A Message, and a Farewell (for now)

I’m knee-deep in grad school course work (yes, I am back in school, not saying where or what program, because that information is clearly need to know and very few of you in that category), but I decided to write some commentary on a link Pigeon sent me today.  I should be doing classwork, but this will continue to bother me until I say my piece.  After this posting, you can expect that I won’t be writing much (some of you may be cheering) until after I’ve got some grades under my belt and a vector for school.  With that said, let’s get to it.

I had to think twice about actually posting the link, mostly because I didn’t want to soil this place by electronic association with something so disgusting to me, but I also realize that if I want the readership here to understand my point of view, I had an obligation to show them the source material, and not just dash off an angry “grrrr….here’s where it is, go read it for yourself,” that wouldn’t help my cause at all.

So, go ahead and read this garbage. 

EXCERPT:  In the recent political battle around the Marine recruiting station in Berkeley there has been much confusion around the concept or slogan of “supporting the troops,” but opposing the unjust wars of the Bush regime. Many who oppose the Bush regime wars also say they “support the troops.” Let me say it straight out—I do not support the troops and neither should you. It is objectively impossible to support the troops of the imperialist military forces of the U.S. and at the same time oppose the wars in which they fight.

(THE PIGEON ADDS:  More on the article at Blackfive, where I originally found it).

Here’s how I’ll start:  A wise person once wrote that “in order to have debate, both parties coming to the discussion must have positions that are mutable and negotiable, without this, there is no debate to be had,” and I apologize for not having the source cite, and I can also tell you that the above is not an exact quote, but while I did not internalize the source’s identity, the gist of the words stuck with me.  You read the article posted under that link, and you honestly try to explain to me how the heck there can be any sort of debate with this sort of person, from here out referred to as “it”? (And real quick let me take away another weapon: some intellectual out there will undoubtedly say, Ah hah!  Typical fascist, he is DEHUMANIZING THE ENEMY!!! HERETICUS!)

Oh, you mean like this?  “We need to expose that those in the U.S. military are trained to be part of a “killing machine.” (The Clown, also called “it”)

This post you are reading, supposedly written by a “human” who refers to himself as “MOGS” is not written by a thinking man, but instead by a robot, and not an intelligent, Asimovan robot either, nor a Blade Runner Replicant.  Instead, I’m a Terminator I guess.  Blogging by WOPR (I am crossing over from youth into distinguished adulthood, please deal with it).

Wise men once wrote about winning with “no sword,” :)

The writer does little more than give a laundry list of the same, tired, canned talking points items that the far left (notice I did not use the word “liberal” a much abused and basically meaningless title these days) has relied upon for years, even before the vaunted ‘60s, to describe their positions on America and its roles in the world.  These points do not constitute an argument, they are simply dogma.  They are prima fascia beliefs held dear and inviolate like Roman Catholic Canon Law (and personally, I have found Catholic doctrine to be more negotiable than anything the left has ever come up with), a set of baseline assumptions about the world that are non-negotiable. 

Well, I have dogma too, and that dogma includes my moral, legal, duty-bound, and honor-bound obligation to oppose organizations like “World Can’t Wait” whenever I can, if anything, for their ties to socialist and communist organizations here and abroad and a desire to basically undo and overthrow the Constitution of the United States, which I am forsworn to protect.  That is also dogma.  There is no debate to be had.

I sincerely hope that screeds like the above do little more than preach to the already converted, because it has little, if any, understanding of reality, about America, about the Armed Forces, about the situation in Iraq. (For starts, if you check out www.af.mil, you might learn that US forces rescued American teachers on a HIKING TRIP IN FRIGGIN’ BALAD.  There was 5K “FUN RUN” by Iraqis in "crazy" Ramadi. This is Iraq damn you!)

