Category: Uncategorized

Suffering, Endurance, and the Prize of Life

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

A little bit of background.

I read Bionic Mosquito. His posts, whether I understand them fully (sometimes I don’t), whether I agree with them or not (usually I do), are always worth the time it takes to read and think about. Recently, he has been posting a series of articles on the book of Job, from the Old Testament, which have helped me to see Job’s suffering (and his insufferable “friends”) in a different light.

At about the time this series started, I also began reading (again) Viktor Frankl’s book, Man’s Search for Meaning, and I recognized that the struggle Job went through is also the same thing which Frankl describes, namely that, unavoidable suffering is to be endured and that, by enduring it instead of becoming bitter or hopeless1, the individual actually becomes stronger, more spiritually satisfied, and fulfilled. This, of course, is not meant to say that suffering is inevitable, but if or when it does happen, it does not have to be the end of the world. In fact, the apostle Paul alluded to this when he wrote to the Philippian church that,

“…for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content; I know how to be abased, and I know how to about. Everywhere and in all things I have learned both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” — Philippians 4:11-12

The understanding I am gaining is that no matter what happens to me, it does not have to destroy me, but if I choose to allow it, can propel me to a higher level of understanding, bringing me closer to the ideal of Christ, Who endured all things, including the cross, because He understood that the glory set before Him was worth the temporary pain which the suffering brought about.

Why should I be any different than that? Or exempt from it? Suffering, in and of itself, does not result in godliness or holiness, but if responded to in the correct manner, can bring about a level of spiritual peace and power which cannot be attained in any other way.

The key here is that the suffering which cannot be avoided simply cannot be avoided. If Job had known what was about to happen to him, he might have been able to take steps to evade it. If we knew what the future holds for us, we would do whatever we could to mitigate the resultant pain. The ancient Irish saying goes, “If I knew where I was going to die, Begorra, I’d never go near the place.” Or, as Frankl says, in reference to suffering,

“…If it is avoidable, the meaningful thing to do is to remove its cause, for unnecessary suffering is masochistic rather than heroic.” — ibid

If you suffer because you cannot control your spending habits, always spending more than you earn and take in, then the thing to do is to change the way you live, to bring your lifestyle into alignment with your earnings capacity (and perhaps even slightly below that). For many people, however, it is easier to play the victim, to take advantage of someone else’s compassion and pity, but this is not the way to endure to the end nor the way to conquer a bad habit. Obviously, this is a simplistic example, but the principle holds regardless of the circumstance. If you can avoid unnecessary suffering by changing, then it is better to change, no matter how much it costs in the short run.

How should we respond, though, if we are hit with a bout of suffering which we can do nothing about, over which we have no control? Reading the book of Job, it is evident from the beginning that he could do nothing to alter or alleviate his situation, and was compelled to endure through it to the very end when his righteousness would be proven. Frankl has mentioned that being arrested and thrown into a concentration camp against your will may be nothing you can avoid or alter, but you always have the option to determine the way you will respond to it.

“…[E]verything can be taken from a man but one thing; the last of the human freedoms–to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.” — ibid

Isn’t this what we should be aiming at?

  1. Job’s wife? Bitter and hopeless? Curse God, and die! Over the millennia, she has been held up as an example of a bitter, hopeless woman, yet I can’t condemn her. After all, she experienced nearly all the suffering that Job did, loss of wealth, children, etc., and probably a great deal of emotional health, which would be an enormous load for any woman to carry. I wonder, how would I respond if I had to walk a mile in her shoes? ↩︎

No Kings! Except the One I Want

Roger Mitchell10 Comments

No Kings! If these people really thought about what they are pushing, they would abandon their desire for anyone to be (s)elected President, as it is certain that whoever sits in the Oval Office acts as a king–pushing laws, writing “executive orders”, finagling more revenue to spend, fomenting wars to increase their power, etc.

However, the “king thing” doesn’t stop with the president. Every single person, from the top dog down to the most local level who tries to impose his or her will on everyone else, is a wannabe king. There are an incredible amount of people in this world who want to rule, to make their word law, to use force and the threat of violence to show how strong and tough they are. Everywhere, there are kings and most of them have been placed in their position by the “lower-downs” who decided that “our” king is better than “their” king.

Yes, that’s right. No Kings mean no kings except the ones we want to rule over us and every political faction promotes this. So, liberals and progressives are comfortable with Democrat kings, but conservatives and Christians prefer to submit to Republican ones. The reality is, though, that no matter which king or whose king is on top, the rights, freedoms, and liberties of the average American continue to be eroded, degraded, and removed.

There is only one philosophy which is true to the No Kings concept–anarchy. True-blue unbridled anarchy in which every person is his own sovereign, being respected as such AND respecting the absolute sovereignty of all others.

No kings! I agree with that sentiment and, unlike the protesters last Saturday, I try to be consistent with it.

A Mealy-mouthed Admission of Guilt

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

According to an article in Zero Hedge, the state of Florida is taking steps to remove all the imposed mandates concerning the Covid so-called “vaccines”. Yes, that’s right, all of them. To which I can only say, “It’s about time. They never should have ordered them in the first place.” But, credit where credit is due, and this is a positive development.

That being said, I am not pleased with Florida’s Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo’s philosophical argument in his announcement as he fudges what the real issue is.

“Who am I, as a government, or anyone else, or who am I as a man standing here now to tell you what you should put in your body? Who am I to tell you what your child should put in their body?

“I don’t have that right. Your body is a gift from God. What you put into your body is because of your relationship with your Body and your God.”

Ladapo manages in just a few short sentences to shift the argument from one of imposed mandates by a power-grabbing, totalitarian wanna-be State to one more to the liking of “libertarians” everywhere, namely, the sovereignty an individual has over his or her own body. Indeed, who is Ladapo (or anyone else, for that matter) to tell anyone at all how they SHALL treat themselves? Isn’t the base principle of libertarianism the concept that everyone can decide for themselves how they live? With respect to this, he is saying nothing new and, really, nothing at all.

The point that he avoids, however, is not one of individual, sovereign choice but the fact that injecting the shots has not been voluntary, but forced on people by the very same government which Ladapo is a part of. If he was entirely truthful, his words would have looked like this: “Who am I, as a government,…to tell you what you WILL put into your body?” No, no, even that is not correct. Let’s try again. “Who am I, as a government,…to tell you what someone else WILL put into your body, completely overriding any objection you might have?” Furthermore, “Who am I to tell you what your child WILL have injected into their body, against their (and your) will and consent?”

This has nothing to do with bodily autonomy or personal freedom and everything with understanding that the anti-Covid tide is running strong against TPTB and the scam which was foisted on the world. In some areas, it still has life but the monstrous beast which destroyed liberty over the course of a few years can be seen struggling and thrashing about, trying to maintain its viability. Ladapo recognizes the trend and is trying to get ahead of the curve by throwing out a bone, but I am willing to bet that if the Establishment had won the battle, we would never hear anything like this…from anyone. Instead, the only thing which would have been voiced is the injunction to–“Get Your Booster!”, and the giddy, gleeful (or not) pronouncements by the Bought and Paid For “news media” that Donald “Cap’n Warp Speed” Trump has won again.

I’m glad to see the state of Florida taking the lead on this issue but, please, please don’t muddy the waters. Either individual people are secure in their own rights or the State can tell them what they will do. There are no other alternatives. There is no other option.

Eugenics, Elitism, and the Law

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

“The first one to plead his cause seems right, until his neighbor comes and examines him.” — Proverbs 18: 17

“From there He arose and went to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and wanted no one to know it, but He could not be hidden. For a woman whose young daughter had an unclean spirit heard about Him, and she came and fell at His feet. The woman was a Greek, a Syro-Phoenician by birth, and she kept asking Him to cast the demon out of her daughter. But Jesus said to her, “Let the children be filled first, for it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” And she answered and said to Him, “Yes, Lord, yet even the little dogs under the table eat from the children’s crumbs.” Then He said to her, “For this saying go your way; the demon has gone out of your daughter.” And when she had come to her house, she found the demon gone out, and her daughter lying on the bed.” — Mark 7: 24-30, NKJV

At first glance, these two pieces of scripture seem to have nothing in common, but I have found a connection. Oddly enough, it comes from two separate articles on The Unz Review, the first making a case for the practice of eugenics and the second ripping his argument into shreds. Reading through the first article (7600 words, half-marathon, but I finished), one might be tempted to think that there is a sound argument for the practice, but reading through the second (27, 800 words, I skipped a lot and didn’t get through to the end before I quit), it is quite apparent that there are a lot of flaws in the first, all of which need to be resolved and the Commenters Which Follow happily did (and still are doing) their part to achieve that.

There are a lot of things which play into this debate and discussion, but ultimately the lesson learned is that eugenicists favor some method of “selection” to cull those they disapprove of. The reason for the disapproval nor the method employed are not critical to the debate, all that matters is that there are “elites” who decide and “sub-standards” who bear the judgment of the decision. This attitude brings to mind the saying that “The strong do what they will and the weak suffer what they must.”

Throughout human history, the world has experienced this tension repeatedly. This is not something new. Everywhere, in all times, some class of people has been termed “deficient” and “not quite human”, and due to that designation, suitable for “subjugation and/or removal”. Consider the history of the United States alone:

  1. Native Americans
  2. Black slaves
  3. Irish and Italian immigrants
  4. Chinese
  5. White trash
  6. Mentally incompetent
  7. Physically flawed
  8. And many more.

Applying this topic to the second scripture quoted, it is evident that the mindset was prevalent and accepted during the time of Jesus. The Jews knew that they were “superior” over all others and the others who lived under their dominance knew it as well. How else can you explain these words? “…it is not good to take the children’s bread and throw it to the little dogs.” The Gentiles were treated like dogs, little dogs, fit only to be cursed and kicked out of the way, unless, of course, they could be used to fill the coffers and wallets of the self-recognized “upper” class, which included not only the highest echelons of Jewish society, but also the lowest of the low. Remember Peter and the vision he had in which God told him not to call anything “unclean” which God had cleansed? Yes, even poverty-stricken, ignorant fishermen were prone to look down their snobbish noses at anyone they deemed “inferior” and draw in the hems of their robes to avoid touching them.

Thank God that after twenty centuries, we’re beyond that. Except that we’re not. The issue still swirls and the temptation still exists to consider a specific class as better than all others and it is nearly certain that the “favored ones” are represented by those who do the defining. Curiously enough, the definition always matches the person and personality of the definer, but then again, it really isn’t so curious. After all, we do have tendencies to inflate and lift ourselves above the status of others around us, don’t we?

Or am I the only one who has ever done that?

Colonel Bombast: “He Shouldn’t Have Said That.”

Roger Mitchell4 Comments

“AND I’M GOING TO SLAP HIM SILLY BECAUSE HE DID!”

On Friday, August 1, Donald Trump stated that he had ordered two US nuclear submarines to be “repositioned in the appropriate areas” as a response to a statement made by Dimitry Medvedev, one of Vlad Putin’s close advisors and a former president of the Russian state.

https://apnews.com/article/trump-nuclear-submarines-repositioned-medvedev-f8e9b870fa107f6b6209e7a22f8ada43

This is high-stakes theater at its most hilarious, or it would be if it wasn’t also extremely dangerous for the entire world.

So, really what did Medvedev say and why did Trump feel the need to respond so forcefully, not only with his rhetoric but also with the action described above?

“Trump’s playing the ultimatum game with Russia: 50 days or 10… He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn’t Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war,” –Dimitry Medvedev

To which, of course Trump couldn’t resist answering.


“…tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he’s still President, to watch his words. He’s entering very dangerous territory!” — Donald Trump

All this culminated with his announcement that he had ordered the subs into position. What a joke! What a farce! What a circus! The comedy of this exceeds even that of the recent 12-day “war” with Iran which ended with the US strikes on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities and Iran’s subsequent strike on al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar, all of which were given advance notice so as to not let the situation escalate out of hand. Blow for show, in other words, akin to the ridiculous “sport” known as professional wrestling.

The only problem is that we might all be blown to smithereens if something goes horribly wrong.

  1. Trump ordered two nuclear subs into the “appropriate area”, just in case. Well, just in case, what exactly?
  2. Are these subs nuclear-powered or nuclear-armed? This is a big difference and highly crucial. Nuclear-powered subs with conventional weapons are not the same as nuclear-armed subs which can take out an entire country with one salvo.
  3. Did the Pentagon actually send these subs to their new coordinates or was this “order” simply ignored because wiser heads decided not to follow it and only played along with the game, stroking Trump’s ego so he could feel like he’s really in control?
  4. Has Russia responded to Trump’s “repositioning” by doing some of their own? Did they already have subs in position somewhere off the eastern seaboard of the Atlantic Ocean, say, 500 miles east of New Jersey, ready at a moment’s notice to take out Washington, D.C., New York City, Philadelphia, and Boston? Is this a legitimate possibility?

Trump, for all the good he has done in educating the average American about the dangers of being subservient to the Deep State, sounds like he has taken his own words to heart, believing that all he has to do is issue ultimatums, threats, and veiled insinuations at which everyone else, including his own closest enemies, will repent of their sins with fear and trembling. “B’God, those pesky Russians, especially Medvedev, had better shut their potty mouths and start listening to me. Or else!”

The major problem with this is that he has offered up so much bullshit in the past that he has no credibility left on the world stage when he speaks. Remember that he promised to end the Ukraine War in twenty-four hours once he had gained the Oval Office? Yeah, well, things aren’t quite as simple as they appeared when he was playing to throngs of adoring audiences on the campaign trail.

Trump, in my opinion, is increasingly seen as someone who can be ignored and sidelined. He is not consistent, does not act diplomatically, refuses to hold to his word even when it hurts, bluffs constantly, and does not hesitate to change course politically if he thinks it will benefit him. Compared to this, Vladimir Putin comes across as reasonable, calm, logical, unmoving, and steadfast.

