state of the world

Elections have consequences. Some will say this allows the party or group that wins an election the right to govern or rule as they see fit, as it must have been the will of the people (or else they would not have won). But I have a completely different take on the consequences of the America’s 2008 Election.

The elites and those in power are constantly trying to gauge exactly how much control that the mass population will accept. Imagine it in terms of a science experiment and it becomes very clear. We are the experiment. Those in control know that there are many things needed to successfully accomplish their goals. Make no mistake: the goal has never and will never change. The goal is total control. Absolute power. Complete Domination. History has shown us this throughout recorded time, so why would that ever change? It is the nature of power. What does someone with power want? More power.

All good experimentation begins with an observation. The power elite observe the mindset of the citizenry. Since their goal is to usurp all rights and power from the people, the only question is how to accomplish this. So they ask a question: How many rights can we take away at this moment? How much oppression will people tolerate before they object? Will they only slightly object, or will they revolt?

From these observations of the public, a hypothesis is formed. The hypothesis hinges on an election or other major event. The parties are not important. The parties release the proverbial “trial balloon” to see how much support a certain agenda garners. In an election where the so-called “right” candidate was anything but, and another candidate openly stated that he believed in the all the basis tenants of Socialism / Marxism, it becomes crystal clear the only options the power structure wishes to accept. These choices are a slow, steady advance towards servitude or a full-speed-ahead approach. Neither candidate supported a smaller government. The results of the election don’t really matter in the fact that whoever was elected would continue the wars, the spending, and the limits on free expression.

But where the election does matter is what the power structure extrapolates from the results. When Barack Obama won the election, it was assumed that either one or both of the two following scenarios exist: 1) either the masses are too apathetic to know or follow what he said he was going to do to fundamentally change this country or 2) they agreed with him. Whichever way, it was seen as an invitation for the dominators to march full forward with the chains of enslavement.

Once the election results were known, it came time to test the hypothesis. Unfortunately for this country and its inhabitants, the full speed ahead march towards total domination is becoming painfully clear. In a few short months, many of the basic freedoms and principles that this nation has valued for hundreds of years are being directly challenged or usurped. Massive intrusions into every area of people’s lives, and the beginning of a total transformation from what we have enjoyed for over 200 years. More “government” spending (which is in actuality money taken from the people, as the government is only a legal fiction) has occurred in the first six months of Obama’s presidency then in the ENTIRE history of the country spanning +200 years!

Our only hope is that the puppet masters behind the scenes drew the wrong conclusions from their massive experiment. The state run media sold Obama as a messianic figure. Unfortunately enough people believed in it to sway the results in his favor. That, along with the rights violations related to the un-Patriot Act of the previous president, certainly skewed the numbers. Many voted “anyone but Bush”, instead of for a willingness to have tyrannical control. My belief and hope is that the majority of people still want to have freedom and control their own life.

The last part of any experiment is to communicate the results. This is where we come in. Share the ideas of freedom and love towards one another. If one loves another, he does not wish slavery on them. He will not covet what they have; he will be joyful for their blessings. He will not want to fight them. He will not want them being told how to live their life.

Don’t listen to the mainstream media’s take on what is happening, or how great Obama is doing. Research for yourself. We are at a crossroads, and this is a pivotal time in our nation’s history. Ask questions, while you still can. To coin an old phrase: Just Say NO! No - to more spending. No - to government takeovers of companies and industries. No - to constantly spreading fear. Don’t be afraid of being labeled and ridiculed, simply for disagreeing with the elite class. Support the rights of those who disagree, as someday it might be you who need that support.

If your government told you to go fight in a war and kill people, would you? Even if you believed the "cause" was not morally justified?

Is there ever a just cause? What would constitute a just cause to kill someone whom one has never met?

Why are we so eager to be told what to do? Why do we insist on being ruled by people that we have never met? Why will we follow orders, even when we believe those orders to be morally or ethically wrong? Is it simply that we don't want the responsibility for the inevitable consequences of our actions? Does our rationale of "I was just following orders", help us justify wrong behavior intellectually? Or is there a deeper, more spiritual explanation behind our willingness to blindly follow anyone who calls themselves an authority?

Mankind has an inherit, almost instinctive belief in a creator of the earth and heavens. From all corners of the globe and every culture, there is a belief system in place which reveres a supernatural, powerful god or gods. While one can argue the points and merits of a culture’s religious system, the fact that each culture has a system is the point at hand. For whatever reason, we as a species generally believe in a god or gods. I believe that this is a part of our genetic makeup; that we are created in the likeness of our creator and have a "tie" to him that is always there.

As with a child to a parent, we long for love, affection, and admiration from our god, as we would from an earthly parent; we also long for those signs of love from our parent: our creator.