For God’s sake, Evan Sayet and David Mamet have had “conversions” because they could no longer block out reality, which is so easy to do living in wealth, safety, indeed the unprecedented in world history SPLENDOR, of Hollywood, of New York City, of Southern California and most of the United State, which so few of these people have actually seen, let alone the homes of the “oppressed brown people” they write so much and care so much about, but don’t seem to be bothered to actually move in with or at least even visit.

The clowns at Berkeley and elsewhere have the same sort of cognitive dissonance that we most often heap (more often than not, unfairly) on fundamentalist and evangelical Christians.  We’re constantly warned about the theocracy “waiting right around the corner” and are provided no compelling evidence that it actually exists.  The groups that would support it are ridiculed, by all sides of the political arrangement, by co-religionists, and most importantly, are quite simply, not voted into office to implement their schemes, which unlike the Marxist left, the theocratic right at least is open, up front, and honest, and descriptive of their goals, beliefs, and justification. 

The left has to rely on “lawfare” or “Human Rights Commissions” (I support Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn) on bold face lies and bait-and-switch, because their actually policy goals are simply unpalatable to most people in this country, the left has to hide behind meaningless, sure it sounds good rhetoric and manipulated emotional response, because in the light of day, their support would evaporate inside the time it takes for a heart to beat once, and they know this.  So, before attacking utterly destroying the clown, let me ask you this:  supposedly, there are Christian fundamentalist terrorists out there in equal proportion to the Islamists and environmental nutjobs. 

Where are they? 

You heard me.  Where are they? 

Demonstrate to me, with evidence and sources, how in the current war we are fighting that we can continue to play the charade of “well they’re just as bad, if not worse.”  All bets are in, and I’m calling.  Let’s see the cards.  Theocracy?  What theocracy?  Show me evidence of a damned X-stian Theocracy that can do better than a friggin’ late night televangelist's powerpoint slides on the book of Revelation. 

Show me one; show me one “concentration camp” in America.  Show me one instance of jackbooted Christian thugs arresting anybody; show me one BIT of the scenario that Green Day sang about on “American Idiot.”  The left won’t because the left CAN’T.  They’ll sit there and try to tell you, somehow, that calling a Christmas Tree a “Christmas Tree” is “blah blah imperialist, blah blah racist blah blah fascist.” 

And that’s about the best they can do.

Anyone out there actually read about this little thing called the “Holocaust?”  And the best the left in this country can come up with is Christmas Trees?  Wow.

There are people out there in this country, of the Christian persuasion, who don’t like The Hummingbird’s religion.  For a minute, I don’t presume to speak for anybody but myself, but I highly, highly, highly doubt that she or her worthy husband believe for a second that  “brown shirts” led by John Hagee or Pat Robertson are coming for her.  Or will ever be coming for her. 

Even a relapsing Catholic like me (in other words, I am finding myself drawing back into the orbit of the Church), would fight such a thing TO THE DEATH, as would most of the Churchgoers in this land of ours, I think even the folks who have religious quarrels with Wicca or anything else, if push really came to shove, I mean really, bad Apocalyptic TV movie came to shove, I think “America” wins over “Kristianistan.” It doesn’t take much beyond a single LOOK at what the Taliban created in Afghanistan to want to wish religious theocracy on anyone. Or Iran.  Or even Saudi. Even when the “Pope was king” (the Papal States of Renaissance Italy), even the Borgia popes did not create the horror that the Talib wrought. Heinlein got it all wrong in “Revolt in 2100.”  All wrong.  Trent Reznor got it wrong on NIN’s latest album too.  They’re wrong about who will come to shut down their presses, and websites, who actually cares enough to enact laws, who the real fascists are.

Next:  The Nature of “Opinions” the Right to Free Speech and the Freedom to One’s Own Conscience, and the abduction and abuse of the word “Tolerance”

Let’s talk a little bit about the Nature of Opinions for second.  Let me start with an acknowledgement that this is America, and while I think there have been several instances in the past few years where certain morons could and should have been prosecuted under the laws pertaining to sedition, I have to accept the fact that the public at large views these as “free speech” issues, so be it.