But, then, what should I expect? After all, I did compare Trump to a wrecking ball, appointed only to destroy what already is to clear the way for what will be. With all due respect to that, I am not disappointed. It is happening. In real time. And we get to watch it unfold.

Hang on to your life. Trump isn’t going to.

Face it, MAGA! The Man lied to You.

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

And you still act like a groupie?

I am really confused. Why did Donald Trump spend so much time and energy on the campaign trail talking about releasing the Epstein files and then refusing to actually do it when he had the power to make it happen? Kash Patel and Dan Bongino are both small potatoes and it’s obvious that someone or something scared them s*itless. But Trump? He’s as big as they come and should have seen the way the wind was blowing, yet continued on with his endless, mindlessly bloviating promises to his supporters who ate them up like red meat thrown to a mad, ravenous pack of wild dogs. Something doesn’t add up, in my opinion. I don’t know what. Two things come to mind, though:

  1. Trump was completely clueless when he was on the trail and no one bothered to set him straight even though it was plainly evident he was going to triumph “bigly” over Kamala Harris and sweep into Washington with a huge, cohesive mandate to clean house, only to find out later, after the fact, that he couldn’t say anything at all, could not expose any of the putrid rotting stench emanating from the scandal, or,
  2. He understood all along what was going on and simply misled his followers (true believers, all), telling them what they wanted to hear, a.k.a., itching ears syndrome, knowing full-well that he would abandon them as soon as he could and do it in such a fashion that there would be no question about walking it back.

I find it difficult to believe the first option. If he didn’t know, he should have. Trump has been in bed, so to speak, with the muckety-muck, high-powered, extremely wealthy, movers and shakers all his life. He had the overt backing of Miriam Adelson, an ardent Zionist, to the tune of $100 million tossed into his campaign budget. He was closeted with numerous other Zionist proponents and made his intentions toward Israel plain, earning himself the derogatory nickname, “Zion Don”. To say that none of these well-connected persons, among many others, had an inkling about Epstein’s (alleged) connections to Mossad and did not caution him to tone down the rhetoric is unlikely. Either they knew and kept quiet or they were also clueless.

Given my opinion of government and political leaders, it is easier for me to assume, without proof, mind you, that he blatantly flat-out lied to gain votes and backing. Part of the game, you know. Anything goes. The end justifies the means. After all, the man does not have a reputation for honesty or honest dealing and has shown his utter contempt for anyone who dared to show even a smidgeon of resistance over his actions. Thomas Massie, for instance, the embodiment of America First, whom Trump has declared persona non grata over their differences on a budget bill. Or the millions of MAGA men and women he casually jettisoned when the notice on Epstein was given because they became upset at the news. Or the hundreds of J6’ers and their families that he let twist in the wind because it was convenient when he could have laid down the law and turned them loose forthwith.

No, I have no problem at all saying that Trump deliberately lied to “his” people, the very ones whom he rode into the White House for the second time, or maybe the third, depending on who you ask. The only thing that adds a jarring, discordant note to my theory is that he appeared to be visibly agitated and angry (watch Marco Rubio’s eyes speak volumes while he says nothing at all) at the hearing which broke the news that Epstein had no client list, that there was no evidence of pedophilia, no blackmail, and that there would be no more investigations on the subject. “It is finished”, thundered the verdict, sealing the box closed forever, much as the Romans hoped to do when they rolled a massive stone over the tomb where Jesus’ body was laid after his crucifixion. (Note: see here for more similarities between Jesus Christ and Jeffrey Epstein)

Why was Trump so angry? Why did he lash out at the reporter who dared to ask him a simple question about the files? If he was complicit with the scheme all along AND if he was an accomplished liar as I have asserted, it would seem logical that he would have simply blown this all off with a practiced air of aplomb and sangfroid. He most definitely was not as “cool as a cucumber” under the pressure. I cannot decide if his moral conscience was bubbling up to the surface and struggling to be let out or if he was truly livid at the fact that his word was being questioned and that the issue refused to die. Probably the second. If his name was Greta Thunberg, his response would have been “How dare you?”

If he didn’t know, he was incompetent. If he did know, he was complicit. Either way, he deserves to be turned out of office and relegated to the “dustbin of history”. Officially, this would happen after the 2026 elections IF the Democrats manage to scrape together a majority of Congress, but this is not certain because it appears they are actively trying to collectively commit suicide and destroy the party. Constitutionally, it could happen IF J.D. Vance were to depose him with the strong support of Trump’s cabinet via the 25th Amendment, Section IV, which we were introduced to during the waning days of the Biden Administration. It does look, at least to my untrained eye, like he has visibly changed and grown old in the last few months and his speech and actions increasingly seem to be schizophrenic and erratic.

Regardless, public trust in the federal government has been broken, probably irrevocably, and Epstein’s List may loom large in the history books as the straw that broke the camel’s back. I tend to agree with Charles Hugh Smith who seems to think so.

“Perhaps when we look back on the Epstein Affair, we’ll understand that it broke the back of Americans’ faith in their political and law enforcement institutions. A great many Americans are not party loyalists; they voted for Donald Trump as the independent “outsider” who vowed to clean house, an independent who used one of the parties as a convenient platform.”

“If even an “outsider” is incapable of cleaning house, then it’s hopeless, and if the two parties have failed us, then where do we turn? That is both an open question, and a taboo, for the corporate media is already churning out narrative control about the 2028 election being a “contest” (heh) between flimsy cardboard cutouts of failed ideological covers for systemic corruption.”

“America’s elites aren’t above the law; there is no law. But don’t say it out loud; it’s an unbreakable taboo.”

No, don’t say anything out loud. Just sweep it under the rug and hope that no one notices.

Face it, MAGA. You’ve been lied to. And you took it.

Iran: The Difficulty of the Battle

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

This is a topographic map of Iran, the quintessential existential threat to America due to its placement next to numerous US military bases.

A little information is in order. Iran is 2.4 times the size of the state of Texas. It is almost the size of Alaska, the largest state in America, and has a terrain which matches. The greatest difference between Iran and Alaska is the climate, where Iran is generally warm while Alaska is cool/cold. Or maybe it is the population–Iran has about 92 million people, while Alaska can’t even break the 1 million mark.

Without ever getting into the geo-political ponderings about “regime change” in Iran, I simply cannot imagine the success of a ground-based assault on this country by anyone, including the world’s hegemon and its lapdog, Israel. Or is it the other way around? The logistics alone would (should) generate hysterical fits for generals and planning staffs. Let’s forget about budgets, air superiority, military size, economies, etc., for the moment and concentrate on what it would take to put boots on the ground here in a successful invasion and overthrow of the current government. Remember Iraq? Iraq, a much smaller country with a tabletop flat landscape, was a cakewalk compared to what Iran would be. Boots on the ground simply will not work and the DOD knows it. You might be able to completely control the airspace so your warplanes can fly with impunity, but if you do not have control of the local neighborhoods beneath the rooftops and awnings, you have nothing.

The West has nothing. And it will break its teeth if it decides to make this a matter of actual muscle.

Will He or Not? Trying to Outguess Trump!

Roger Mitchell5 Comments

OK, I’m going out on a limb here and might saw the doggone thing off standing on it. Or I might be right and seen as a prophet.

Donald (Cap’n Warp Speed) Trump is NOT going to join with Israel and attack Iran. My guess, for what it’s worth, is that he has looked at this situation logically and decided it’s not worth what it might cost. After all, he is an astute businessman who can read the signs as well as anyone. Better than me, I expect, at least he’s far richer and more powerful.

  1. Congress is moving rapidly (amazing, I know, but miracles do happen) to block Trump from unilaterally sending the troops (planes, bombs, missiles) in. After all, it is the constitutional responsibility of Congress to declare war, even though it has been woefully absent from the subject since the start of the Korean War. About time they put on their man pants and did what they are supposed to.
  2. Polls consistently show that an enormous amount of Americans, 75% or more, disapprove of getting involved in another “forever war”, which is what this one will become unless Iran is beaten thoroughly and quickly, which isn’t likely to happen. No, the tide of public opinion is against escalation.
  3. MAGA, Trump’s baby, will split and polarize if, IF, he jumps into the fray. Remember his promise when he was on the campaign trail? “I am the peace president.” “I will not start any new wars.” “I will end the war between Ukraine and Russia in one day.” Etc., etc., etc. Ad infinitum, ad nauseum, as Gary North would say. A very large percentage of those who supported him and voted for him took him at his word that America’s wars were going to end and that the country would benefit because of it. Yeah, right, that lasted just a few months until he started bombing Yemen and pushing the “Big, Beautiful Bill” which would give the Pentagon $1 trillion next year to spend on creating turmoil and mayhem. Er, I mean, defense of the American Dream.
  4. Trump is limited in his options:
    • Go for the gusto. Hit Iran hard with everything he has at his disposal. What happens if that doesn’t work?
    • Hit Iran with a limited strike, say, a “bunker buster” bomb or two dropped in the Fordo nuclear site. What happens if the plane, say a B-2, is somehow shot down and never reaches its target?
    • What happens if Iran unleashes a salvo of missiles against American military bases in Iraq, Jordan, Syria, and Kuwait, among others? What happens if Iran simply closes down the Strait of Hormuz, which it can easily do, and causes the world price of oil to skyrocket to unprecedented, astronomical levels?
    • What happens if Iran sends a missile against any one of the American aircraft carriers now congregating in the region? If one of these goes to the bottom, it will mean at least 5, 000 servicemen (women) (persons) lost and will immediately create a call to “nuke” Teheran, a densely populated city with at least 20 million people at risk. What happens to the image of America in world opinion if something like that happens? Not good, I am sure.

There is more. I have barely scratched the surface of the possibilities. Nevertheless, as a rational person and somehow (against the odds) of believing that Trump can act rationally, I have to believe that he will pull in his reins and slow this “steed” to a trot. My guess is that he will allow Israel and Iran to trade blows with each other, then bring up the idea of “negotiations” again. Of course, I do not have a great deal of confidence in his negotiations, which are, as follow:

“Let’s negotiate. You cannot have a nuclear weapon. Period. Ever. End of negotiation. You have sixty days to agree with this and obey. Otherwise, all hell will break out against you.”

Maybe I should reconsider my position.

Victimization: Running Out of Steam

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

I like to think of myself as caring and compassionate, especially toward those who are beaten down and needy through no fault of their own. I have no problem with slipping a Benjamin into the hand of an elderly widow or young mother who I am certain is not able to pay her electric bill. Yet, there are some things which simply cause me to rebel, to resist. One of these is the claim by some that they are eternal victims and that everyone must excuse their behavior because…

Well, you know.

Blacks in America are pretty good at this. They (or their ancestors, or perhaps only some) were made slaves by white people centuries ago and, due to that unfortunate tidbit of history, ought to have everything handed to them on a silver or gold platter today. Never mind that the ones who enslaved them (or their ancestors, or perhaps only some of them) were probably also black. Never mind that the term, Slav, which classifies a middle-European race, likely sprang from the fact that white people from that region were probably also “slaves”. Never mind that the black ancestors who were enslaved have long been dead, as have been their “masters”, and that there is no connection between myself and a black man in San Francisco or Atlanta as a result of that specific situation. Everyone knows they are victims and must be compensated.

Enough of that! Let’s get to the real meat here.

Earlier today, I watched a short “news” brief by ABC on the retaliation by Iran because of the Israeli strikes on that country on June 13. Friday the 13th. Exactly sixty-one days after President Donald (Cap’n Warp Speed) Trump had told the Iranians they had sixty days to conform and comply with his nuclear “negotiations”. If they didn’t, well, at least he warned them of the terror and suffering that was to come.

Anyway, ABC had a reporter on the ground in Bet Yam, a community which had received numerous missile strikes from the Iranians. (Where the heck is Iron Dome when you need it?) One of the complaints was that children, at least two, had been killed. Let’s be real clear about this, at least two Israeli children had been killed from the missile strikes and, for that, we ought to be outraged. Yet, there was not a word about the thousands of Palestinian children who have been coldly slaughtered in the name of “security” and “Greater Israel”, even though it is (and can be) completely documented. Nothing said at all about the Iranian children who died as a result of Israel’s aggressive action.

No! NO, NO, NO! Our children are dying!! Ours, not theirs. We ought to be the ones who are sympathized with, pitied, and something must be done about it!!!

Pat Benatar had something to sing about this. “I’m going to harden my heart…”

Truth is, I have trouble with ginning up any sympathy for the Israeli claim, because I know that the Israeli State is killing, has killed, an untold number of Palestinian or Iranian children. I can have pity for them, but…that’s about as far as it goes. The problem is that they have been claiming to be “victims of circumstance” for as long as I can remember, at least since the “oppression” in Egypt during the time of Moses, some 3500 years ago. How long does one have to be a victim before it becomes embedded into the DNA and bloodline?

Remember Pinnochio? The fox and the cat?

Is this wrong? Do I have a bad attitude? Am I in need of a readjustment in some camp somewhere?

I can, and do, feel sadness at the violent deaths of two Israeli children, but I also recognize and understand that this is payment received for the evil, violent, murderous behavior exhibited, pursued, and acted upon, by decades of Israeli leadership and society, which knew (know) only one thing: violence for the sake of power is to be pursued to the ultimate end, which is death. All that matters is that we win, no matter how much it costs, nor how many others have to die so that we can achieve our goal, our end. If some of those who die are our own, well…collateral damage.

“Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you.” — Jesus Christ, as recorded in Luke 6:38.

Fear is a liar. Lose the fear.