This longing is what allows humanity to let it be manipulated by those striving for power. This supplementing of obedience and longing for an authority figure has been used throughout history to manipulate the masses into accomplishing the goals of the ruling class.

Now many Christians will say that the Bible states that all authority is of God, and that we must "submit" to it. This is not the blanket statement that many proclaim it to be; but a misrepresentation (most likely purposely) from the translation into English under the authority of a ruler (the Catholic King James at the time). Would it be a stretch to believe that a ruler would try and interpret the word to make his servants more loyal and obedient; making them believe it is their moral obligation to buy into his "Divine Right of Kings"?

If this obedience was a command from God, then why does the Word state to follow God rather than man? Does it not say numerous times that God is a jealous god? Would a jealous god want an inferior being to take his place of authority; along with the ensuing loyalty, praise, and offerings to be given to someone other than himself?

My next question to those who believe that everyone must submit to authority is this: What constitutes an authority? Is it whatever warlord or military faction kills more people than the other side? Is it those who murder any opposition to keep physical control over any given area? If so, is this the kind of person or people that God wants us to follow and obey? This idea seems preposterous. People who crave power, are by the fact that they crave this power, not consistent with the type of life and morality advocated by Jesus (or other "messianic" figures for that matter). Therefore, since we "cannot serve two masters", we cannot serve them; since their morality, which their laws will be based on, are at odds with our faith. We ought to obey God rather than man.

If Christians follow the examples of Jesus, then they will see that he did not obey all of either the religious interpretations of the Mosaic Law, or the Roman law imposed by the conquerors of Judea at that time.

The gospels state that Yahweh wants us to look at him as a father. Does a father want to rule over his children, or have them ruled by a stranger? With a choice, a father would prefer to have his children live in peace and harmony with one another, and not to be under anyone's rule (even his own). A good parent doesn't want to rule over his children, only guide them and then let them succeed on their own and create their own life.

Why is it so hard for us to see the simplistic examples given to us on how we should conduct ourselves? Why can't we just be willing to take responsibility for our actions and live accordingly? Why must be continue to promote and support this evil, power-hungry beast?

Out of the 6.5 billion people in this world, roughly half (or 3.25 billion people) are women. Although this number may be slightly higher or lower, nature keeps a close balance on this ratio for procreation purposes. So with a nearly identical number of men and women on this planet, do society and men in general treat women properly and equally?

Many will say, that here in the western countries, women are indeed treated fairly. We don’t make them wear a burqa, or publicly execute them for infidelity. But just because our society does not follow such drastic customs, doesn’t mean that we treat them correctly. Our being slightly better, does not make us right.

One of the first topics that jump to the mind is how at an early age, certain traits and habits are either encouraged or discouraged, exclusively by the sex of a child. Boys are encouraged to be tough, play sports, be outgoing, and strive for the education and career; while subjects such as child-rearing, sensitivity, and showing of emotions are either not brought up, or dismissed as too feminine.

Young girls are brought up with the idea of being proper, not being aggressive, and made to believe that their wedding day will be the defining moment of their life; that a “good” husband is a symbol of the woman’s worthiness.

But what is a "good" husband? He is someone who loves his family with all of his heart, and puts them first; not his career, not his individuality, not his material possessions. True love is what will cause one to sacrifice for others, without expecting anything in return. A family, and especially children, are a great responsibility, but can provide more joy in life than all of those other things put together. More importantly than being the monetary "provider", the man should accept the role as being a watch guard over the condition of his family’s emotional well-being, and take time to be with them, and show them love whenever possible. One may not be able to keep up with the Jones's without working 80 hours a week, but the time spent with family cannot be replaced with any amount of money.

The idea of a “good” husband being simply someone who provides monetary support must be abolished. We have seen many numerous cases in the media of CEO’s of major corporations under indictment for embezzling and other crimes. These men, were no doubt providing a great deal of money to their families, but would they be considered a good role model, or a good parent and spouse?

Women are told not to be opinionated or successful without a man. Women are not encouraged to follow the maths and sciences, and therefore don’t become scientists, engineers, or work in the financial fields in proportionate numbers; even though by test scores, they are better than men in these categories. They are expected to play the supporting role in a marriage, and not outshine their husband. Especially with newly immigrated people, the role of the woman is still hampered by the traditional "roles" that they are expected to fill. They are to only be a compliment to their husband, and provide children for him; that she alone will take care of.

In the areas of love, there are also distinct double standards for men and women. Promiscuity in men is admired and regarded as a sign of masculinity. But a woman that follows the same path is regarded as simply an object, not worthy of respect.