The problem with “free, unrestricted speech” is that it carries with it a connotation to many, the uninformed and the simple-minded, that all speech is equal in value, that all content is created equal, and that all opinions are worth merit.  It’s pretty dang socialist when you think about it.  I would submit to you that not only is this categorically false, there is no moral imperative to assign “equal” value to opinions on the bare fact that they are “opinions” held by (supposedly) free-thinking human beings.  Simply put some opinions outright suck.  The worst are based solely on emotion only, not rational thinking, not based on knowledge, not based on research or experience; they are based simply on “well I know this to be true, and so do you, DUH!”

These are the reasons why, for example, I think the most dangerous type of legal advocacy in the world is advocacy based on rage or grief, stemming from legitimately heartbreaking tragic circumstances, (one pundit once wisely said “beware laws named after somebody”) because while great media copy and horrible made for TV movie fodder (Lifetime, how the heck do women live with themselves for watching that tripe) that always seems to lead to bad law, intrusive, unconstitutional law, despite the good intentions and the right motivations, that few understand the consequences of because it is seen as “for the children” or  in the name of “fairness,” (as if equality of outcomes is also some sort of prima fascia moral good as well). 

I know I am fully and completely stepping on landmines here, but I would say to look at things like gun control, especially silly wishful thinking like “gun free school zones”, which seem to do nothing except attract wackos.  There's the fact that we as a society are uncomfortable enough with some laws as written to continue to debate restrictions on where sex offenders can or can not live, this says that something is at least perceived to not be right with the law's reach, despite the evil of the perps and  the immorality of their actions.  Even extended to DUI laws, which when someone looks at MADD’s possible own lack of truthfulness over the years…there’s legitimate concern for the “law of unintended consequences”, to say NOTHING of the quiet, still not dead debate over “truth” about how much domestic violence really exists, how much is actually perpetrated by men, over custody laws, or for that matter, rape accuser anonymity, which may need some serious re-looking, just ask the Duke Lacrosse Team.

See what I just did?  That’s free speech.  Those are somewhat reasonable, maybe informed though not cited opinions on a couple different issues, none of which I am truly versed in well enough to claim expertise, or eminent domain over MORAL AUTHORITY!  I am NOT a lawyer, nor a JAG, nor in any way more qualified to deal with law beyond the UCMJ requirements my military job requires me to be familiar with.  I would also say, that due to the sensitivity of the issues I just mentioned, it’s pretty gutsy speech, given the political correctness and let’s say that I’m prepared mentally and emotionally for someone to come out and call me heartless or evil, just for daring to question the constitutionality of Megan’s Law! 

Also of note, I am NOT speaking here as a military member, just good old MOGS, so armchair JAGS BACK!  BACK I SAY!  The power of Le May COMPELS YOU!  (Sorry, SAC joke). 

Now, what can happen next?  Someone who does have better, or more compelling examples, can argue against what I just said, because my positions on the above areas ARE MUTABLE.  I will listen and engage them.  I will not call their mothers whores, or somehow imply that they lack humanity.  There can be debate.  Furthermore, I will not, for a minute, pretend that my opinion is inherently worth 1/32^nd that of a judge or a veteran law enforcement officer in this, because I am not arrogant or boneheaded enough to think that my opinion has inherent value because of the mere fact it exists. 

Personally, it wouldn’t bother me if sex offenders were publicly pilloried and beaten within an inch of their life, that’s private citizen MOGSY expressing his private citizen thoughts (and for the record, I am civilian most of the time too, so don’t try to a-hole on the “you’re speaking for the military angle, trolls). This is why we make fun (well, most of us anyway) of the 9-11 “Truthers” Movement, and those who actually deign to give it space in the realm of ideas.  “Tolerating” stupidity does not help maintain the sanctity of free speech, it undermines it.  It makes it look foolish and worthless.