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Read this first.

https://thedailyeconomy.org/article/its-always-about-fear/

Yes, it’s always about fear. I concur with that sentiment. People who are afraid do not make any attempt to be free or self-governing. Instead, they are constantly clamoring for someone, someone, anyone, to come and save them from themselves and their self-imposed misery.

Why? Is it not because they have too much to lose? Too much of what? Possessions, self-esteem, pride, inability to admit failure, etc.?

Funny, we think in terms of a lifetime which is entered into without our permission, consent, and initiative, and is ended (mostly) in the same manner, yet is over in (almost always) less than 100 years, a mere blink in the timeline of human history. In that 100 years (almost always less), we learn to think that all that matters is how much we can gain while here and never once consider how much we might lose in eternity, once we have departed this ‘mortal coil’. Which we are going to do, regardless of how much we believe Elon Musk.

Oh, yes! I don’t dare speak out against injustice because… I don’t dare resist oppression because… I don’t dare live a life of personal sovereignty because… And we give up what is rightfully ours, that is, the freedom to live our own lives according to our own personal beliefs and desires, because…

Because… because…because we are afraid. There is no other reason. We are afraid to lose what we think is ours, either by right or by acquisition. Yet, we fail to realize that nothing in this life is guaranteed to us, except for one thing: we are going to die. No exemptions. No “Get Out of Jail Free” cards. Instead, we buy into the idea that “He who dies with the most toys wins”, which is an an exquisitely fabricated slogan for selfishness, narcissism, and disregard for the future.

What else is there? Why do we hesitate to call out the lies in our own lives? Why do you resist the “temptation” to resist the tide of evil which is increasingly swelling upon our shores? Is this all there is and should I be concerned about what might happen to my grandchildren because I failed to stand up against the evil? Because I refused to stand up for what is right? After all, what does this cost me? Do you realize how much this cost me?

Well, do you???

Tell that to the One Who said this:

“For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it.” — Matthew 16:25

Let’s face it. Squarely. In your face. We are afraid. We want to save our own life. We do not have any other answer and that is all we know. We are victims and we live like it.

Or, as Linda Ronstadt so perfectly put it, “Poor, poor pitiful me.”

My advice: Get over it.

Freedom and fear have nothing in common. Where fear reigns, freedom does not exist. Fear is a liar. Live not by lies. Lose the fear.

Sin, Crime, and Complicity

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

This is nothing more than a flash of inspiration experienced just the other day. Take it for what it’s worth.

Jesus said that if a man looks at a woman lustfully, then it is the same as if he had engaged in adultery with her. Think about her in a sexual manner and it is equivalent to bedding her physically. In other words, your thoughts define you as much as your actions.

Pretty stark, and I am absolutely guilty of the commission of this particular sin.

Now, let’s expand that to the conflict in Gaza, in which the Israeli State is attempting to completely destroy the Palestinian people who lived there. No holds barred. Kill them all. Let God sort them out. There are only three choices here for those not caught up in the actual “blood and guts” scene:

  1. Recognize that the way Israel is acting is wrong and must be brought to an end.
  2. Recognize that the way Israel is acting is right and support policies that push the effort forward.
  3. Do nothing. Have no opinion. Don’t even think about it.

Many people world-wide, more and more every day, adhere to #1, as I do. Pressure is building which is going to force an end to the slaughter and mayhem. God speed the day! And, there are many who simply cannot be bothered to consider what is happening because they are too caught up in their own world to care about anyone else. And, there are those who cheer and applaud what is being done without any regard to the wanton loss of life and the destruction of the Gazan population.

Unfortunately, many of this last set are Americans who call themselves Christian, yet perceive the events as biblical prophesy unfolding in history. God said it. I believe it. That settles it. As if there was no room for contemplation and admission of error. I know what I think and nothing is going to change my mind. Don’t even bother to try.

Returning to my opening statement, let me paraphrase the admonition from Jesus in this way.

If, if, you have a desire and a passion to see the Palestinians killed, tortured, raped, maimed, crippled, starved, and displaced by the Israeli State, then, for you, it is the same as if you had personally pulled the trigger, dropped the bomb, activated the flame-thrower, stopped the food trucks, destroyed the water-purification facilities, wrecked the hospitals, and forced the inhabitants into the desert with nothing more than the clothes on their backs and what they could carry. If, if, you support the most current “genocide” out of a belief, then you have committed the crimes listed and probably more.

After all, thinking about the act is the same as doing it, in God’s eyes. At least that is how I read it.

Now, if I am right about this, then there are millions upon millions of American Christians, some of them close to me, who are absolutely guilty of the same things which Israel and its chief benefactor and enabler, the United States, are doing. Yes, if this is the way you think, then you are complicit in these horrors and will be convicted, sooner or later, in some way or other, of the charge laid against you.

“But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” — Matthew 5:28

Straight from the lips of the Master. Without ambiguity or equivocation. Take it for what it’s worth.

Weep, Our Beloved Country

Roger Mitchell5 Comments

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2025/03/no_author/international-law-is-now-suspended-if-not-eliminated/

“A law cannot exist if there are individuals or organizations that fall within its scope but which stand “above the law” — can’t be prosecuted no matter how flagrantly they violate it. EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW IS THE FOUNDATION-STONE OF LAW, and if any exceptions can be allowed, those are ONLY the ones that are stated IN the law as being NOT within its scope — and, thus, the fundamental principle of law is that a law exists ONLY if all individuals or organizations that fall within its scope are subject to investigation and prosecution if they violate it. Otherwise, it’s NOT a “law.” To call it a law is false. The United States Government and its colonies such as Israel can’t be prosecuted for violating international law no matter how flagrantly they violate it. Consequently, international law no longer exists. What DOES exist, then? The traditional ethic does: Might makes right.”

Might makes right. More than anything else, this philosophy is the one which most people subscribe to and practice, regardless of what they privately espouse. It is the order of modern American politics which stands for holding to a particular model of government until power is seized, at which point all the “true” points are discarded in favor of raw power. Because we can, and the foot-soldiers in the trenches cheer and applaud everything which the top command is doing, whether it adheres to the principles espoused or not. Because the “war” must be won. By fair means or foul, and it doesn’t matter who gets hurt in the process. War is painful, after all, and the Dastardly Democrats or the Rascally Republicans must be beaten down, never to rise again, in order to usher in the Golden Age of Utopia for All Humanity. Er, I mean, all persons because it’s forbidden to create a label which includes the letters written as “…man…” Mankind, humanity, humankind, human beings, human rights, etc. All gone. All outlawed. All discarded. Because…discrimination, you know, which simply is nothing more than making a choice between different options and possibilities. There ought to be a law.

But seriously, folks.

I don’t follow Eric Zuesse. I do read his articles from time to time and I am never disappointed, even though I may disagree with him vehemently. In this case, I think he is spot on and his argument can be applied directly to what is happening today in American jurisprudence. Namely, the idea that the Executive Branch of federal government can do anything it wishes and no one will complain. Because…they can. Might makes right, indeed!

A law is not a law IF the people who administer the Law are above the Law and are not held accountable by the Law IF they transgress the Law. Can it be put more plainly than that? In other words, if Donald Trump, and Co., decide to move in a certain direction regardless of the Law, who is going to hold him (them) accountable? After all, they are the Power and, as everyone knows, Might makes Right.

Right? Of course, right.

OK, enough of beating around the bush. Let’s bring this in for a landing.

We hear all the time from “Conservatives” that we must “return” (as if we ever left it) to The Constitution (the highest law which cannot be transcended), yet the Constitution declares these rights (of the individual) to be inviolate. Meaning that they cannot be superseded by any law, whether Congressional, Judicial, or Executive, or regardless as to whether they are popular, conservatively speaking.

  1. The 5th Amendment to the Constitution. “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” .

Pretty plain, right? Cut and dried, right? No person, right? Unless, of course, this applies to an “illegal immigrant” who also happens to be a member of a “terrorist” gang (designated by the Executive Branch, i.e., the President) as a threat to the “national interest”. In that case, those who are guilty (whether they are charged or not is irrelevant) of this “crime” (violation of law) are subject to immediate deportation to their country of origin OR removal to a prison system run by the El Salvadoran government, which we pay buku bucks for, generously provided by the US taxpayer.

This does not appear to be any different than the “war” waged on La Cosa Nostra, i.e., Mafia, which has been ongoing for decades and does not appear to have an end point. Except that the action against Tren de Aragua has the support and vociferous backing of half the population of the US, which Donald Trump is counting on to allow him to completely circumvent the 5th Amendment to the Constitution, which all his supporters depend on to keep the country safe from the depredations of a tyrannical government. We MUST get back to the Constitution, right? Except when it is convenient to discard it, of course.

Whatever happened to “Innocent, until Proven Guilty”? Does this mean anything, anymore?

I admit that Tren de Aragua probably is criminal. It is probably based on force, violent in nature, to achieve its ends, i.e., the compliance of those it seeks to subjugate. That being said, is there any realistic, theoretical, philosophical, difference between this one specific gang and others which are larger and have much more power, e.g., the United States of America, which can be said to impose its power and influence around the world? As far as I can see, the only difference is one of size and scope.

I could applaud the current administration for its stance and actions, except for one niggling reminder. First, they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I wasn’t a socialist. Yes, I said nothing when those in power came for Tren de Aragua because I was not a member of the group and, besides, I liked what Trump & Co. was doing. Never mind that the end of this is that when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up for me.

Should we be concerned? Absolutely, yes, we should, but not necessarily in the manner so prevalent in conservative circles today. If the government can arrest and punish anyone at all based solely on an accusation, then who is safe? Am I safe? Are you? How do you know?

“By their works, you shall know them.”

What is most interesting about the article by Eric Zuesse is that he mentions the Peasant’s Revolt of 1525, which resulted in the deaths of perhaps as many as 100, 000 common, ordinary, everyday, persons who simply wanted an end to the abuses perpetrated on them by those more powerful, and which can be summarized as follows:

“Laws should be made more equitable so that all are equal before it and no one gets harsher or more lenient treatment for the same crime.” — https://www.worldhistory.org/Twelve_Articles/

Imagine that! The Law applied equally and without discrimination! No one, not even Donald Trump, Elon Musk, nor Chuck Schumer above it!

We have a long way to go.

The Practice of Politics: Continued

Roger Mitchell3 Comments

This was first published as a reply to a comment seen on an article by Donald Jeffries at his Substack. I like Donald Jeffries. He has become, without his knowledge, one of my most-beloved mentors. I have a few others: John Waters, Elizabeth Nickson, Caitlin Johnstone, Edward Curtin, etc., from whom I am learning, not so much about facts and opinions, but how to write lucidly and comprehensively about things that matter. More than anything else, I am learning how to be unafraid in the telling of the truth. If this resonates with you, please leave a comment.

https://donaldjeffries.substack.com/p/the-orwellian-doctors-of-disinformation

I describe politics as the practice of getting what you want by manipulating other people and is always at their expense, to their detriment, which is an adaptation of this quote by Frederic Bastiat–“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavours to live at the expense of everybody else.”

Most people consider “politics” as having to do with government, law, the State, but most never, ever think about the way that they practice it on a daily basis. For instance, Billy Joel’s waitress in his hit song, Piano Man, made a habit of and living from “…practicing politics as the businessmen (her customers) slowly get stoned.”

Government is only the official recognition that politics is practiced everywhere, at all levels of society, by an overwhelming majority of people, both large and small, who endeavor to get what they want at the expense of everyone else, using every possible means at their disposal. Sometimes they get busted and learn, correcting their ways but, more often than not, they protest that their actions are really only for the benefit of those around them and the good of society. Like supporting the Military-Industrial Complex because it has a factory in their home state or loudly backing the genocidal catastrophes which the “most-favored” nation in the history of the world, Israel, practices on its weaker neighbors.

How do you correct this problem. Quite simple. Vote. Vote harder. Vote more often. Vote until the right people are put into office and all the scheming, conniving, rascally scoundrels are turned out into the street or thrown into a maximum-security prison. Yes, that ought to do it and so many are faithful to the concept, never realizing that voting is an attempt to force others to behave the way that you want them to. Getting what you want at someone else’s expense, to their detriment. Politics.

For those who haven’t already caught on, the paragraph immediately above is sarcastic. The only way to correct the practice of politics is to address the sin within yourself AND to take action to eliminate it from your own life. All of us are guilty. All of us have to change our course. As a succinct example of what I am advocating, I offer another paraphrase from an even greater man than Frederic Bastiat.

“Love your neighbors, don’t kill them.”

Fear is a Liar! What are you afraid of?

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

“But I know Whom I have believed and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I’ve committed unto Him against that day.” — 2 Timothy 1:12

Life is a preparation for death.

In just a few days, I will experience my 66th birthday. It is a testament to the grace of God that I have lived this long. I have no idea how many more years I will see, but then, nobody does, which is just as well. “If I knew the place I was going to die, begorra, I’d never go near the place.” –Olde Irish saying.

I used to think I would live to see my 100th birthday. Today, I think that if I last another ten years, I will be doing pretty good. As a result of this, I realize that if I am going to accomplish anything of any lasting value in this life, I have got to get it done…and I cannot be afraid of consequences that might occur as a result of my “getting it done”. If I only have ten more years, then does it really make any difference whether I have ten years or only six? And, of course, the answer is “No!”, if what I am doing advances the cause of truth vs. lies. After all, if I am only a brick in the building which Jesus, the Christ, is erecting, then who am I to count myself so important that I avoid speaking the truth because it might carry some risk?

Are we to be so consumed with “surviving” what we all know is coming or should we be concerned with speaking the truth, regardless where that leads? This is a question which all of us must answer at sometime, even if we do not deliberately recognize it. Why am I here? What do I live for? To whom will I answer?

Unfortunately, many of us refuse to consider what this means. If it is true that I am not my own, then I must be answerable to someone else. Who am I answerable to? And, if I am answerable to someone else and I only have a few more years to live, then why should I be afraid of speaking what I believe to be the truth?