Women are also held to a double standard of love in relationships. The woman is made to believe that they must strive to maintain, or achieve, a certain physical figure, in order to be pleasing to a man. Men, in general, do not put nearly as much effort into their appearance, and society does not expect as much from them. This over-importance of a women’s outward appearance creates many insecurities in young women, which follow them throughout adulthood. They may feel that they are not worthy of being treated as an equal, and may in turn allow themselves to be mistreated by men.

Mistreatment does not only mean physical abuse, but can also include being regarded as an object, or not respected as an individual, who is just as capable at making decisions as a male counterpart. Women are made to believe it is their “duty” to satisfy their man, yet may never or rarely receive the same in return. If they don’t live up to this one-sided understanding; then they taught to believe that there is something wrong with them, and their husband is warranted in finding that elsewhere; either in another woman or with pornography. This just further identifies the woman as an object, simply to be looked as an object to fulfill her man’s desires, instead of a an equal person with feelings and desires of her own.

Many will even begin to justify or defend this mistreatment, because in the back of their mind, they somehow deserve it; as they must have done something wrong. The issues of self-esteem that may have been ingrained from an early age are what cause these feelings of culpability. Women who do not fit the image that they believe is desirable (blond, tall, thin, etc.) are made to feel that they must somehow enhance their appearance to be something special. Plastic surgery, breast enlargement, and liposuction are many of the drastic measures that our society has made women believe they must take, if they were not born with certain physical characteristics. We are missing the entire point, that the characteristics that really matter, are not seen with the naked eye. They are felt and shown with the heart.

This cycle of double standards repeats itself every generation, but is something that needed to be ended.

So we are back to our familiar question: What do we do now?

We need as a society, and particularly as parents, to stop enforcing and promoting these unhealthy stereotypes. Little girls should be taught to value their qualities and talents the same as boys. They should not be discouraged from following areas that they show interest in, because it may lead to a "man's" career. Fathers should show their wife love, emotion, and respect, so as to be a good example of what their daughters should look for in a man when she is older; and a good example to their sons as to how to properly treat a lady. They should be shown love and emotion by their parents in whatever they choose to follow with their life.

We should as parents, stop rushing our young daughters to have children. We want them to have children to “validate” their life or marriage, instead of letting them pursue their dreams and goals. Our wanting of grandchildren causes many fights and uncomfortable moments at family get-togethers, and is not really our place to demand. Having children is taken too lightly, as it is an awesome responsibility, not to be done to make others happy.

Our daughters should be told how special and beautiful they are exactly the way God made them; and not to let anyone tell them differently, or try and change them. They should be shown they are do not ever deserve to be treated unfairly or rudely, and should leave any relationship where that is happening. They should be taught to never settle, as they are worth so much more.

They should be taught that their love and bodies are something of great value, and not to give of it simply to be noticed or liked.

Because of the lacking of our properly caring for and teaching our women, the number of women who truly respect themselves and recognize their great worth, is very diminutive. This in turn allows the negative male behaviors to flourish, as those behaviors are accepted by these women who do not demand better from the men. And the cycle continues, as then the next generation of children grow up seeing a bad example of how they believe that a male and female should interact.

These cycles must stop, and the only way for them to is for us to start the change. The men must realize their faults in objectifying women, and begin to treat them with love and respect. The women must stop putting up with this bad behavior, and demand better for themselves. We owe this not only to ourselves, but our posterity. Our sons and daughters are watching our every move. They will learn either good or bad habits from us. Their society is being shaped by our actions now.

What is the natural order of human beings? Are we like the animals, or are we special? Should we learn from their behaviors? Or are we too different for any comparisons to be made?

Are we to be as a cheetah, basically solitary in its hunt for life-sustaining food, while interacting only with it’s mate and offspring? Are we to be as the wolves, which form leaderless packs to increase the chances of everyone’s survival? Or are we to be as the lions, with to-the-death battles, to decide who rules?

As one can see, humans mimic each of these animal behaviors. We sometimes work alone to provide for ourselves and families, yet also form societal compacts to pull resources together. We also have physical, physiological, intellectual, and argumentative contests to decide who will rule the others.

But how should we be? Does our species have a natural order, an instinctive way to live?

Throughout known history, man can always be divided into two distinct categories:

Aggressors and the non-aggressors. “Those who want to be left alone and those who will not leave them alone." Those who want to manage other’s lives, and those who want to manage their own.

The aggressors wish to control the non-aggressors, and will take whatever means necessary to achieve this control. The non-aggressors wish to control their own life, and don’t want to impose their beliefs on others.

The problem has always been that the aggressors will not allow the non-aggressors to practice their way of life. And time after time, the aggressor’s greed becomes so immense that the aggressors system implodes on itself. There is a brief time when the aggressors are unable to control the non-aggressors, but inevitability, they forcibly regain control and continue their dominance.

