig Von Mises as an authority to be cited. Note a few of the quotes from the Von Mises that Marinov takes as some kind of authority. I post these quotes here because Christians like Marinov are redefining Christianity in the direction of Misean Christianity with its “von Mises-ian methodological individualism. In point of fact it is my conviction that the whole institutionally organized Theonomy and Reconstruction movement has been co-opted by Misean Libertarianism. Below is some of what Mises thought of Christianity.

Mises says that the gospel of Jesus was

‘utterly negative.’ “He [Jesus] rejects everything that exists without offering anything to replace it. He arrives at dissolving all existing social ties. The disciple shall not merely be indifferent to supporting himself, shall not merely refrain from work and dispossess himself of all goods, but he shall hate ‘father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life’ . . . His zeal in destroying social ties knows no limits. The motive force behind the purity and power of this complete negation is ecstatic inspiration, enthusiastic hope of a new world. Hence his passionate attack upon everything that exists. Everything must be destroyed because God in His omnipotence will rebuild the future order . . . The clearest modern parallel to the attitude of complete negation of primitive Christianity is Bolshevism. The Bolshevists, too, wish to destroy everything that exists because they regard it as hopelessly bad. But they have in mind ideas, indefinite and contradictory though they may be, of the future social order. They demand not only that their followers shall destroy all that is, but also that they pursue a definite line of conduct leading towards the future Kingdom of which they have dreamt. Jesus’ teaching in this respect, on the other hand, is mere negation.”

Theonomic Christians must start asking themselves if they want to rely on sources like institutional Theonomic-Reconstruction organizations given the fact that these organization are increasingly selling out Reconstruction thought to Libertarianism.

As Mises saw it, since Jesus simply repudiated all values of this life. Mises again on Christianity,

“His (Jesus) teachings had no moral applications to life on earth.” In another place he said: “Jesus offers no rules for earthly action and struggle; his Kingdom is not of this world. Such rules of conduct as he gives his followers are valid only for the short interval of time which has still to be lived while waiting for the great things to come.”

Marinov’s Libertarianism, with its “Methodological individualism” is throwing off the heritage of R. J. Rushdoony. Rushdoony, embraced Libertarianism in light of Theonomy but todays putative followers of Rushdoony are embracing theonomy in light of Libertarianism.

2.) Marinov fails to realize that current immigration patterns are indeed being, “forced by the state.”
Mr. Marinov doesn’t seem to realize that our current immigration patterns, and so problems, have been NWO policy for some time.

This book spends a little time telling that story,

http://www.amazon.com/Reflections-Revolution-In-Europe-Immigration/dp/0307276759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1414013297&sr=8-1&keywords=Christopher+Caldwell

The Humanist Governments of the West have, since WW II, been implementing policy that is designed to remake the West into a non Christian reality. Mr. Marinov is just wrong to suggest that our immigration problems are not the cause of Western Christ hating governments.

3.) Mr. Marinov notes that “Jefferson didn’t give work permits because they didn’t exist.” Marinov almost seems to suggest that if work permits had existed circa 1800 Jefferson might well have given the Barbary Pirates work permits instead of canon fire.

4.) Jefferson — the man who excised all of the miraculous accounts from the famous “Jefferson Bible” — is thought by Mr. Marinov to have had more of a Biblical Worldview then the learned and Christian man he is targeting with verbal explosions.

5.) Elsewhere Mr. Marinov, in the same dialog, wrote,

“For all your quoting of Rushdoony, you should have been aware that Rushdoony specifically separates between those two in his commentary on the naturalization laws of Deuteronomy, and specifically adds: “These are NOT immigration laws.” Another testimony that you either can’t read, or you read selectively and dishonestly.”

“Rushdoony was emphatic that the Law of God doesn’t contain immigration restrictions and therefore the civil government is not allowed to impose such restrictions.”

This is a rather bold claim by Mr. Marinov, and as it turns out, consistent with Mr. Marinov’s debating technique is also a patently dishonest claim as can be seen by what Rushdoony wrote on Dt. 23.

“Immigration laws protect a nation by state discrimination, which can be good or bad, whereas these laws established the discrimination on a family level.”

So, we see that as Rushdoony interpreted Deut 23, those specific laws mentioned concerned the family and NOT national immigration policy. Notice also what Rushdoony says, “Immigration laws are for the protection of a nation” and they can be “good or bad.” We see then that Marinov was in error in his report.

6.) More errant commentary by Mr. Marinov on Immigration

Marinov wrote,

“The US Constitution doesn’t allow the Federal government to control immigration.”

Yet the Constitution disagrees with Mr. Marinov’s “wisdom.”

Article 1, Section 8: “The Congress shall have Power … to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.”

Article 1, Section 9: “The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight.”

The implication clearly here is that Congress *could* prohibit the migration of said persons after 1808, which it of course did.

Also this from Constitutional scholar William Rawle,

“If war should break out between the United States and the country of which the alien resident among us is a citizen or subject, he becomes on general principles an alien enemy, and is liable to be sent out of the country at the pleasure of the general government, or laid under reasonable restraints within it, and in these respects no state can interfere to protect him.”

—William Rawle, “A View of the Constitution,” Chapter 9

Mr. Marinov repeatedly has revealed himself as a person whose declarative statements of “fact,” and whose citation of sources needs to be carefully checked.