Freedom does not come from a condition of being answerable to no one. It comes from being aware that there is a higher calling, a higher authority, a higher understanding, and not being afraid to explore it or to extol it. I know, for instance, that God Himself, in whatever form He might show Himself to be, is the only reason I live and, if I am not afraid to speak out on His behalf, that He will take care of me–either in the present or after I have departed this world…physically speaking, that is.

What do I have to be afraid of? I, along with everyone else who has ever been born, am going to die. Someday I will face the reckoning. At my age, it cannot be pushed off into the distant future. It is going to happen and I must face it. Why should I be afraid? The only reason would be that I have lived my life for my own benefit and refused to “love my neighbor as I love myself”.

Come on now, really! Do we believe that we are representatives of the Truth or are we here for the gusto? What are we afraid of? That we will lose what we have gained and attained in just a few years? What is that worth in the light of eternity? Shall we live for ourselves only and what we can gain for ourselves or shall we live to make it a little less hard for others?

Why did it take so long for me to learn this? And what am I going to do with my newfound knowledge? That is the question.

Should Christians be Involved in Politics?

Roger Mitchell10 Comments

The question in the title arises from a meeting at a local church on the same subject. My wife asked me to go with her, so I did, and when the pastor asked for discussion on the topic, I gave them my opinion. After just a few minutes, I was told by some unknown person to, in essence, sit down and shut up. Which I did, then sat through an extended period in which the entire rest of the group explained all the reasons why Christians ought to be involved. None of them asked me for any further explanation. After an hour or so, I just got up and walked out. I will never go back.

Politics. Before answering the question, it should be important to understand what politics actually is. If you do not know what politics is, then you cannot answer the question. Most people associate politics with government, as in this definition, taken from Merriam-Webster:

a: the art or science of government

b: the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy

c: the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government

Now, I do not dispute the description, but the word “politics” is multi-faceted (as admitted by Merriam-Webster) and can have many different meanings and connotations. During my comments at the session, I mentioned the saying that, “Politics is a dirty business”, and asked them if Christians should be involved in dirty business. To my surprise, a lot of people nodded their heads affirmatively, which only shows that they simply do not know what the “dirty business of politics” is all about. But then, American Christians, at least the modern kind, have never been known for their acumen and understanding of the way the real world works.

I also brought up a line from Billy Joel’s song, Piano Man, which should be familiar–“And the waitress is practicing politics as the businessmen slowly get stoned…”, and explained that politics, outside the government angle, is nothing more than the manipulation of people for personal gain, which, if true, ought to provoke outrage on the part of Christians toward the practice. It was at this point that I was quite unceremoniously booted from the floor and the rest is history.

“Politics is the practice of getting what you want by manipulating other people and is always at their expense, to their detriment.” (My own description of politics. Click the link, scroll down until you find it.)

Unfortunately, politics, even in government is manipulation of some people by other people, all with one purpose (usually unspoken) in mind: control and power. Control and power. Virtually everyone is consumed with gaining power over others so that their behavior and actions can be controlled. Christians usually bring up the subject of “morality” and the dire need to make people behave the way they ought to, that is, in the manner that Christians think they ought to, because, you know, the country is diving headlong into the sewer of “immorality” and needs to be rescued. Or else, there will be hell to pay. Of course! There always is. Whether anyone else wants their version of morality or not is irrelevant. It must be done! We must get involved! We must vote! Vote! Vote! Vote for the lesser of two evils, even if that means the System as a whole becomes more evil, which mechanism is really a rear-guard action that does nothing to stop the onslaught of evil, but only slows it down a little. In the end, evil wins.

“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it.” — H.L. Mencken

“Voting is nothing more than choosing whose hand holds the club with which you are beaten. It does nothing to stop the beatings.” — another of my own quotes. You can quote me on that.

Should Christians be involved in politics? If politics is a “dirty business” and the manipulation of people for personal benefit, then the answer is an unqualified “No, they should not.” This comports with the message of the Gospel of Jesus to keep oneself unspoiled from the world and to love our neighbor as we love ourselves. However, as Christians, we are also enjoined to act as leavening agents to affect the world condition in which we find ourselves so that the entire structure is bettered by our actions. This seeming contradiction can be resolved in only one way–by determining where and in whom we place our trust and faith. As Christians, we are enjoined to have trust and faith in God alone, yet we continue to disregard this advice in preference to putting our trust and faith in man-made institutions, especially the modern form of government, that is, the totalitarian State, which encompasses and controls everything. As Christians, we have sold our souls for a pot of message, and it is coming back to bite us as a very bad case of acid reflux and dysentery. If we continue to gorge ourselves on this feast, it will kill us.

Belief and participation in the world system lead to death. This is a fact we must face and recognize as truth. Yet, knowing this, we still labor under the illusion that we can sway and impact “politics” in a positive way, for the better, if we join in, work with, and merge into the prevailing protocol. We think that we can “clean up” politics and The System if we just engage it and add our voice to the cacophony, yet we fail to understand that, in doing so, we soil ourselves and reinforce the message that men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are evil.

At heart, we refuse to trust God. We would rather trust government. We would rather be practitioners of “the lesser of two evils” than turning away from evil entirely. We would rather beggar our neighbor through the application of law than to love our neighbor in service to him. We prefer to think we are holy because we go to church on Sunday morning and practice all the “accepted” perfunctory deeds that are expected, yet we do not know that our lives are as filthy rags in His sight. Yes, indeed, and I am the greatest of sinners, to paraphrase the apostle Paul.

What, then, shall be done? How, then, shall we live? Well, there is nothing to do except to change myself into and in conformance with His likeness, to become holy as He is holy, to accept that there is no other name except His by which I am saved. This alone brings freedom. It is the only path to life. Nothing else will work. Everything else will fail.

You can rationalize all you want. You can make all the excuses you want. You can delude yourselves until the chickens come home to roost. In the end, you are only deceiving yourself. There is only one way. Everything else will fail.

Everything else will fail.

Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones…

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

This article was first published as a comment (#43) at the Unz Review in an essay written shortly after Hamas had initiated their October 7 attack on Israel during which some 1200 persons were killed and hundreds more kidnapped and removed to Gaza. To date, the Israeli reprisal has resulted in upwards of 25, 000 Palestinians dead and the entire population uprooted and displaced, many of them on the brink of starvation.

Please note that my comment focuses on the free-speech issue which is under concerted assault today. It does not address the “Jewish question” nor should it be read as “anti-Semitic” in any way. If you find anything which I said to be offensive, then you are trying to be offended. Your problem, my pity.

Slight, grammatical corrections have been made from the original.

“To the main point here: Should calling for the genocide of Jews violate Harvard University’s code of conduct?

If that was what the student protestors were calling for, the answer has to be yes. “Genocide” means killing an entire race of people. If you want to do that, you are a homicidal psychopath. In a civilized society there should be no institution whose code of conduct validates homicidal psychopathology.”

https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/give-em-an-inch-they-take-a-harvard-yard/

Well, along with Ms. Gay, I would say, “That depends.”

In a civilized society SHOULD THERE BE an institution whose code of conduct validates homicidal psychopathology? Well, no, of course not, any more than there should be a movie theater which would tolerate someone shouting, “Fire!” during a very crowded session. However, this misses the point of free speech. It is called FREE speech, after all.

In a civilized society where free speech is encouraged and allowed, there should be no limits placed on what is said. Anyone should be able to speak his mind about anything.  Any institution should be able to support and allow any speech it wishes, even if it is detrimental (and it would be) to the institution itself.  Offense taken because of words spoken is a personal issue and should be addressed as such. However, in today’s society, the emphasis is placed on the “offense taken” and the only remedy which is prescribed for it is to outlaw and prohibit, not the offense nor the reaction, but the words which caused it.

“You cannot say that. Someone might be hurt.”

All of society, civilized or not, is geared around one thing–conformity to the established norm. Anyone who deviates from that automatically becomes uncivilized, a pariah, one of the hairy, unwashed, deplorables who deserves to be eradicated or thrown out of the group. It does not matter what the issue is or how flagrant the violation is–any violation is cause for alarm and voices which speak freely generate the greatest concern and response.

It is not the speakers themselves who are the real threat, rather the response by others who hear the words and are motivated to action because of them. Jim Jones and Adolf Hitler would have been nothing more than abrasive loudmouths IF the people who heard them refused to act on what they heard. Those who scream, “Kill all the Jews!”, would make no progress at all if everyone within earshot simply ignored them and went about living as if they had not heard them. No one would ever be trampled to death in a crowded theater if everyone would simply sit still for two or three seconds and rationally assess the situation before stampeding.

The problem is, they don’t. People react, from emotion, according to what they hear and listen to–whether it is right and true or not. Therefore, we have laws prohibiting the FREE exercise of speech and substituting some truncated version of it, a limited form of it, somewhat less than free speech–all of it conditioned on and by the level of “civilization” we have reached.

If we are ever to be free, truly free, then the right to say anything, anything at all, must become sacred within the society. Otherwise, we labor under the shackles of someone else’s opinion and feelings, all of which are meant to “protect” from “harm”. Until we learn, as individuals and as a cohesive group of individuals, that we are NOT harmed by the words and, therefore, have no need to react, we will never be free. We will always be under the control of someone else who will decide for us how we MUST respond. In other words, there oughta’ be a law against that sort of stuff.

“I may not agree with what you are saying, but I will defend your right to say it.” ought to be our operating mantra, but it is not. Instead, we have arrived at the conclusion that because I disagree with and do not like what you are saying, you cannot say it. End of story. Sit down, shut up, and do as you are told.

“Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” This old nursery rhyme has now been transformed into one which might read, “If you call me a name, I will pick up a stick and attempt to break your bones.”

Making the Most of “Our” Time

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

Time for a change. A time change, that is.

Tomorrow morning, Nov. 5, at 2:00 a.m., America will revert back to Standard time and move the hands on the clock back one hour. This will (supposedly) give everyone an extra hour of sleep, although in my case, it will not matter. I go to sleep when I am tired and get up when I wake up–a pattern which is not driven by the clock.

For some history on the subject and “justification” for the practice, see here, here, and here.

For the next few months, Standard time will be the norm until Daylight Saving Time is resurrected again in the spring. The ritual is repeated over and over again, year after year, with some attempts made to end it and no real expectation that it will be. This is nonsense and foolishness on a grand scale as there is no good and compelling reason for its continuation. In fact, there is only bureaucratic inertia, as Federal regulations forbid individual states to maintain Daylight Saving Time (DST) year-round, and everyone knows (or should) that when a regulation is entered into the Federal Register, it never comes out.

Sort of like the Hotel California. “You can grumble and complain all you like, but you can never leave.”

The main problem with making the shift to a uniform time, regular or DST, is that when anything is proposed, some special interest group will squawk and ramp up their efforts to persuade the politicians according to their own “lights”. Pardon the pun. Such is life under democracy, but ultimately, this shifts the power of decision-making to the bureaucracy which will never, ever rock the boat until and unless overwhelming power and influence is brought against them. Career bureaucrats simply do not change unless forced, therefore, the way we measure time will not change either.

My personal preference is that DST is maintained year-round, giving us more daylight in the evening. Of course, this means that I would have to drive to work during the winter months in darkened conditions, often wet and/or icy, with whitetail deer crossing the road in total disregard of oncoming traffic. (It is my observation that mule deer are not prone to this suicidal habit, only the whitetails, but I am not a Scientist and, therefore, have not done any “controlled, replicable experiments” on the theory. That has no bearing on the subject. I just threw it in as a bonus. Value added, you know.)

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) has introduced legislation numerous times to make DST permanent…and failed every time. While I disagree with the man on many, many, many issues, in this he and I are in lockstep.

“This ritual of changing time twice a year is stupid. Locking the clock has overwhelming bipartisan and popular support. This Congress, I hope that we can finally get this done,” Rubio said in a press release on March 2.

https://time.com/6261629/daylight-savings-time-2023/

There are multiple arguments put forth in favor of DST and just as many against it. I will not elaborate here. You can easily find them online. However, I have a theory which, as far as I know, has never been mentioned by anyone else. This is not to say that I am the originator, but I have never heard it from another source. Perhaps you have and can send me a link. Perhaps I am just being overly suspicious.

My theory is that the government, all-powerful in its own eyes, simply cannot resist the temptation to tinker with and control time. Considering that DST in America began with Woodrow Wilson, that despicable progressive piece of humanity, and considering that DST has now become a Fixture of American Life, it is not far-fetched to think that there are those in power who actually believe they have the authority to change time itself. Obviously, they cannot change the way the sun rises in the morning and sets in the evening, but they can alter the means we use to measure the amount of daylight we experience.

One thing will not change, however. Midnight and midday, those natural occurrences which designate the points halfway between sunrise and sunset will never be altered. No matter how much we, in our perceived arrogance, seek to obfuscate and confuse the issue, midnight and midday will always be with us…exactly as they have been from the very beginning. Considering my obstinate insistence on accuracy, probably I will have to change my own attitude and start advocating for reality, otherwise known as Not Daylight Saving Time.

It really will not matter to me whichever way it goes. I just want to have one set time and stop having to make the requisite bi-annual adjustments on my clocks.

Baby, It’s Cold Outside. Mask Up!

Roger Mitchell4 Comments

Finally! After all these millennia, scientists have discovered that the REAL reason people get sick in the fall and winter is due to…colder temperatures.

Well, duh!! Anyone could have seen that obvious conclusion, but it took a taxpayer-funded study to confirm it. After all, when the thermometer goes lower in the fall, the number of flu cases rises, seemingly in lockstep. The colder the temperature, the more flu. And, since CNN produced this, it has to be true. Right? Of course, right.

Contrary to popular myth, correlation DOES equal causation.