We all acknowledge that “free speech” includes a “right to be wrong,” but some people take this to the extreme (Code Pink’s idiot spokes-thing Xanne Joi or however it’s spelled this week is a great example of this), where they think this means “the right to say whatever I want and have no one question the validity of it or hurt my feelings,” well that’s not reality, that’s fantasy.  That’s amazingly naïve, I would say to an adolescent level.  Some discussion needs to happen over whether the sadist wet dreams of the left (please, please take over America, right wing fascists, so that for once in my pathetic life, I CAN BE COOL!!!)

At least the clown does us all one favor with its diatribe, which if you read it is absolutely NOTHING more than the same “blah blah blah fascist blah blah blah imperialist blah blah blah capitalist oppressors of brown people” line, with no variations, not even an attempt at modern relevancy, that these fools have trotted out every day since…1848 at least.  This clown admits that it does not support the troops.  It acknowledges the farce of claiming to support the troops but not the mission.  Points to Berkeley for honesty, this is perhaps the only true and honest thing you will hear from these clowns.

Let’s talk about the horribly mutilated word “tolerance.” (pah-tooey!) By now, some of you are saying “but MOGS, if you believe in the Constitution, you have to tolerate his opinion, and you shouldn’t judge, anyone, or anything, ever."  This is bunk.  We make judgments everyday.  This is how we choose who to interact with.  Preferences and biases are how we deal with the world.  To claim that anyone anywhere operates without biases or preconceived notions is patently impossible.  Now, what does tolerance really mean?  “Tolerance,” is not a synonym for “Acceptance.” 

“Tolerance” means that the clown can write his tripe without living in fear for his life, or his access to the rights of the Constitution (though the way the clown will tell it, apparently I’m waiting for nightfall to repel down his roof, crash into his bedroom, and spook him off some place to be “rendered”, Chuck Norris style, and also according to the clown, this sort of thing happens all the time, we simply lie about it).  Us inhuman murder machines are the sole reason he has the right to call us inhuman murder machines, really you’re welcome, though I really do wish in my blackest moments that blanket of freedom we extend didn’t protect you from a well deserved punch in the face, and kick in the junk.  The list of countries that would tolerate the clown’s right to be a complete idiot is vanishingly small, especially as we watch Europe commit continental suicide, one honor killing and concession to shariah at a time.  The clown only writes this, because in his tiny little heart of hearts, he knows that nothing bad will happen to him.  You don't see him up and moving to dying Sweden, or North Korea, or China, or anyplace other than the US, where things are supposedly "better." I wonder...

Tolerance merely means that we don’t kill gays for the mere sake that they are gays; no matter how much some may deplore their lifestyle and their political stances (which tend to frighten me more than anything else about them).  They are ultimately free to be gay, and any clown who tries to opine that things have not changed for them, or other minorities at all, in this country, is willfully ignorant.  Now how about this thing called “acceptance.”  Acceptance, or condoning of beliefs that I find to be wrong, morally or otherwise, is something that NO ONE CAN ASK FOR.  No one, no one, has the right to ask me or anyone else to “like” anybody.  No one has the right to attempt to force me to say that “gay marriage is okay.”  That is freedom of conscience.  That doesn't mean that anyone would not be allowed to call me out and argue about my stance, but I can't take any action that violates the Constitution, or its moral basis.  Is this reflexive?  You bet.  Do I think the clown believes this about me?  Not on your life.  Do you find any evidence of this understanding in his crayon scribblings?

Therefore, I submit to you, in no uncertain terms, that the clown is an idiot.  Its friends are idiots, its individual arguments are not even worth refuting line by line, and neither I nor anyone else should deign to give them credence.  I can say this, and I can also that I really do not care about its “right to free speech.”  You have it clown!  And I have the right to ridicule you, and ridicule you, for two can play your game.  We have the right to call you out, and you have the obligation to sit there and listen to us.

Lastly, I would submit to you that the only people, who care about “tolerance” in this world, live in developed nations where we have the time and the resources to care about hurting other people’s feelings. Most other places seem to have more immediate concerns than someone’s hurt feelings.  Ask Kim du Toit.