Their control is bound to eventually fail, as greed is the root cause of their aggressiveness, and greed is inherently never satisfied. Greed will ignore and risk losing the ninety-nine that it does have, in trying to get the one that it doesn’t control. This greed makes them overextend themselves, and they try to control the non-aggressors so completely, and even the non-aggressors cannot sit idle anymore, and begin to resist.

Sometimes the non-aggressors defeat the aggressors, and there is a time of peace and freedom. But there is always someone that is more than happy to fill the role of ruler over others.

Sometimes it is the previous aggressors, coming back in a more subtle way. Other times, it is non-aggressors who see this vacuum of leadership as a chance for them to rule.

Either way, the same result is cycled again and again throughout history.

My question to you is this: Aren’t we better than this? Can’t we learn from the past, or are we doomed to repeat it?

Should I live my life by what someone else says? To me, that is unnatural. Do you live your life by my opinions? No. Then why live by theirs? Because they have guns and will kill you if you don’t. That is the ultimate power of the aggressors: brute force.

Now a smart aggressor will try to force submission through trickery, instead of an outright battle. What better way to control a person, then to have them believe that they are not being controlled?

This is where we are today. Most people do not realize that they are controlled. One is told what to believe, say, and how to act. Political correctness, patriotism, religion, all classify certain behavior as either good (with the group) or bad (different from the mainstream). This is the opposite of individualism, and the ideas of freedom and self rule.

I understand that these ideas seem abstract and foreign to many. That is because adults have a hard time looking at events and items objectively. Preconceived ideas are hard to break.

But being a sheep is not what is meant for us. We are different than the animals of this planet. We are each responsible for ourselves, and ourselves only. I wish people would just learn to let everyone run their own life, without feeling they have a right to tell others what to do.

Are you a conspiracy theorist? Don’t answer too quickly. The answer may surprise you.

I know what you are thinking: Some overweight guy living in his parent’s basement, wearing an Aluminum foil hat to keep out the alien radio transmissions. While this is an amusing Hollywood stereotype, this is not the true meaning.

I subscribe to the phrase that “words mean things”.

So let us take a look at the words themselves, and try to answer the question properly.

Webster’s Dictionary defines the following:

“conspiracy: the act of conspiring together”
“conspire: to act in harmony toward a common end”
“theorist: a person who theorizes”
“theory: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another”

So the proper meaning of conspiracy theorist would be “A person who analyses a set of facts, and their relation to one another, by studying those who act in harmony towards a common end.”

In layman’s terms, it would be defined as someone who investigates the facts of the events around them, and how the conclusions line up with the goals of the majority.

In even simpler terms, it can be defined as a watchdog, free-thinker, or an unbiased observer; none of which is strange or harmful in anyway.

It is my wish that more people begin to objectively look at the world around them, and see the cause-and-effect nature of the events surrounding them, instead of just believing and doing what they are told. Those in power are not concerned with you or your situation. They are the reason for many of one’s problems, with their meddling in one’s affairs.

Why would an individual trust someone that they don't personally know? That is the epitome of brainwashing. We are conditioned to instinctively trust certain positions, uniforms, offices, etc. Does not the news of police brutality, priest sexual molestation, and political corruption show that there is not an institution on earth that does not have evil in it? Then why blindly trust in these establishments? People believe in these institutions and rulers because the rulers told them to! They are just doing what they are told.

Beware those who say "trust me", as the truth does not need such words to be true. Don't blindly trust someone because of their office, job, or title. Question everything. Quit looking for someone to look up to. Quit looking for someone to take care of you. Quit looking for someone to lift the burden of your personal responsibility. Take charge of your own life, and live it as a free person, not a slave.

I will now ask the question again. Are you a conspiracy theorist? I am.

LAW: The opinion of lawyers and politicians, enforced by the threat of bodily force and harm.

LAWYER: People who have opinions, and have armed combatants enforce this opinion on others with the threat of bodily force and harm.

POLICE: Commonly called cop or law enforcement officer. They are armed combatants who enforce the opinion of the lawyers on people via bodily force and harm.

JUDGE: Men and women who wear black dresses that decide if one has acted contrary to, or disagreed with, the opinion of lawyers. This is a serious offense, since judges are lawyers themselves. Even if one has not violated the exact wording of these opinions, they may be put in a cage and / or robbed just for daring to challenge these opinions.

PRISON: Also referred to as jail. This is a cage that people are put into for acting contrary, or disagreeing, with the opinion of lawyers. An individual may be put in this cage for long periods of time, or even for the rest of their life. An individual may be put in this cage without ever harming anyone. All it takes is acting contrary, or disagreeing, with any of the millions of lawyers opinions.