Now that you know, you can minimize your chances of catching the flu by doing one simple thing–wear a mask. According to Dr. Benjamin Bleier, who worked in the study, it is beneficial to “suit up”.

“Not only do masks protect you from the direct inhalation of viruses, but it’s also like wearing a sweater on your nose,”…

Well, there you have it from an Expert, an Esteemed Member of the Hallowed Discipline of the Holy Church of Undisputable and Settled Science. There are so many questions this POS raises, but I will only ask one. If a mask works like a sweater to keep our noses warm, why aren’t we encouraged to simply wear full face ski masks? That ought to do the trick.

Yeah, I am fully convinced. So convinced, in fact, that I’m going to rush out and buy up as many ski masks as possible to hoard them for the oncoming demand.

Logically speaking, if we can avoid the flu by keeping our noses warm, then it ought to be realistic and sensible to assume that a warmer Earth would alleviate untold misery by billions of people every year. Climate Change to the rescue! Viva Global Warming!! Combat the Flu by heating up the environment!!!

It’s all for the cause, dear.

It’s hilarious that an article pushing such a ludicrous position (masking will keep you safe) would actually lead someone like myself to make all kinds of exaggerated claims based on the assertions made in it. Honestly, though, I have barely scratched the surface and could, if I put myself to it, produce untold numbers of highly sarcastic comments about this.

But, hey! Why do I have to do all the work? Create your own.

Love of Control and the Antidote

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

This article was first posted at https://westernmt.news/voices/.

“Governments of every stripe are nothing more than gangs of terrorists. All government is organized crime, and relies on force and propaganda in order to subdue the human herd. The criminals at the top care nothing about any of you, and will always find the common man to be expendable, especially those who stand in the way of the State’s efforts to achieve totalitarian rule.” — Gary Barnett

Don’t let anyone fool you. Don’t fool yourself. Government which relies on force and violence to achieve its ends CANNOT be reformed and made into something which it is not. This is why the appeals to “conservatism”, “going back to the Constitution”, and “small(er) government”, always fail. The goal is NEVER to eliminate forceful, violent government, instead, it is about gaining control and power over everyone else at the expense of anyone–no matter who they are. Voting for a proxy government is nothing more than a way of exercising your own personal, deep-seated desire for control.

The main argument of government apologists everywhere can be reduced to one common theme, i.e., “If they disagree with me, then they need to be controlled.” Unfortunately for this attitude, those who seek to control others usually end up being controlled. Only a very few, all fabulously wealthy and extremely powerful, can escape this control in any measurable fashion, but they trade that privilege for their own peculiar set of problems, all of which have costs imposed and exacted.

“Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.” — Luke 6:38 (KJV)

This passage of Scripture, spoken by Jesus, especially the emphasized part, applies equally across the board. You want control? You will be controlled. The alternative, the cure for this mindset, also spoken by Jesus, is this:

“Love your neighbor as you do yourself.” — Mark 12:31

Living this way requires a complete abandonment of the Status Quo and the adoption of a new way of life. Few there be that find it.

It’s Going to Get Rough: Keep Your Head

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/keeping-your-head-amidst-debt-blind-madness

Contrary to the current political posturings, inflation is not being brought under control nor will it be any time in the near future. Instead, we are going to experience a massive wave, a tsunami, of unbacked, fiat-money, inflation crashing down on us, perhaps without even realizing it is coming.

Actions have consequences. The common idea that we can prosper under debt-based living, i.e., borrowing money today for consumption on the expectation of paying the loan back tomorrow, is a fraudulent premise which will eventually destroy and dismantle everything that we have built up over generations.

The best thing to do is to bring personal expenditures into line with income. In other words, live within your means. Get your debts paid down as much as possible. Quit borrowing for frivolous stuff. If you do this, when the wave hits, instead of paying interest on loans, you will have the means to trade all those increasingly worthless dollars for hard goods and services which will benefit you in the long run.

The financial reality of America and the world is that our present system, based on nothing more than faith that we can have what we want when we want it, is going to collapse and disappear. Those who have their wits about them will be able to use the situation to their own advantage AND begin to build a future civilization which is secured by wisdom, common sense, and faith in God, a society diametrically opposed to the one in which we live.

Keep your head.

The Delusion of False Hope

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

Read this first to get the context of what I am writing. You will not understand if you don’t.

https://daringaub.substack.com/p/sudden-sovereign-spirit

There is a quote smack-dab in the middle of this which sums up everything about the condition we are in today. At least that is the way I see it. Many will disagree.

“Asleep, the folks will vote for who will send

The largest grift, and programs without end…”

R. Baker Hughes

It is quite easy to blame the evil that others do for the trouble that the world is in today and to profess faith that God will sort it all out…eventually, but that does not excuse anyone from doing what they should be to correct the situation.

I know plenty of people who call themselves Christian, some of them quite close to me. They read their Bibles, they pray, they go to church regularly, they believe God is going to come through for them…and they worship at the altar of a false god as do most others, taking in the benefits which arise from the Statist System which we are mired in, all the while holding out their hand for more. They cannot see the contradiction between what they profess to believe and the worship of the State which they act out in their daily lives.

The Bible warns about swapping the sovereign God for a human ruler. It pulls no punches about what will happen when people place their trust in political power. And, at the end it states in no uncertain terms that God will simply turn a deaf ear to the cries of those affected.

“And you will cry out in that day because of your king WHOM YOU HAVE CHOSEN FOR YOURSELVES, and the Lord will NOT HEAR you in that day.” (emphasis mine.)

1 Samuel 8:18

On the other hand, the cure for this can be seen in one of the most memorized verses in the entire Bible.

“If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray, and seek My face, AND TURN FROM THEIR WICKED WAYS, THEN I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” (Again, emphasis mine.)

2 Chronicles 7:14

There you have it. You can endorse and support the king (political system) you have chosen for yourself (democracy, voting for the lesser of the evils, pledging allegiance to the flag, etc.) and God will continue to ignore your pleas, OR you can turn from your wicked ways and throw yourself completely on His mercy without recourse to the promises of a false god.

Your choice.

Montana: The New State of Censorship

Roger Mitchell8 Comments

For years, I have tried to make my actions consistent with what I believe to be true. Sometimes this has required a course change, occasionally abrupt. There have been times in which I have had to eat my words. I have also tried to encourage others to act in the same manner and have, at times, called them out for blatant violations of this principle. In politics, I consider Republicans and conservatives (not always the same) to be the worst offenders because they claim to be defenders of freedom and advocates of limited government, but often leap at the chance to expand control into areas of personal affairs where they have no business being. Listed below are two articles I wrote a few years ago about this phenomenon.

https://poorrogersalmanac.com/2019/07/27/consistency-the-winning-factor-in-politics-and-life/

https://poorrogersalmanac.com/2019/04/10/socialism-vs-liberty-and-freedom/

Just a few days ago, Montana’s Legislature sent a bill, SB0419, to the governor, Greg Gianforte for his approval to completely outlaw and ban TikTok from operating in the state. This bill would prevent any entity from making the app available to download on any device and would impose crushing fines and penalties on any violations of the rule. As the bill describes itself,

AN ACT BANNING TIKTOK IN MONTANA; PROHIBITING A MOBILE APPLICATION STORE FROM OFFERING THE TIKTOK APPLICATION TO MONTANA USERS; PROVIDING FOR PENALTIES;
PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY; PROVIDING DEFINITIONS; PROVIDING FOR
CONTINGENT VOIDNESS; AND PROVIDING A DELAYED EFFECTIVE DATE.

This immediately showed up as an article on ZeroHedge, emphasis theirs, with the prediction that the signature of the governor would inevitably result in a tsunami of lawsuits.

“Montana became the first state in the nation on Friday to ban TikTok from operating in the state, after lawmakers gave final passage to a bill that will undoubtedly face a tidal wave of legal challenges.”

Of course, being that Montana is a mountainous, land-locked state not even remotely close to an ocean, the more apt metaphor would be a massive rockslide, but who am I to criticize the editors at ZeroHedge for the wording. The important thing is that they are probably correct and that Montana’s taxpayers will, more than likely, foot the bill for many legal defenses challenging this obnoxious interference into the lives of private citizens.

Yes, you read that right. I said obnoxious interference, as in blatant censorship pertaining to what we can view, read, watch, follow, download, save, send, share, et al, online and in our own private lives! On this matter, I am not and cannot be ambivalent nor favoring. If I was to support this legislation while preaching the philosophy that people should be free and at liberty from government oversight, regulation, and law, then I would be inconsistent and the opposing viewpoints would be tearing my mind apart in open conflict. Cognitive dissonance on steroids.

Let’s unpack this bill. Getting through the preamble is sufficient to make my point.

“WHEREAS, the People’s Republic of China is an adversary of the United States and Montana…”

I will say this about the author. She did not waste any time proclaiming that there was an adversarial relationship between the PRC and the PRUSA along with its vassal state, Montana. China is “our” adversary because Shelley Vance said so. You could be forgiven if you read this as “state of war” instead of adversarial relationship and you probably would not be far off the mark.

Supposedly, Vance is a proponent of smaller, less intrusive government. That is, until it suits her not to be. But I repeat myself about inconsistency in politics.

“Vance believes in less government and regulations,…”

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/politics/vance-lynn-compete-for-belgrade-state-senate-seat/article_eed3abe2-3062-11ed-b76c-731580a8dd35.html

The idea that an adversarial relationship exists is strange because, since Richard Nixon first approached China, the US has always seen the PRC as an essential production hub for all the cheap, shoddy stuff that Americans wanted to consume. The US deliberately de-industrialized itself, moving its manufacturing prowess to the land of insanely cheap labor, all in the name of profit. Now, because China has essentially caught up with the PRUSA and is beginning to seriously compete in the dirty business of international politics, she has to be contained and opposed. All in the name of profit, mind you. When China could be controlled and milked for maximum benefit, she was fair game, but now…well, you know. Politics, and all that.

Moving on.

“…and has an interest in gathering information about Montanans, Montana companies, and the intellectual property of
users to engage in corporate and international espionage; and…”

Not a word about “our” domestic data-gathering corporate behemoths Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, et al., who have been conducting their own “business” across the US and around the world for decades. Will Vance next propose to forbid these from operating within the boundaries of Montana? Don’t hold your breath.

“WHEREAS, TikTok is a wholly owned subsidiary of ByteDance, a Chinese corporation; and…”

TikTok is a wholly owned subsidiary of ByteDance, a Chinese corporation. So bloody what? Totally irrelevant to the bill. That is a legal arrangement which happens all the time, anywhere and everywhere around the world. It certainly is not sufficient reason to outlaw it in Montana.

“WHEREAS, the People’s Republic of China exercises control and oversight over ByteDance, like other
Chinese corporations, and can direct the company to share user information, including real-time physical
locations of users; and…”

You mean in like manner as the People’s Republic of the United States of America exercises control and oversight over corporations in this country, including the above-mentioned and many, many more.

“WHEREAS, TikTok gathers significant information from its users, accessing data against their will to
share with the People’s Republic of China; and…”

When will we see outrage against our home-grown versions, accessing significant amounts of information AGAINST the will of their users? I address this below.

“WHEREAS, TikTok fails to remove, and may even promote, dangerous content that directs minors to
engage in dangerous activities, including but not limited to…”

Cue the long list of dangerous things which TikTok encourages young children to do. Really now, someone ought to put a stop to that and since the parents of these young children obviously are not going to protect them from themselves, then The State has to pick up the slack. It is completely beside the point that The State has spent the last 100 years or more working to disenfranchise parents from their children in order to gain power over both. Someone has to be the scapegoat and the parents win the booby prize.

Depending on one’s viewpoint, this clause might apply to watching porn, reading gun magazines, watching videos about fine tuning car engines to gain more power and speed, participating in online “conspiracy theories”, or using websites to gamble away hard-earned money. At what point does it become the responsibility of The State to step in and protect us from being stupid?

“WHEREAS, TikTok’s stealing of information and data from users and its ability to share that data with the Chinese Communist Party unacceptably infringes on Montana’s right to privacy; and…”

This would be hilarious if it were not so serious. TikTok steals information and data from the people who give it to them in the first place? TikTok’s ability to share with the CCP infringes on someone’s “right” to privacy? Come on, now, cut me a break and cut the crap! Anyone who has ever gone online and registered with a web entity for some perceived benefit has always been required to give up some information and data about themselves. It might be nothing more than submitting one’s name and email address or it could be more extensive, intrusive even, but the fact of the matter is that everyone ALWAYS, ALWAYS has the option of refusing to divulge that information. In fact, to say that TikTok “steals” what users voluntarily post is like saying that Facebook does the same thing when they accumulate data which its users voluntarily post…and hundreds of millions of people do that all the time. Does this mean that TikTok is a criminal organization if (when) it shares that information with its government? Is Facebook?

Well, yes, they are, as are all the other digital conglomerates who collect voluntarily supplied information and then transmit that to power-hungry governments all over the world. It is not just TikTok which is guilty as sin, but this is where so many “conservatives” and Republicans fail to be consistent with what they say they believe. What’s fair for the gander is NOT fair for the goose, especially if it is a Chinese goose.

For the record, I have never been on TikTok. I have never seen it. I do not know what it looks like. It is nearly certain that I will never use it. Why, then, am I so adamantly against this bill? Well, the easy explanation is that I do not want the state of Montana or any other State telling me what I can watch, look at, see, view, listen to, record, share, send, download, save, talk about, contribute, and post. What I do with what is mine is my own business and, to maintain consistency, if I want to be at liberty to engage in any particular activity, then I have to protect the right of others to access that same freedom. I cannot expect to be free while trying to close the damper on someone else’s liberty.