Now for the fisking.  I have zero respect, aside from its honesty, for the clown's opinion.  I have zero time its views, I obviously have no respect for it as a man, as my continued use of “the clown” and “it” demonstrates.  I “tolerate” the clown’s existence, and its right to constitutionally protected inalienable human rights, and that’s about it.  There is no moral imperative that forces me to consider, even for a moment, that the clown’s beliefs have any value whatsoever, nor is there a law that says I have to be nice to it. For the Berkeley paper to give it a forum isn’t a brave defense of free speech, it's a clown taking advantage of good intentions, and expecting to get to sit back and be congratulated for it.  Sorry to disappoint you, clown. 

Now, let’s get to some real fisking.  How many of you have ever looked at zombietime.com?  I have to say, for all their talk and for every useless after-school special I have ever seen about “stereotyping” and “tolerating differences” and “judging from appearances” Code Pink and its leftist pet, kept men seditionists all seem to fit every stereotype I’ve come to expect to a tee.  I really think the entire reign of politically correct terror that we’ve had to suffer through since the duh-dum-dum: "THE‘60s" is the revenge of all the lonely, unhappy, miserable creeps who got beat up a lot in school, who couldn’t win a fight or stand up for themselves on their own without crying to the teacher, who despise masculinity, or in the Code Pink fem-bot case, are some of the most unhappy, miserable excuses for women I have ever seen.  I honestly question what sort of man finds anything attractive in these creatures.  These men must have problems with their masculinity, otherwise, why would they spend so much time fantasizing about a violent takeover of America where they get to rush in and “save it.”  But only if their co-dependent, emotionally draining boil of a girlfriend allows them to…in fact, the women are usually tougher than the men of this category, who am I kidding?

Their entire fretting about on this stage seems more an excuse to let all of us known that “waaaah life is not fair, I SHOULD BE THE COOL AND POPULAR ONE, and YOU’RE ALL SHEEP!  WHY DON’T PEOPLE LIKE ME???” because their politics are unsophisticated, their arguments unstructured, their rhetoric tired retreads, why does anyone even bother paying attention to them?  Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem were unhappy with their own lives, so rather than even attempt at looking in the mirror, they decided their misery was everyone else’s fault, and so it goes.

You know something, I got picked on a lot too, life sucks, get a helmet, like Denis Leary says.  I think the clown and his ilk can simply not get over the fact that they are not respected, nor trusted, that fewer and fewer people listen to them or takes them seriously (not anyone who matters anyway), and it is simply not fair!  They never seem to stop and think that there’s a reason no one liked them then, and it’s probably the same reason now (could it be that referring to your own nation as a den of thieves, exploiters, and murders, and altogether evil, when pretty much the bulk of the evidence around you that most people consider of value points to the contrary, might serve to marginalize you?) 

We gave the inch, these clowns took over academia, the media, and they clustered into their little colonies where they could console each other over the fact that the big bad “jocks” and the popular kids ran things, and plotted their little passive-aggressive revenge.  Well, they got their chance to prove everyone wrong, they got their shot at social engineering for 30 odd years, and they failed utterly.  Now we’re all grown up, and the real jocks of American society, her heroes (not professional athletes though some are certainly heroic for reasons above and beyond sport), her true heroes are back, and we will NOT “accept” your views like our Vietnam era brethren did. 

Fear us clown, for I call thee fool, idiot, seditionist, and to hell I thrice damn thee. I name thee COWARD and weakling; I name thee slave, for that’s what you speak like.  Countries take men and women to build, not milquetoasts and hags.

And I bow out, and exit this frightful stage...for now.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Trackposted to Is It Just Me?, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, third world county, Faultline USA, Allie is Wired, Nuke Gingrich, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, A Newt One, Tilting At Windmill Farms, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Comments

[Debbie]

Wow. What a farewell my friend. You will truly be missed but you are going out with a bang.

I wish you the very best in your re-entry into education, wherever that may be and whatever field that may be in. God bless you.