CRIME: A disagreement or act contrary to the opinion of lawyers. A crime does not have to be an act, it can be the lack of an act also; so one may commit a crime by doing absolutely nothing at all. A crime may now also be a certain thought or mindset, even without an action stemming from this thought.

COURT: A place that an individual is told to go if they supposedly disagree or act contrary to the opinion of lawyers. If the individual doesn't attend when it is convenient for the lawyers, the lawyers will have their armed combatants use bodily force and harm against the individual. The purpose of forcing the individuals to appear is so that the lawyers may put the individual in a cage and / or rob them for daring to challenge these opinions. While at this place, armed combatants may strip-search and commit other degrading acts to ensure that the individual cannot defend themself from the armed combatant.

TRIAL: A meeting that lawyers require an individual to attend, via the threat of bodily force and harm. Armed combatants are constantly present, watching the individuals every move. If one dares challenge a lawyer, the combatant may draw any of their weapons, and inflict harm on the individual.

JUSTICE: A term used to promote and validate the system. The word originates from the pagan gods themis and iustitia. The lawyers do not believe in a definite right and wrong morally, so in the courts, "justice" has replaced morality. Justice is said to be what is fair, but in reality it is only the violent-enforced will of the lawyers. This attempts to maintain the illusion of legitimacy. At all times, the lawyers are in control in their courts, and their idea of fair is putting one in a cage and / or robbing them for daring to disagree or act contrary to their precious opinions.

"You're here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But you feel it. You've felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is but it's there, like a splinter in your mind driving you mad."

"Do you want to know what IT is? ... It is all around us, even now in this very room. ... It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth."

"What truth?", "That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage, born into a prison that you cannot smell or taste or touch. A prison for your mind..." The Matrix - 1999

For many, the Matrix movie trilogy was a great special-effects, shoot-em-up, action-packed few hours of enjoyment. Admittingly, it was. But the underlying symbolism or cabalah permeates practically every minute of each movie. Like in the movies though, only a small percentage of people will accept the fact that almost everything that they have ever been taught, is in fact, simply an illusion (simulation / simulacra) to control them.

"And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."

The pundits, politicians, even fellow "citizens" will become very irate, possibly violent, at the mere questioning of their "authority" or "just how things are". They voluntarily sign-up to fight, and possibly lose their lives, for this real-life matrix. They will kill others who do not agree with their matrix. They will say that their "mission is just", and blindly follow what other men instruct them to do, even if it is in violation of God's commandments to love one another.

Have you taken the "red pill", and begin to think for yourself? Do you look at events around with an unbiased outlook, in search of truth? Or would you rather stick your head in the sand and live by the "ignorance is bliss" theory.

Either conscious of it or not, truth does not change. So you can either be part of the problem or part of the solution.

One question that myself and others are asking is, with all of the evil and deception in the world throughtout the history of mankind, what is one to believe? How much of our "history" is accurate? "He who controls the present, controls the past" is a phrase that continuously comes to mind. I once thought that the historical events that our societies believe was somewhat factual, aside from the inescapable bias from the witness(s) of the event, but it is now evident that 1984's "Ministry of Truth" is very evident in today's world. This rabbit hole seems much deeper than I could have imagined.

All of this begs the question: How does one know truth when they see it? How can one understand truth without experiencing the event firsthand?

In this world of increasing technology, any document, photograph, or tape recording, can be forged or produced. Witnesses to events can be threatened to stick to a certain "story". So again, what should one believe?

The only way that one can know if something is factual or not, is to determine if the actions are in character.

Throughtout history, every ruler has harmed their fellow man to exault themselves. Some moreso than others, but it is without exception. Even King David, whom the Bible called "a man after God's own heart", had a soldier in his army killed ,so that he could act on his lustful desires towards the soldier's wife. So it is in the character of rulers to do harm to others. That is why they are in a position of power, to use it. With that said, why would one be inclined to believe what these rulers say or do? It is in their nature or character to act this way, and one should not be surprised when they do so.

A man is not suprised when a cheetah attacks a herd of cattle, and kills one. Why not? Because it is in the cats nature to do so. In fact, if it did not actively hunt prey, one would asssume that there was a problem with the spotted feline. I would believe that something was wrong with our rulers if 9/11 (among other items) actually happened the way they said that it did. I know their character, therefore logically they are lying and covering-up.

A famous little story on character is as following:

A scorpion, being a very poor swimmer, asked a turtle to carry him on his back across a river. "Are you mad?" exclaimed the turtle. "You'll sting me while I'm swimming and I'll drown."

"My dear turtle," laughed the scorpion, "if I were to sting you, you would drown and I would go down with you. Now where is the logic in that?"

"You're right?" cried the turtle. "Hop on!" The scorpion climbed aboard and halfway across the river gave the turtle a mighty sting. As they both sank to the bottom, the turtle resignedly said:

"Do you mind if I ask you something? You said there'd be no logic in your stinging me. Why did you do it?"