We are currently living in an era in which censorship of opposing viewpoints is rampant and widespread. More often than not, this is uni-directional, that is, the progressive/liberal side has the upper hand and tries to shut down and squelch the conservative voice. Many times, they are quite successful and conservatives are well within their rights to protest the infringement. However, the answer to censorship is not more censorship, it is liberty and freedom of speech and everything that goes along with it. Unfortunately, most Republicans and conservatives have never learned this. Instead, they bellyache and complain about “leftist censorship”, but have no reservations about using their power to censor others when it suits.

In this case, the users of TikTok.

In my opinion, they do not hate TikTok because it is evil and dangerous, but because it is effective and belongs to someone else. If TikTok had American roots, it would be highly praised as the primary Destroyer of Impressionable Foreign Youth, whose government “we” are at war with.

The End of (Misplaced) Hope

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

“Fictional villains often give us some of the deepest insights into the human condition. Writers are freed to venture outside the bounds of what they think is civil society and explore new modes of thinking that may or may not, in fact, be malevolent. In doing so they sometimes, purposefully or inadvertently, stumble across uncomfortable truths that the layperson would recoil from in horror.”

https://bombthrower.com/the-end-of-hope/, reprinted here.

The author of this article uses the movie, The Dark Knight Rises, as an analogy to what is occurring in our own real world today. Batman has been captured by the evil Bane, and is imprisoned in a place known only as The Pit, from which there is no escape except death. However, hope is always held out that escape while living is possible and it is this hope which keeps the prisoners trying to stave off and delay the inevitable death which cannot be avoided. Hope becomes a weapon which is used against them in order to slowly poison their souls, to drive them gradually into a demoralized insanity from which they will never recover. Batman is told that he will be forced to watch helplessly while Gotham City is destroyed and turned into ashes, after which he will be allowed to die. The unspoken message is that Batman will try to keep his own hope alive so that he can effect a change in his situation and save the city, but will be unable to…in other words, a misplaced hope.

He then concludes that this is what life looks like in reality.

“Here Bane is a representation of the Deep State, the true ruling force of our world, existing beyond all bounds of morality, law, and order. Batman is the free-thinking rebel, enjoying the same philosophical freedom as Bane but committed to a life of principles and justice. The people of Gotham represent the citizenry of Planet Earth over whom absolute dominion is being sought – the power of life and death itself.”

While I agree with much of what Mr. E has written and I applaud and support his ultimate conclusion, this is where I part company with him. Some may see this as semantics, a technicality, splitting of hairs, but it is important to clearly define this issue. Batman and Bane both represent an ideology which seeks total control over the people of Gotham. The only difference between them is that one is a “legally recognized rule of law” while the other is a competing faction striving to gain the upper hand, both using whatever means is necessary to reach the end goal–unlimited power and control. Batman is portrayed as an Agent of Good, working hand-in-glove with the established authorities to maintain the Status Quo, while Bane appears as the ultimate personification of Evil seeking to destroy everything which is good. Meanwhile, the people of Gotham (Earth) suffer extreme hardship and pain while these behemoths battle for supremacy.

“When two elephants fight, the grass gets trampled.” — ancient African proverb

Considering that Donald Trump has just been indicted (and may be convicted of a criminal act) in Gotham, er, I mean New York City, by a District Attorney who has sworn to destroy him, the irony here is unmistakable. Batman, er, I mean Trump, is being forced to defend himself in the hope that he will be be able to escape his predicament so that he can come to the rescue of all the poor, besieged peoples of the USA and, ultimately those in the rest of the world, setting them free from the hopeless chains which the forces of tyranny are forging around them.

To which I say, “Bullshit.” Pure bullshit.

Trump is seen in the eyes of many, tens of millions at least, as a Savior, someone we hope will ride in on a white horse and save us all from the death and destruction which faces us at the hands of a ruthless, implacable State. These millions (minions?) have set their sights on a revolution which will upset the ruling regime and allow a new System of Government (SOG, or perhaps more accurately SOGGY) to be set up in its place, administering peace, justice, and righteousness over the nation and world. Unfortunately, all revolutions revolve around one thing and it is not called liberty. Instead, every revolution has the intention to overturn the existing form of government and institute a new one, with the now successful revolutionaries acting as the Dear Leaders, forcing everyone under their jurisdiction to submit to their own brand of “law and order.”

Contrary to Mr. E’s assertion, Batman is not a rebel, free-thinking or otherwise. He is not even a revolutionary. He is a functionary of established government. He lives and breathes to protect the existing political regime, not from the people who are being driven into chains of tyranny, but from those outsiders who want to take over the reins of power. In this instance, Bane is that outsider, the dreaded revolutionary, but even he is not a true rebel. Revolution is not the same as rebellion.

According to Merriam-Webster, revolution is,

“…a fundamental change in political organization, especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed…”,

while rebellion is defined as,

“…opposition to one in authority or dominance…”

Note: this definition is not exclusively correct. A coup which overthrows one government and institutes another is not necessarily done with the consent of, or by the will of, the “governed”.

Following this line of thinking, there are only two kinds of people in the world today — those who want to control others around them and those who do not want to be controlled. There are revolutionaries who want to impose their own rule and there are rebels who refuse to be ruled. There are those who want to overthrow existing governments so that another, more to their liking which they control, can be instituted and there are those who wish to see the end of government entirely. In the words of Robert Higgs, there are statists and there are anarchists.

“Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve to death millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill millions of Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a ‘Great Leap Forward’ that killed scores of millions of Chinese people; they did not kill more than 500,000 members of the Indonesian Communist party, alleged party sympathizers, and others; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia, murdering one fourth of the country’s population; they did not kill as many as 200,000 Mayan peasants and others in Guatemala; they did not kill more than 500,000 Tutsis and pro-peace Hutus in Rwanda; they did not implement US and Allied trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children; they did not launch one aggressive US war after another. In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy’s mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state’s mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous.”

Robert Higgs

This last line must be explored. In history, it is absolutely certain that states have created and carried out policies which inevitably resulted in death, destruction, and chaos on a massive scale. The 20th-century alone experienced extreme horror in the murderous actions of governments everywhere in which possibly as many as 200 million people died and multiples more were wounded, assaulted, and scarred. It did not matter what political philosophy these governments operated under: democratic, republican, monarchic, Communist, Nazi, Fascist, totalitarian, business as usual, et al., they all participated in the orgy and mayhem which shaped our modern world, all for one purpose–to gain power at the expense of everyone else, especially those poor souls who could not get out of the way. There is no question that established States have been guilty of immense criminal activity and the States of the 21st century promise to be no better, and in fact, may be responsible for the complete destruction of the world through unlimited war between competing nuclear powers.

Contrast this with the way Higgs describes anarchic mayhem–wholly conjectural. All that anyone who objects to the idea of anarchy and personal liberty can do is to point out the possibility that “something bad MIGHT happen”, which simply cannot be allowed. Yet these believers in the Statist religion do not understand and deliberately refuse to even consider that pure anarchy has the potential to bring human relations to a point where we can peacefully co-exist with each other without being afraid that some nebulous, nefarious “other” will try to attack, overcome, and destroy our way of life. They cannot imagine that any group larger than one (themselves) can associate and cooperate voluntarily without the implied threat that an armed, uniformed Agent of the State is constantly lurking in the shadowy background, ready to pounce and punish any wrongdoing or aggression. They cannot imagine living life without someone coming to their rescue whenever they are in (real or perceived) danger. They need a hero, a guardian, a pale rider.

This otherwise astute article is concluded with this bit of truth, which I wholeheartedly agree with.

“The State isn’t broken, it’s doing exactly what it’s designed to do. And for that reason, it must be left behind to die. Stop letting yourself be tortured by sociopaths. Withdraw your support now, your life depends on it, and there is no Batman coming to save you.“

No, Batman is not coming to save us, but we always have Trump, who will make everything right. Again. Forevermore. Amen.

Yeah, right, and Jesus is coming back real soon to “rapture” us out of our own self-induced predicament.

“Gentlemen, the time is coming when there will be two great classes, Socialists, and Anarchists. The Anarchists want the government to be nothing, and the Socialists want the government to be everything. There can be no greater contrast. Well, the time will come when there will be only these two great parties, the Anarchists representing the laissez faire doctrine and the Socialists representing the extreme view on the other side, and when that time comes, I am an Anarchist.”

William Graham Sumner

I like the conclusion Sumner reached, but I differ with it in one point. I will not wait until the time comes when there are only two opposing views or classes. I am an Anarchist now.

Made in God’s Image? Or Man’s?

Roger Mitchell9 Comments

Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to the, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

Genesis 1:26-28 (NKJV)

This article was sparked out of a difference of opinion. I follow a blog, Bionic Mosquito, and comment often on the topics written about, as do others. One of these others made a statement which I took exception to.

“Man WAS made in the image of God, but lost that image when he sinned against God. Man by procreation is created in the image of man (Genesis 5:5) for now all men die.”

The Preacher

BTW, the scripture reference should be Genesis 5:3, not 5:5. I must be honest here. I had never seen nor heard that Man WAS made in God’s image, but is not now, so I wrote this reply–“I do not agree with this. Man was, and still is, made in the Image of God. That image, though tarnished and corrupted by the effects of sin, is still there and will always be evident to anyone who wants to see it.”

Here are two different, contradictory, incompatible opinions. They cannot both be right. Either Man WAS and still IS made in the image of God or he IS NOT, implying that he is made in the image of something else—himself. You can read the entire conversation here. Scroll down to the comments. See also the links below for reference. 

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/family-qa/what-it-means-to-be-made-in-the-image-of-god/

https://www.christianity.com/wiki/bible/image-of-god-meaning-imago-dei-in-the-bible.html

https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/what-does-it-mean-to-be-made-in-gods-image

https://biologos.org/articles/what-does-image-of-god-mean

I am not interested here in defining the meaning of the term, ‘image of God’. It seems to me that this can never be completely and fully explained since we will never know exhaustively what it really means. The best we can hope for is an approximation in the same manner as the six blind men of Hindustan, who tried to explain what an elephant was, each by feeling a unique feature of the beast. The consensus was that an elephant is like a tree, a rope, a snake, a wall, a fan, or a spear. This only confirmed the truth that, while they may have been accurate from their own perspective, none had an overall view of the whole animal. Deciphering the image of God is like that. Besides, there have been innumerable other people, smarter & better educated than me, who have tried to sort this out over the centuries and still are found wanting.

Instead, I will address the question of whether sinful man has lost that image or still carries the imprint even though it is impure and imperfect. Put in simple terms, The Preacher argues that Man (humanity at the beginning, Adam and Eve) were created in the image of God, but that due to the sin of “eating the apple”, that image was removed from them. All their descendants through the ages no longer bear the “mark”, but image another entity, sinful man, who is “created” through the natural act of sex, conception, pregnancy, and birth. The foundation for this argument is seen in Genesis 5:3, which reads,

            “And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years, and begot a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth.”

There are numerous definitions of the meaning of the word “image”, but for our purposes, Merriam-Webster offers this:

4a: exact likeness : SEMBLANCE

God created man in his own image—Genesis 1:27 (Revised Standard Version)

4b: a person strikingly like another person

she is the image of her mother

A person strikingly like another person. This easily corresponds to Genesis 5:3, in which it is recorded that Adam “begot a son in his own image, after his likeness,…” It does not take a great deal of imagination to see this as saying that Seth resembled his father, Adam. Semblance, according to the same source, means an actual or apparent resemblance. (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/semblance)

Now, I confess that I have never read the Bible through from start to finish in a determined, time-constricted manner. I have never studied it systematically nor rigorously. I have never been to seminary nor even received any formal Biblical education other than years of church attendance, beginning at a very early age, i.e., within days after my birth, and on and off over the rest of my lifetime. Therefore, when I make the following statement, it should be considered as springing out of ignorance and lack of knowledge, rather than a dogmatic, obtuse point of view. If The Preacher (or anyone else) can show me where I am wrong about this, then I will admit my mistake and change my course. Until then, I will hold to my belief.

This idea, that Man is now created in the image of Man rather than the image of God stems from the above-mentioned verse and ONLY from that verse. I will go so far as to say unequivocally from that verse alone. There is absolutely nothing else in Scripture which could be construed as implying that humanity is created in anything other than the image of God. The doctrine is drawn from one isolated verse and is simply not supported scripturally.

In my research, pitifully small as it was and quite reliant on Google, I found nothing which identified any other single verse of Scripture which expounded on the term “image of Man”. (I asked The Preacher to give me links to information which bolstered his case, but got no answer.) In fact, when I typed in the search term, “image of man”, I found, literally, nothing relating to Scripture. Oh, there are plenty of sites linked, but they are not scriptural and usually have to do with photographic images of “men”, some of which are probably pornographic in nature. I do not know because I did not click on them. However, as a means of exploring this issue scripturally and philosophically, there is an absolute silence on Google.

On the other hand, typing in the search term, ‘image of God’, immediately brings up a vast array of links, with many references to scriptures throughout the Bible which uphold the idea that Man is created in and contains the Image of God. Many of these have links to other sites and articles which proclaim the same message that Man is indeed made in God’s Image. In fact, there are so many rabbit trails one could explore that it would be easy to lose sight of the original mission.

If you are skeptical of my claim, check it out for yourself using the search terms I have given. The weight of Scriptural evidence in favor of man being created in God’s Image simply overwhelms any opposing assertion. For instance, among others, 

  • “This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.” — Genesis 5:1
  • “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God, He made man.” — Genesis 9:6
  • “With it [tongue] we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God.” — James 3:9
  • “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God…” – 1 Corinthians 11:7
  • “What is man that You are mindful of him, and the son of man that You visit him? For You have made him a little lower than the angels, and You have crowned him with glory and honor. You have made him to have dominion over the works of Your hands. You have put all things under his feet.” – Psalms 8:4-6

It is a real stretch to assume that Man no longer bears the image of God in the light of these verses. In fact, it is impossible to read anything in them except that Man was (and is still being) created in God’s image.