Give us a little update of sorts now and then. Maybe a rant or two.

Debbie
Right Truth

[Carl]

Reading Kenneth Thiesen's "commentary" it becomes apparent that he speaks from woeful ignorance. I could go into a long, detailed rebuttal of most all his points showing the logical fallacies and intellectual errors he makes. I could but I won't. Why? Only one thing needs to be pointed out that deflates his entire argument of America sans the military: he wouldn't be able to write what he wrote. Ever. He'd be under some other govermental rule. Seeing that he's in California, it most likely would have been Mexican or Spanish rule or if Japan HAD successfully invaded as they originally planned, he's be under imperial Japanese rule. Regardless, he would not be enjoy the freedom of expression he obviously takes for granted.

Typical from the anti-military leftist, elistist moonbats.

Anyway with that said, I will miss your materials on your blog and I hope that you will, as Debbie suggested, keep us up to speed on how your classes are going and anything else that may occur in your life. Oh yes, and a rant or two would indeed be refreshing.

May God bless.

[Rosemary's Thoughts]

Wow. you have made so many great points, I don't know where to begin. Maybe I could come back from time to time and take each point at a time? lol. Have a good time at school. I will keep checking back to see if you've written a new post. God bless your family and you. ;)

[John Lofton, Recovering Republican]

The Meaning of Theocracy

By Dr. R.J. Rushdoony

Few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy. It is commonly assumed to be a dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God. In reality, theocracy in Biblical law is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had.

In Biblical law, the only civil tax was the head or poll tax, the same for all males twenty years of age and older (Ex. 30:11-16). This tax provided an atonement or covering for people, i.e. the covering of civil protection by the State as a ministry of justice (Rom. 13:1-4). This very limited tax was continued by the Jews after the fall of Jerusalem, and from 768-900 AD helped make the Jewish princedom of Narbonne (in France) and other areas a very important and powerful realm (see Arthur J. Zuckerman: ” A Jewish Princedom in Feudal France 768-900” (New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 1965, 1972). This tax was limited to half a sheckel of silver per man.

All other functions of government were financed by the tithe. Health, education, welfare, worship, etc., were all provided for by tithes and offerings. Of this tithe, one tenth (i.e. one percent of one’s income) went to the priests for worship. Perhaps an equal amount went for music, and for the care of the sanctuary. The tithe was God’s tax, to provide for basic government in God’s way. The second and the third tithes provided for welfare, and for the family’s rest and rejoicing before the Lord (see E.A. Powell and R.J. Rushdoony: “Tithing and Dominion” (Ross House Books, P.O. Box 67 Vallecito, CA 95251).

What we today fail to see, and must recapture, is the fact that the basic governmentis the self-governing of covenant man; then the family is the central governing institutionof Scripture. The school is a governmental agency, and so too is the church. Our vocation also governs us, and our society. Civil government must be one form of government among many, and a minor one. Paganism (and Baal worship in all its forms) made the State and its rulers into a god or gods walking on earth, and gave them total over-rule in all spheres. The prophets denounced all such idolatry, and the apostles held, “We ought to obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29).

From the days of the Caesars to the heads of the democratic states and Marxist empires, the ungodly have seen what Christians too often fail to see, namely, that Biblical faith requires and creates a rival government to the humanistic State. Defective faith seeks to reduce Biblical faith to a man-centered minimum, salvation. Now salvation, our re-generation, is the absolutely essential starting point of the Christian life, but, if it is made the sum total thereof, it is in effect denied. Salvation is then made into a man-centered and egotistical thing, when it is in fact God-centered and requires the death, not the enthronement, of our sinful and self-centered ego. We are saved for God’s purposes, saved to serve, not in time only, but eternally (Rev. 22:3). To be saved is to be working members of that realm.