"It has nothing to do with logic," the drowning scorpion sadly replied. "It's just my character."

What is happening in New Orleans and the surrounding areas is yet another example of the state of the world. The ABCCBSNBCCNN media is constantly screeching about so-called "rioting", "looting", "anarchy", and the most heinous item of all: "lawlessness".

To see an honest look at what the "law" really is, refer to my previous post "Honest Definitions".

First, on the anarchy point, I would assume that none of the talking heads have any idea what anarchy actually is. Anarchy is defined by Webster's Dictionary as: "absence of government" or "a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government". Would that be such a bad thing? That idea is very threatening to rulers who want to be relevant; to the point of harming people and taking away their freedoms, as to ensure the rulers necessity as "protector".

"I want everyone to remember why they need us." V for Vendetta - 2006

The word "anarchy" is often used to describe violent, "anti-social" behavior to instill negative feelings toward the idea of being left alone, without government.

Addressing the "looting and rioting", there is a clear distinction that needs to be made. Taking televisions, alcohol, and other needless items is stealing. There is no valid excuse. But there were a large amount of people that were taking food, medicines, and the like from the stores. These people were trying to stay alive and feed themselves (and their families) in a disastrous time. Proverbs 6:30-31 says to not to be angry at a thief for stealing food, but make him repay (assumedly when their situation allows.)

The final major point that is being spun by the media is that of the military / martial law in force. Residents in areas practically unaffected, where the only damage was a loss of electricity, are being physically assaulted and taken out of their homes by officers from various states. Look past the indoctrination that "government good, law must be obeyed blindly". People are being denied the right to be secure in their private property, and denied this right at the barrel of a gun. This video shows an 80 year old widow being attacked by multiple armed young men who, because they dress up with a shiny star on their chest, believe that God will look the other way at their harming an old woman. Actually, they probably believe that God would be happy with their behavior, as they were suppressing an enemy of the omniscient state. As a child, I might have worn a shiny star, or other silly costumes during playtime; but that did not give me the authority to harm a fellow man or woman. In the end it all comes down to this: Does one listen to God or man?

The united states constitution was adopted by men from the states voting to ratify it into existence. It is said to be the supreme law of the land. It is believed to give citizens "rights". Is is held up to an exalted status, as shown by the technology used to preserve the document itself, and the reverence that people give it (such as swearing to uphold it).

But what is it? It was said to be written to form a central government to conduct the business for the states, that the states could not accomplish independently; to be a subserviant entity, that has very limited power. That is what the constitution was said to be written for: to limit the power of the federal government. To spell out what it could do, and that it couldn't do anything that was not specifically stated. It also stated for all to see, that men and women derive all their rights from their creator, and that government should not infringe on those rights.

In theory, all of this sounds wonderful. But as we know, things are not always as they seem.

When one looks at it in a completely neutral position, free of bias (very hard for adults to do), even a republic (we don't have a democracy, but a republic) is inherently evil. It is imposing the will of the group on others. It is morally wrong to force someone to do, or not to do, something against their wishes. If the majority of people vote in support of something that is considered by someone to be morally wrong, the minority is forced to contribute and support it, by their taxes paying for it. A christian is forced to pay for abortions via taxes. A pacifist is forced to buy war machines and pay soldiers to kill people, again by supporting it with their tax money. The list goes on and on.

The idea that someone can be a representative of a population is also impossible and wrong. A large group will never agree on anything, therefore they are not representing everyone. So if one is in a minority on a topic, their wishes do not matter.

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." Benjamin Franklin - 1759

So what do we do? Some would say that government is a necessary evil. Well the evil part is right. Now what about the necessary part? Is a form of government truly needed? Could mankind, left alone, learn to act in harmony and create a symbiotic relationship with itself? Or would it ultimately destroy itself?

I believe that our answer lies in the book of Samuel, chapter 8:

But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken me, and served other gods, so do they also unto thee. Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet protest solemnly unto them, and shew them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. And Samuel told all the words of the LORD unto the people that asked of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants. And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the LORD will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, Nay; but we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles.

So what now? What can we do? Or more importantly, what SHOULD we do? Should we physically fight the beast system that has control over the hearts and minds of practically everyone on earth? Should be just ignore it and hope it goes away? Resist it by non-compliance? Pray that God removes it?

Is this beast a necessary evil? Is this repression and enslavement man's punishment for not obeying God's will, and is necessary to separate the wheat from the chaff? Are these rulers of evil needed to serve God's will of protecting the non-aggressors? Are they a tool as the bible said Nebakanezer was?