I have some questions for The Preacher.

First, how does he explain Enoch? “And Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.” (Genesis 5:24) Very clearly, this verse says, without equivocation or waffling that Enoch had a close relationship with God. Yet, in The Preacher’s comments, he says that this is impossible.

“After the fall of man (read Genesis 3), he cannot have access to the Father, his flesh will die, because the Spirit of God left him and now his soul, body and spirit are “on their own””

“The answer to eternal life is to regain that image that was lost by believing that God himself as a man came to redeem us from our sins, being a propitiation for them and that we embrace and put our faith in that truth, God will restore that image by the Holy Ghost (as the Comforter) and since “Christ is in you”, then you have eternal life.”

In other words, Enoch, who was born thousands of years before Christ, was a “dead man walking”. He was on his own. He did not have access to the Father. However, Genesis 5:24 and the Book of Enoch tell a different story entirely. I do not put much stock in the Book of Enoch (although it is interesting reading) and it is understandable why the Christian church does not recognize it as Scripture, but it vigorously opposes the idea that sinful man does not have access to God. On its own merits, Genesis 5:24 plainly puts the lie to The Preacher’s bald-faced assertion.

Second, what about Noah? “But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. This is the genealogy of Noah. Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God.” (Genesis 6:8, 9) Not only that, but Noah had sufficient access to God so that he received ample warning of the flood to come and was able to build a way out following God’s direction. Doesn’t sound to me like he lost connection.

Third, how does he explain the prophets? Samuel, who literally spoke with and heard from God, Elijah, who could call down fire from Heaven, or Elisha, who could show the armies of Heaven to his servant on a moment’s notice, and many others of the same ilk.

If Man no longer bears the image of God, then why is there so much ruckus made over the abortion issue? Are unborn children human beings made in God’s image? Are they simply “products of conception” or as The Preacher might be inclined to say, “products of procreation”? If unborn children and all other unwanted people are only images of sinful man, then why should we care? Why not adopt the attitude and policy of “kill them all and let God sort them out”? In fact, why are there any restrictions on the murderous behavior of Man anywhere? Does this not play into the hands of the tyrannical, evil version of Hell on Earth (Utopia) in which many must die so that some, a few, can live well? After all, what is Man that we should be mindful of him?

Does God inject the “spark of life” into the fusion of a sperm and egg cell at conception? Who does the “creating”? Is Man now entrusted with that task himself? Has life now become a random chance event? Since The Preacher mentioned procreation as the means of creation (see the quote above), can this be taken as saying that God no longer directly is involved with it but has removed Himself from the process? This sounds suspiciously like the doctrine of Deism on an intimately personal level. God originally created Man, including the process by which Man would populate the Earth (procreation), but then removed Himself and is now allowing it to simply play out by itself automatically. God does NOT intervene in the affairs of Man anymore and is relegated to wringing His hands, waiting and hoping that Man, sovereign Man, will come to his senses eventually.

If Man creates himself and God is absent from that manufacture, then what is the use of God at all? Does He not become irrelevant to Man and, if so, can He not be safely and completely isolated and removed from the affairs of men? This recalls Nietschze’s famous quote that,

            “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?” https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/22827-god-is-dead-god-remains-dead-and-we-have-killed

Indeed! Now that Man can create himself and now that God can be shoved aside as an afterthought, Man can now become God in his own right. Because Man is worthy of it. Who can argue with that? Who would want to revert back to the “good old days” of Paradise. Practically everyone, but we want to do it on our own terms, not those of God.

If we adopt the idea that Man is created in his own image, then we must accept that there is nothing Man cannot do. Of course, the people at the Tower of Babel found out differently, but we have not yet learned that lesson. Even those who ought to know better fall prey to the temptation.

“The imago Dei is not a quality possessed by man; it is a condition in which man lives, a condition of confrontation established and maintained by the Creator. Thus in no sense can we speak of man losing this image. “What man does not possess he can neither bequeath nor forfeit.””29 — https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-image-of-god

Man is, always has been, and always will be, created in the image of God. That image defines us. It is our condition. It cannot be lost. It is what separates us from every other part of Creation. Without it, we are no longer human.

They Can’t Both Be Right!

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

Within the last two days, Lew Rockwell has published two articles (See Ron Unz and James Howard Kunstler.) on the controversy over the Covid-19 mRNA injections so widely pushed by the Establishment and its lapdog media, and so cravenly accepted and submitted to by a genuflecting public.

These articles are contradictory. Unz promotes the view that obesity and its deleterious effects on individual health, more than anything else including the mRNA shots, caused a spike in death rates in 2020 due to the so-called Covid-19 virus, which plucked the low-hanging fruit before the “vaxxine” came into widespread use. He cites studies which review statistics from numerous countries around the world to bolster his case. Statistical analysis, which Unz is very good at, becomes the base of his argument, which is heavily linked.

On the other hand, Kunstler takes a more populist approach. Kunstler claims, without citing a single outside source, that is indeed the mRNA product which is killing so many people unnaturally. He offers no scientific reference as proof that his statements are true and only engages the reader with rhetoric. He develops the argument that by caving in to the Covid authoritarian regime and orders, the medical establishment has lost its trust with the general public. That trust, destroyed due to the abandonment of medicine’s first principles and the surprising lack of interest in exploring the issue, will be only regained, if ever, by a long process of restoring the idea that a doctor’s first order of business is the health of his patient, not submission to a dictatorial bureaucracy.

Only one of these two can be true. Neither may be, but it is plain that both cannot be. Either the Shot Foisted Round the World is killing people or it is not.

My take on the matter is this. Ron Unz makes a very good case and his statements might be proven correct, scientifically and statistically, in the long run. However, we are not living in the long run, but in a time of emotional upheaval and turmoil in which everything about the present system is questioned and under fire. It is at moments like these that people like James Howard Kunstler can rise to the top of the froth, influencing large amounts of public thought for good or for ill.

I do not know which of these two men, if either, is correct. Certainly though, if Unz is right, then the medical establishment carries the primary burden of not working toward a healthy, disease-resistant population through teaching people to take their own health seriously, preferring instead to simply prescribe pharmaceutical solutions to the ills so many suffer as they become more obese, more sedentary, and less physically and mentally healthy. Over many decades, medicine has travelled down the road of increasing corporate profits at the expense of the general health of the patient and, in this, Kunstler is absolutely right. Because of its neglect and disinterest, the cartel of modern medicine has wrecked what used to be a sacred trust–“First do no harm” in the pursuit of profit and power.

Due to the deteriorating situation we find ourselves in, voices like Kunstler’s are going to become louder and more prevalent. People will gravitate toward demagogues rather than dry, rational arguments. When trust is lost, it does not matter how truthful or compelling an argument is. In times of intense turmoil, logic cannot compete with emotion.

In the short term, my money is on the Kunstler types. In the long term, I hope that I am still alive after what promises to be a wild ride.

The Fear is Palpable

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Yesterday I tuned into the football game between Buffalo and New England and tuned out nearly everything else for the next three hours. It was a fine spectacle of sportsmanship, athleticism, strength, durability, and skill, as all professional games usually are. In the wake of the tragedy suffered by Damar Hamlin just a few days previously, the win by Buffalo showed that the team could perform on a high level in spite of the situation and they deserved everything they won.

Thinking about it later, I was reminded of the movie, Seabiscuit, in which the jockey, Red, was severely crippled just before the all-important match race and had to listen from a hospital bed as his horse cruised to victory under the guidance of another rider. I am sure that Damar Hamlin celebrated in his own way just as much as Red did. I wish Hamlin the very best in his recovery.

There was, however, an episode which happened just before the game started to which I took vehement exception and still fills me with distaste. In the game preview, the announcers were discussing what had happened to Hamlin and its effect on the team. During the conversation, at least four times in the first few minutes, the word “guilt” was used. It sounded as if they were saying that the rest of the team had to overcome the guilt they felt before they could play successfully. Guilt? For what? That Damar Hamlin was in hospital fighting for his life and they weren’t? That they could play and he couldn’t? In a very real way, this attitude is no different than feeling guilty because you were involved in an auto accident caused by another driver in which your wife was killed while you walked away without a scratch. Or maybe during a shooting war because one of your best friends was grievously wounded and severely crippled for the rest of his life. None of this was your fault and you could not have done anything to prevent it, yet you feel guilty because someone else was hurt and you weren’t?

Sorrow? Grief? Compassion? Yes, absolutely! I can understand that, but guilt? Why?

There is something much deeper here and everyone knows it, yet they will not talk about it. Neither Jim Nantz nor Tony Romo, both of whom appeared to me to be visibly distraught and not their usual selves, mentioned it. It is the elephant in the room which everyone tiptoes around, knowing that it is there and acting as if it is not. Due to extreme pressure from the government, the NFL, and society, most of the players and staff had been jabbed with the Covid-19 mRNA injection. Probably both Nantz and Romo, along with the support staff who make the broadcast work, were also participants in this life-and-death experiment. It is a credible assertion that at least half, probably more, of the fans in the seats had also been inoculated with the “safe and effective treatment” at least once, many on multiple occasions. This is arguably the case over the entire playing field of the NFL in America.

They know it. They will not talk about it.

Now, I am not a medical doctor, practitioner, nor expert in any way. I have nothing more than minor field experience in the most rudimentary ways about first aid or response to a medical crisis. I do not know whether Damar Hamlin took The Jab or not. I do not know what caused him to collapse on the field after he took a shot to the chest. I do not know whether he experienced a case of commotio cordis. I do not know whether it was due to some other natural unexplained cause. I do not know and will not speculate, although many others have, including virtually all establishment figures who are pushing the narrative that he did suffer from commotio cordis, even though they have not examined him and also do not know.

[Not that it matters, but I know what it means to take a serious hit to the chest. When I was about twenty years old, I was kicked by a horse squarely in the middle of my chest. It laid me on the ground for quite a few minutes, but as far as I know, I have not suffered any other adversity due to it. I did not seek any medical treatment and never told my parents. I am extremely grateful that I survived.]

This event has all the makings of a conspiracy theory approaching the level of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963, although I doubt that the revelation of the truth about Hamlin will drag on anywhere near as long as that has. In fact, considering the sheer number of young, healthy, and extremely fit athletes in the prime of their lives who are dropping dead for no apparent reason, I expect that it will only be a few years before we see and hear the raw, naked truth of the matter. Did Hamlin get the shot? That can be easily proven. Did it cause his heart to fail on the playing field in Cincinnati? That is still being debated and may never be known, but the powers-that-be do not have what it takes this time around to control the narrative as they have since Kennedy was shot. There are too many people, including myself, who suspect the worst and will not be silenced. The truth will come out about this. I believe it will be soon.

They know it. They will not talk about it because they are afraid to admit that they could be next. This might explain why Tony Romo mentioned guilt so many times. However, it is not guilt that he (or anyone else) feels, but fear. Raw, naked fear.

Of this I am certain.

Of the Making of Predictions, There is no End.

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

Just about a year ago, I posted an article in which I listed numerous predictions which I thought would (or could) occur in 2022. Looking back on those, it is plain that I was spot on with some of them (The Good: #1, The Bad: #1, 7, 8), but face-planted in the mud right out of the starting gate on others (The Good: #2, 4, 5, The Bad: #3, 9, 10). Many could show some measure of success on a sliding scale (The Good: #3, The Bad: #4, 5). All that proves is that I am no “prophet” at predicting the future and, due to that fact, no one has to be afraid of what I say.

One event which has considerable importance in the world’s economic climate actually played out very nearly to what I had stated, namely, that the Nasdaq would fall 40% from its high at the beginning of the year 2022. See here for evidence. In fact, the Nasdaq started 2022 valued at 15, 832.80 and finished the year at 10, 466.48, or a decline of 33.5%, only slightly lower than my “official” prediction. This says nothing about my ability to forecast the stock market, but does show that I can look at current events and make a lucky guess…sometimes. (Full Disclosure: I do not trade stocks in any way, shape, or form, and did not profit from the yearlong slide of the Nasdaq. Perhaps I should have.)

Nevertheless, enough of the gloating and groaning. It is time to move on. 2022 is past, 2023 is well underway, and with that introduction, here is my list of predictions for the next year. Short, snappy, and easily proven right. Or wrong. As always, these are only guesses and do not mean anything more than what I expect could happen. Use your own good judgement.

  1. The unraveling of the C.O.V.I.D. narrative which became evident in 2022, will continue. The “officially unexplainable and puzzling” deaths from “Died Suddenly” syndrome will increase dramatically and become too prevalent to ignore or cover up. Pfizer’s CEO, Albert Bourla, will become the man America loves to hate.
  2. Due in part to the heavy-handed attempts to jab everyone with the mRNA witches-brew, resistance to the long-standing childhood vaccination protocol will also surge. More and more parents will question the wisdom of inoculating their young children with unknown chemicals which may be detrimental to their health and well-being. The link between multiple vaccinations and autism will become more firmly fixed in the minds of millions who have lost their trust in official incantations of medical science.
  3. Home schooling will be adopted by millions of suddenly awakened American parents who decide that their children are more important than the boat in their driveway.
  4. An end to the war in Ukraine will suddenly be negotiated after Clown Prince Zelensky is assassinated.
  5. The “woke” movement which reached its apogee in 2022 will begin to decline precipitously (falling off a cliff?) in 2023. Corporations will fall all over themselves trying to create distance. “Get Woke, Go Broke” will manifest itself as the Mantra of the Year. Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion proves itself to be true once again, in spite of the efforts made to try to prove it false.
  6. China will not invade Taiwan due to chaos at home. North Korea, following China’s lead, will not invade South Korea, but will continue provocative missile launches. Serbia will invade Kosovo, inflaming nationalist sentiments within the EU and sparking secessionist movements throughout Europe.
  7. Donald Trump will suffer a debilitating stroke, causing him to withdraw from politics. His die-hard supporters will be forced to look for salvation from another direction. Ron de Santis will immediately move into the vacuum. Mitch McConnell will suffer a fatal heart attack while speaking to reporters outside the Capitol Building. Anthony Fauci will die mysteriously in his sleep, giving rise to a “conspiracy theory” that he was “Epsteined”.
  8. The FED will hold the line on interest rates. Joe Biden will order FED chair Jay Powell to end quantitative tightening and return to a policy of easy money. Congress will be unable to find anything to eliminate in the Federal budget for FY 2024, declaring that “painful cuts” are just simply not possible.
  9. A bill will be introduced into the Texas legislature to begin formally considering secession from the US. It will die in committee. No other states pick up the baton.
  10. And last, but not least, my favorite. Against long odds, the Jacksonville Jaguars will win the Super Bowl, creating an instant tsunami of “dedicated” fans.