In a theocracy, therefore, God and His law rule. The State ceases to be the over-lord and ruler of man. God’s tax, the tithe, is used by Godly men to create schools, hospitals, welfare agencies, counselors and more. It provides, as it did in Scripture, for music and more. All the basic social financing, other than the head tax of Ex. 30:11-16 was provided for by tithes and offerings or gifts. An offering or gift was that which was given above and over a tithe.

Since none of the tithe agencies have any coercive power to collect funds, none can exist beyond their useful service to God and man. For the modern State, uselessness and corruption are no problem; they do not limit its power to collect more taxes. Indeed, the State increases its taxing power because it is more corrupt and more useless, because its growing bureaucracy demands it.

California State Senator H.L. “Bill” Richardson has repeatedly called attention to the fact that, once elected, public officials respond only under pressure to their voters but more to their peer group and their superiors. Lacking faith, they are governed by power.

People may complain about the unresponsiveness of their elected officials, and their subservience to their peers and superiors, but nothing will alter this fact other than a change in the faith of the electorate and the elected. Men will respond to and obey the dominant power in their lives, faith, and perspective. If that dominant power or god in their lives is the State, they will react to it. If, however, it is the triune God of Scripture who rules them, then men will respond to and obey His law-word. Men will obey their gods.

One of the more important books of this country was Albert Jay Nock’s “Our Enemy, The State”(Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho, 1935). Without agreeing with Nock in all things, it is necessary to agree with him that the modern State is man’s new church and saving institution. The state, however, is an antisocial institution, determined to suppress and destroy all the historic and religiously grounded powers of society. With F.D. Roosevelt and “The New Deal,” the goal of the Statists became openly “the complete extinction of social power through absorption by the State” (p.21). This will continue in its suicidal course, until there is not enough social power left to finance the State’s plans (as became the case in Rome). The State’s intervention into every realm is financed by the productivity of the non-Statist and economic sector: “Intervention retards production; then the resulting stringency and inconvenience enable further intervention, which in turn still further retards production; and this process goes on until, as in Rome, in the third century, production ceases entirely, and the source of payment dries up” (p.151f). It is true that crime needs suppression, but, instead of suppressing crime, the State safeguards its own monopoly of crime.”

We can add that the solution to crime and injustice is not more power to the state, but God’s law and a regenerate man. The best safeguard against crime is godly men and a godly society. Furthermore, God’s law, in dealing with crime, requires restitution and with habitual criminals, the death penalty. (See R.J. Rushdoony: “Institutes of Biblical Law”).

One more important point from Nock: he called attention to the fact that “social power” once took care of all emergencies, relieves, and disasters. When the Johnstown flood occurred all relief and aid was the result of a great outpouring of “private” giving. “Its abundance, measured by money alone, was so great that when everything was finally put in order, something like a million dollars remained. (p.6)

This was once the only way such crises were met. Can it happen again? The fact is that it is happening again. Today, between 20-30% of all school children K-12 are in non-state-ist schools, and the percentage is likely to pass 50% by 1990 if Christians defend their schools from state-ist interventionism. More and more Christians are recognizing their duties for the care of their parents; churches are again assuming, in many cases, the care of elderly members. Homes for the elderly people, and also for delinquent children are being established. (One of the more famous of these, under the leadership of Lester Roloff, was under attack by the State, which refused to recognize sin as the basic problem with delinquents, and regeneration and sanctification as the answer.) Christians are moving into the areas of radio and television, not only to preach salvation but to apply Scripture to political, economic and other issues.

Moreover, everywhere Christians are asking themselves the question, “What must I do, now that I am saved?” Answers take a variety of forms: textbook publishing for Christian Schools; periodicals and more. The need to revive and extend Christian hospitals is being recognized and much, much more.

Isaiah 9:6-7 tells us that when Christ was born, the government was to be on His shoulders, and that “Of the increase of His government and peace, there shall be no end.” By means of their tithing and actions, believers are in increasing numbers submitting to Christ’s government and re-ordering life and society in terms of it.