I believe that God's plan is for us to live in harmony with each other, and to look to him for our needs, wants, morality, and laws. He did not want His people to be ruled by anyone else but Him. He is a jealous god. A man cannot do a better job than God. And what right does one man have to rule over another. If we are all God's children, why should one child rule over their brothers and sisters? God's rules are simple: love Him and love each other - that's all, very simple indeed.

I was in discussion with a good friend, and we talked about the parallels of the "mafia" to the "government". He was stating that when the mafia extorts or forces one to buy "protection", it is thought of as immoral and illegal, but when the government does the same, it is called law and order. He asked if I agreed, and I do. I have attached my response to him:

I completely agree. Sin is sin regardless who commits the act. I cannot give myself a title and license, and then think that I am morally allowed to sin. I cannot have a "license to kill". It doesn't matter if man said that it is ok, if God says it isn't, then it isn't. EVER. Everything is not relative.

Hypothetical: On judgment day, a cop stands before God, and God says “Depart from me, I never knew you.” The officer (who attends church, etc.) says “I don’t understand.” God says “You repeatedly robbed and mistreated my children, your fellow brethren; therefore you do not love me.” The officer asked “How? I was a respected member of society, and I was just doing my job, just following orders.”

God says “I do not care what men told you to do, I told you to love your neighbor. I told you not to steal. My Word stands alone throughout eternity as superior. You should have obeyed me and not them. I do not recognize cities, states, or countries. The entire earth is mine, and I am not concerned with your supposed jurisdictions. It is my creation, not theirs. As I told Job, where were they when I made the sky blue? Man cannot give you authority to act in disobedience to Me.”

The above statements are very harsh for many to read, as many believe officers are “so and so’s finest”. But I believe it is reality.

I do not pretend to know all the answers, or to be perfect, but I try to always take the path that will:

1: Show love, obedience, and respect to God
2: Show love and compassion to others

I will not knowingly hurt, harm, damage, anyone in any way. I believe that is what Jesus was trying to instill in people. The path of God is a straight and narrow, but is not very complicated.

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Like many clichés that are heard and spoken so often, the original meaning or relevance is lost. People will often quote it without even a second thought of what they are saying.

Are WE in Rome?

In light of the relevance of the vatican in this world socially, religiously, economically, historically, and morally; this quote takes on a new light. Many will think that the aforementioned sentence is absurd, believing that the catholic church is just a "church".

But research, and a knowledge of history will prove that it's influence is greater than one would imagine. I highly recommend reading F. Tupper Saussy's RULERS OF EVIL: Useful Knowledge About Governing Bodies. It is one of the most eye opening works on the origins of the founding of the United States, European history, and the underlying influence that the Vatican has shown, albeit sometimes quietly, throughout the centuries.

In reality, the entire world system is and has been under the control of the hierarchy of the vatican for many centuries. Since the catholic church's authorities throughout the ages have publicly stated that their main goal is to ensure that every person on earth is subject to the pope, and that this submission is the only way to heaven, this control is something to take seriously.

This self-importance of the catholic church is blindly accepted by many, and shrugged off as harmless by others. The simple truth is that the pope is just a man, neither loved more or less, nor respected more or less by God, than someone such as Charles Manson. God loves all the same, regardless of their sin. All have sinned and came short of the glory of God.

A papal bull (a proclamation from the pope which is considered law) by Boniface VIII, issued on November 18, 1302, states: "Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff." Incredibly bold words. It would be safe to assume that most catholics are unaware of this outright blasphemy. The catholic church is stating that one must be subservient to the pope in order to be saved, or go to heaven. The vatican therefore believes that Jesus was mistaken in stating that it was through God's grace, and a believe in Himself as being the Christ, through which we are saved.

Pope John XXIII stated: "Into this fold of Jesus Christ no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff, and only if they be united to him can men be saved." These are just a few of the great things and blasphemies stated by the catholic hierarchy, specifically the popes themselves.

One of the official titles of the pope is "Vicar of Christ". The word vicar is defined as "one serving as a substitute", or "in place of". Therefore, the popes shamelessly claim to be a "substitute for Christ". Now let's take a look at the word antichrist. The original Greek "anti" does not mean opposite, as commonly taught. The accurate translation is "in place of" or a "replacement, substitute". Therefore, antichrist would properly be translated as: "a substitute for Christ". The popes themselves boastfully claim to be the antichrist, and this is possibly the most truthful item they have ever stated.

Another title of the papacy is "pontiff". The word pontiff is defined as "bridge builder", originating in Roman times when the architects were held in great esteem. Again, the papacy claims to take the place of Christ. The Bible states that Christ is the ONLY bridge, or way, to the Father for mankind. "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." This also conflicts with another catholic belief that Mary intercedes between man and God.