The essence of humanism, from Francis stateto the present, has been this creed: to be human, man must be in control (Jeremy Rifkin with Ted Howard: “The Emerging Order”, p. 27.). This is an indirect way of saying that man is not man unless the government of all things is upon his shoulders, unless he is himself God. It is the expression of the tempter’s program of revolt against God (Gen. 3:5). John Locke developed this faith by insisting that Christianity thus could not be the basis of public activity, but only a private faith. The foundation of the State and of public life was for Locke, in reason.

But, reason, separated from Christian faith and presupposition, became man’s will, or better, man’s will in radical independence from God. The State then began to claim one area of life after another as public domain and hence under the State as reason incarnate. One of the first things claimed by Locke’s philosophy and “reason” was man himself! Man, instead of being a sinner, was, at least in the human and public realm, morally neutral; he was a blank piece of paper, and what he became was a product of education and experience. It thus was held necessary for the state, the incarnate voice of “reason,” to control education in order to product the desired kind of man.

The State claimed the public realm. The public realm had belonged, in terms of Christian faith, to God, like all things else, and to a free society under God. The church was scarcely dislodged from its claims over the public realm when the state came in to claim it with even more total powers.

But this was not all. The state enlarged the public realm by new definitions, so that steadily, one sphere after another fell into the hands of the state. Education was claimed, and control over economics, a control which is now destroying money and decreasing social and economic productivity. The arts and sciences are subsidized and controlled, and are begging for more. Marriage and the family are controlled; a White House Conference on the Family viewed the family as a public and hence, Statist realm, one the state must invade and control.

Ancient Rome regarded religion itself as a public domain and hence licensed and controlled it. (The very word “liturgy,” Greek in origin, means public service. Religion is indeed a public concern, more so than the state, but not thereby a matter for state-ist control.) Rome, like all ancient pagan states, equated the public domain with the state’s domain, and it saw all things as aspects of the state’s domain.

For any one institution to see itself as the public domain is totalitarianism. All things public and private are in the religious domain and under God. No institution, neither church nor state, can equate itself with God, and claim control of the public (or private) domain. Every sphere of life is interdependent with other spheres and alike under God. No more than mathematics has the “right” to control biology do church or state have the “right” to control one another, or anything beyond their severely limited sphere of government.

There are thus a variety of spheres of government under God. There spheres are limited, interdependent and under God’s sovereign government and law-word. They cannot legitimately exceed their sphere. The legitimate financial powers of all are limited. The state has a small head tax. The tithe finances all other spheres.

The tithe, it must be emphasized, is to the Lord, not to the church, a difference some churchmen choose to miss or overlook. This robs the individual believer of all right to complain about things; by the godly use of his tithe, he can create new agencies, churches, schools, and institutions to further God’s Kingdom in every area of life and thought. Holiness comes not by our abilities to whine and bewail the things that are, but by our faithful use of the tithe and the power God gives us to remake all things according to His Word.

Tithing and godly action, these are the keys to dominion. We are called to dominion (Gen. 1:26-28; 9:1-17; Joshua 1:1-9; Matt. 28:18020; etc.). The creation mandate is our covenant mandate; restoration into the covenant through Christ’s atonement restores us into the mandate to exercise dominion and gives us the power to effect it.

Aspects of that mandate can be exercised through institutions, and sometimes must be, but the mandate can never be surrendered to them. The mandate precedes all instructions, and it is to man personally as man (Gen. 1:28). This is the heart of theocracy as the Bible sets it forth. Dictionaries to the contrary, theocracy is not a government by the state, but a government over every institution by God and His Law, and through the activities of the free man in Christ to bring ever area of life and thought under Christ’s Kingship.

[MOGS]

Hey. Dude. Next time, if you want us to go to your site and read something this long, please just post including a link with a brief explanation of what it has to do with the Mad Pigeon post you are responding to. The Pigeon staff has a pretty hands off commentary policy, but I am SERIOUSLY considering deleting your entire comment, not for content, but for length and I feel like you're using us as free advertising for you own site. That's and posting a commentary reply that long is just plain bad form.