Even the title "pope" has delusions of grandeur. The word is from the Latin "papa", which means father. The American Heritage Dictionary lists one definition of pope as: "A person considered to have unquestioned authority." So a father with unquestioned authority...?

This coincides with yet another title of the papacy: "Holy Father". During the death ceremonies of the last pope, even the secular media was referring to him as the "Holy Father". For anyone claiming to be a Christian (or even Jewish or Muslim for that matter), there is only ONE Holy Father, and it is God the Father: the creator of us all.

The official symbol of the pope, called the triregnum, contains the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven": the image of two keys, one gold and one silver. The silver key symbolizes the power of the pope to bind and loose on Earth, and the gold key his power to bind and loose in Heaven.

So we ARE all in Rome, since our rulers owe allegiance to the vatican? Again, this statement shocks many, but it is reality.

Therefore, should we act as Romans, since we are in fact, in Rome? How does a good little roman act? I could write for years on this topic, but there is an easier way to answer that question. We who believe in Christ should act contrary to rome. His way is straight and narrow. Simple, yet effective. Our acts will be peculiar to the roman’s of the world. This is not a scarlet letter to us, but a mark of our creator. Jesus himself was received poorly, and He was greater than us. We should expect to be treated similar, IF we are truly distinctive in our behavior. What behavior should we be fulfilling that is so vile to rome?

Pure love. Not lust, friendship, or so-called conditional love. The type of love that Christ showed us. When asked what the most important commandment was, Jesus did not quote one of the thousands of man's laws. Jesus said to LOVE God with all of your being. Then LOVE everyone else as you love yourself. It really is that simple. If one loves God, they will seek a relationship with Him. If one loves God, then they will also love every man and woman since they are His children; and therefore their brothers and sisters. If one loves their fellow man, then they will not steal from them, kill them, lie to them, be jealous of their good fortunes. Jesus stated that He came to fulfill the law. He was our example of what love is, and that love is the law of God.

Now many will say: "But the world shows a lot of love." Again, like most topics, the original context has been lost. Over the last 100 years, mankind has taken on a new level of evil. Tens of millions of people have been killed in wars, holocausts, and genocides. Millions more have been "silently" killed by toxins in the air, water, and foods. Violence between individuals has become common. Our sense of right and wrong is skewed.

The mindset of our civilizations have become twisted and biased. It is bad for our enemy to kill, but acceptable behavior for "us". Hitler was wrong to kill, but we are justified in killing countless numbers of Iraqis because "our mission is just". The countries with might, be it technology or sheer manpower, use it to harm those who don't have the same presence.

Even in "civilized" countries such as the United States, people do not love their fellow man, or God. The phrase "this is a Godly nation" is nonsense. We have a economic system of laws that forcible robs half of ones labor. The "poor" complain that those who are richer are not paying "their fair share". They are coveting the good fortune of others, and stealing it from them with the help of the government, in the form of social programs paid for by the taxes of the wealthy.

Christians, for the most part, are proud patriots that commend this stealing because it supposedly takes care of the poor. Why should I help my neighbor, the government can? They support the military, because they are supposedly fighting for freedom. But that is the farthest thing from the truth. Do American's have more or less personal freedoms since the military buildup after 9/11/01? LESS. They support the police and courts that rob, attack, and confine people because we must have "law and order".

Our civilations mindset is disgusting to God. He stated that He wants us to look to Him to supply our needs, and for guidance in laws and morality. He wants to be our ruler, and is a jealous God. We have made this vatican-controlled beast our ruler. We look to it for law and morality. We will kill people (wars and police actions) because our government orders us to do so. We rob others (in social welfare programs) because we believe we are entitled to the fruits of others labors.

This beast is using technology to become more powerful and more interwoven in every aspect of life on this planet. Soon, it will have the technology to track every item and person on earth. Paranoid? No, just realistic. Name a ruler that has not used every tool available to harm his "subjects". The tools are rapidly getting better and farther reaching.

Try to buy or sell in any scale without a social security number. This is a physical mark, but the more dangerous mark is the one in peoples hearts. This mark is their loyalty to a ungodly system that steals, kills, and destroys.

When people will commit a murder, or allow it to take place, because a man in black dress says that it should, we are truly a morally bankrupt society. We should be defending those who cannot defend themselves, not murdering them because their "quality of life" is not up to our standards.

Why are hordes of people not swarming the hospital and helping her? Because it is not "legal"? The law is only the opinion of lawyers, NOTHING ELSE! It has no bearing on morality.

The police there can only arrest so many people. They recently arrested a little boy that tried to take her water.

What kind of society are we? Keep filing in until they can't arrest anymore.

Make Jeb bring out the national guard. He says that he supports her, but would he in that situation?

Why are so many people so eager to see her killed? Is protecting abortion that important to them?