Tower of Babel, Part 2

Roger Mitchell1 Comment

“My fellow Americans – I am honored and humbled by the trust the American people have placed in me and in Vice President-elect Harris. In the face of unprecedented obstacles, a record number of Americans voted. Proving once again, that democracy beats deep in the heart of America. With the campaign over, it’s time to put the anger and the harsh rhetoric behind us and come together as a nation. It’s time for America to unite. And to heal. We are the United States of America. And there’s nothing we can’t do, if we do it together.”

This is from a statement made by Joe Biden, the presumptive winner of the American presidential election. Notice the last line. Notice the assertion that unity of purpose in anything means success at whatever we attempt. Compare this attitude with that of the story of a civilization long lost in the dust of antiquity and mythology–the Tower of Babel, found in Genesis 11. Verse 6 is the link between then and now.

“And the LORD said, “Indeed the people are one and they all have one language, and this is what they begin to do; now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.”

Almost literally word for word. “There’s nothing we can’t do.” “There’s nothing they won’t be able to do.”

https://poorrogersalmanac.com/2020/11/08/the-tower-of-babel-american-version/
https://www.thehistoryofart.org/pieter-bruegel/tower-of-babel/

Immediately after the election of 2020, I compared Joe Biden’s statement with the Biblical narrative of the Tower of Babel. Now, two years later, John Whitehead has joined the chorus. For those who are not familiar with Whitehead, he is constantly churning out articles which detail the abuses of the burgeoning, increasingly aggressive Deep State, otherwise known as the US government.

In a recent article published at the Rutherford Institute, commentators John and Nisha Whitehead detailed a litany of grievances against the situation in which we find ourselves today, where totalitarian, aggressive government is now riding roughshod over our “rights” as free, individual Americans. They conclude that,

“Unfortunately, we have done this to ourselves.

“We allowed ourselves to be seduced by the false siren song of politicians promising safety in exchange for relinquished freedom. We placed our trust in political saviors and failed to ask questions to hold our representatives accountable to abiding by the Constitution. We looked the other way and made excuses while the government amassed an amazing amount of power over us, and backed up that power-grab with a terrifying amount of military might and weaponry, and got the courts to sanction their actions every step of the way. We chose to let partisan politics divide us and turn us into easy targets for the government’s oppression…

“We” may have contributed to our downfall through our inaction and gullibility, but we are also the only hope for a free future.

After all, the Constitution begins with those three beautiful words, “We the people.” Those three words were intended as a reminder to future generations that there is no government without us—our sheer numbers, our muscle, our economy, our physical presence in this land…

Remember, there is power in numbers.

There are 332 million of us in this country. Imagine what we could accomplish if we actually worked together, presented a united front, and spoke with one voice?“

ibid

Whitehead is right. We cannot blame anyone else for the situation we are in. If you want documentation of this read 1 Samuel 8. It details what happens when a people clamor for, support, endorse, and follow a tyrannical government. 

“And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.” — v. 18

Did you get that? The “king” which you have chosen for yourselves. Or, in our case, the government that we have voted and lobbied for continuously without end.

Whitehead is also wrong. “We” are not the only hope for a free future. For him to make this assertion is to confess that he has just cut God out of the picture and promoted Man to that position. There is only One Hope for mankind and it is not, most definitely not, “We, the people.”

“If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves and pray and seek My face AND [emphasis added] turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven and will forgive their sin and heal their land.” 

2 Chronicles 7:14

The unspoken corollary is that IF we do NOT turn from our wicked ways, then America will not be healed. A word to the wise is sufficient. 

Considering that John Whitehead is adamantly vocal about the dangers of a unified, all-powerful government, it is ironic that he should write something like this.

“There are 332 million of us in this country. Imagine what we could accomplish if we actually worked together, presented a united front, and spoke with one voice?”

Yes, imagine that! While you are at it, imagine Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Utopia. Better yet, imagine the Tower of Babel where “they, the people” were unified and spoke with one voice. Even more so, try to imagine what is going to happen when the judgments of heaven are finally unleashed on this country because we have tried to build a “city” for ourselves from which we cannot be dislodged.

Instead of attempting to recreate a “Tower of Babel” situation, we would be far better off to “…humble ourselves, pray, and turn from our wicked ways…”, beginning with the false notion that only the State can offer us “…liberty and justice for all.”

Whitehead ought to know better.

Making History

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Wednesday, December 07, 2022 2:29 PM

Recently a friend of mine who works for KLA-TV created a short (17 minute) interactive documentary about the history of Jeanette Rankin, Missoula, MT. Several people from the local area did the voiceovers and I was pleased to be able to participate as well, reading a quote from Harton W. Sumners, a Texas Congressman.

For those who are not familiar with Jeanette Rankin, she was the first female member of Congress, elected in 1916, partly due to her anti-war stance, and cast a “No” vote when Woodrow Wilson requested that Congress declare war on Germany in 1917. She then lost her seat for a number of years, but ran again in 1940, also on an anti-war platform and regained the office. She then made history by casting the only “No” vote on FDR’s request for approval following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Dec. 07, 1941.

Yes, you read that right. She stood alone against the entire mood of the country and made her position very clear.

This is a very well made video and raises considerable questions about America’s entry into both WW1 and WW2. My part begins at 13:42. Click on one of the links at the bottom of the page.

   

The other news.
Free – independent – uncensored
www.kla.tv
Dienstag, 08. January 2019

Dear Subscribers!
Today is the anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, which caused America’s entry into World War 2. But did you know that one person voted against going to war on December 8th 1941? Get to know who that was and why she did it in this broadcast. (Click one of the links below)

Why is this relevant today? Aren’t we in a very similar situation. A regional war that could be expanded into a world war at any time. Will we go along or ask the critical question: Qui bono? Will truth and peace prevail this time? It’s up to us. 
Please watch and share this critical broadcast on this historical day, so that entries into war remain dark days in history that never repeat. 

Yours sincerely,
Daniel Goebel with the Kla.TV Team.

 Kla.TV: www.kla.tv/24318
 YouTube: youtube.com/watch?v=z5jhXeM1kqc
 Facebook: facebook.com//watch/?v=680163490161075
 Telegram: t.me/s/KlaTV_EN/500

Battle Lines: A Question of Allegiance

Roger Mitchell4 Comments

I write primarily for myself. I also write in the hope that someone, somewhere, will read what I have written, consider it, and make a shift in their opinion, small or large, in the direction I advocate. I am not paid nor do I write to build an audience, although that would be nice.

With that said, this argument is bound to be controversial and may cause some readers to write me off as insane, unpatriotic, un-American, dogmatic, and perhaps even unchristian. Nevertheless, as the battle lines between good and evil are becoming more sharply focused and redrawn, I have no problem throwing this out for inspection. There is no neutrality, no common ground between good and evil. God is my Judge.

So many Christians in America today deplore the state of the country, claiming that it must be experiencing the Judgment of God a la Romans 1, beginning in verse 18. Part of this “condition” is because these people look at the blatant immorality which is widespread and increasingly openly defiant, and make the conclusion that America is under judgment for its sins. One major problem with this attitude is that God, not only is, but has always been judging this country (and the world), and will continue to do so…forever. Judgment is not something which is simply switched on or off like a light bulb. There is no time at all when God is not making assessments about behavior and issuing either positive rewards or negative punishments which are appropriate to the behavior. America’s judgment did not begin with the election of Barack Obama and it was not deferred for four years with the election of Donald Trump. In fact, it has been ongoing since the very founding of the nation and it will continue until America itself enters the dusty confines of the ashcan of history.

That being said, it is easy to point fingers. Homosexuality is now mainstream and accepted as normal. Abortion is killing our future. Transgenderism is at odds with reality. Schools are teaching CRT to clueless children. Homelessness is a blight on local economies. Rampant drug use is out of control. Violent predators are targeting our neighborhoods. And on, and on, and on. Ad infinitum. The cause for all these circumstances, we are told, is because we have simply NOT elected the right leaders to enact the right laws which will usher America into its bright future. Oh, and by the way, the first step we ought to take to restore OUR country to its former glory is to reinstate prayer back into the school curriculum from which it was ousted by a Supreme Court ruling decades ago.

Yeah, that ought to fix it.

Speaking of prayer…

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Contrast that with my own version.

“I pledge allegiance to the Cross of Jesus Christ, and to His Kingdom for which it stands, one Holy Nation, under God, incorruptible, with liberty, justice, and love for all.”

Allegiance. People all over the country recite this pledge monotonously, as a matter of course without ever thinking about what they are saying. What is allegiance, anyway? What does it mean to pledge allegiance? Why is this an issue of importance, especially to those who have also “given” their lives to Christ, promising to follow His steps and way, renouncing their “connection” with the worldly pattern? Here are a few definitions, slightly paraphrased solely for ease of reading.

The act of binding yourself (intellectually or emotionally) to a course of action

The loyalty that citizens owe to their country (or subjects to their sovereign)

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/allegiance

The obligation of a feudal vassal to his liege lord

The fidelity owed by a subject or citizen to a sovereign or government

Devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegiance

Binding. Loyalty. Obligation. Fidelity. Devotion. Regardless as to which dictionary definition is used, these words or others like them are going to be present. Boiled down to its basic elements, allegiance is swearing to submit and adhere to any certain philosophy, action, cause, government, authority figure, and/or belief, among others. It always requires commitment and sacrifice on the part of the individual to an entity, establishment, institution, idea, or another person who is on the receiving end. It is an oath, a solemn promise, which is not lightly broken.

In the Pledge of Allegiance, this oath of commitment is given to an emblem, a symbol of the nation known as the United States of America AND to the system of power which rules the nation. Government, in other words. Call it a republic, if you wish. Or democracy. It does not matter. It is impossible to separate the flag from the form of government which holds power. It does no good to claim that one’s allegiance is given to the ideal of the founding principles of America and not to its present day form. This is a package deal. Either you buy into it or you don’t.

For those who self-consciously call themselves Christian, this is a major problem. It is a contradiction of their supposed spiritual beliefs. By virtue of voluntarily submitting their lives to the rule of Christ, they are automatically brought under and implicitly (maybe explicitly) swear allegiance to that rule. This is publicly shown in the act of baptism, in which the believer acknowledges that he has “died” to one way of life and been “reborn” into another to which he now is obligated. His allegiance is now owed to the Kingdom of Heaven and its rule is supreme over his life.

Can any person have allegiance, devotion, fidelity, or loyalty to two or more opposing, contradictory viewpoints, philosophies, or governments? Is it even possible to have TRUE allegiance to more than one at a time? My position is that it is not and that anyone who asserts they can is deluded. One or the other will reign and those who try to play both sides will find inconsistency in their position. This push/pull dichotomy is inherent to our sinful nature and will never be completely conquered this side of death. Unfortunately, many Christians refuse to acknowledge the issue and prefer to ignore the contradiction for one reason or another.

Is it any wonder that the Church of Jesus Christ today is impotent?

When an earthly government orders its citizens to do anything, anything at all, which is diametrically opposed to what the Christian faith demands, which allegiance is going to prevail? How committed are you and where do you draw the line? If you swear allegiance to the United States and that government orders you to do something which is at odds with your Christian beliefs, will you go along with it even though it causes “cognitive dissonance” within your soul? If you are a Christian, whenever evil is present in government, how can you support that evil without first abandoning your commitment to righteousness? The short answer is that you cannot. You must choose which course to follow.

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

Jesus Christ, Matthew 6:24

And Elijah came to all the people and said, “How long will you falter [equivocate, dither, refuse to choose] between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.” But the people answered him not a word.

1 Kings 18:21

Is it extreme to say that standing, taking one’s hat off, placing a hand over one’s heart, and reverently reciting an oath of allegiance to a flag, an emblem of a political entity, is an act of idol worship? Probably, and in the minds of many self-professing Christians is cause for disagreement. After all, they will say, I do not really worship the flag. However, is not the Gospel of Jesus the Christ also extreme in its message? And does not the Gospel demand that a person forsake everything, that is, everything, for the sake of the truth? And, considering what passes for American politics these days, why should anyone cling to the flag as if it was the arbiter of truth or going to save them from their distress? Furthermore, politics divides people and turns them against each other, whereas the goal of Christianity is to unite them in purpose, truth, and love. The practice of politics is antithetical and antagonistic to Christianity and ought to be abandoned as a means of bringing peace to a troubled world.

Will this happen? En masse, not likely. It is a lonely path. Most Christians in America today have too much to lose by renouncing their slavish devotion to the political State. Remember that it was only 2-1/2 years ago that churches everywhere shuttered their doors because the State “strongly encouraged” them to do so as a result of the Corona virus appearing on the scene and frightening everyone nearly to death. How many churches would go “out of business” if their 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status was revoked? How many Christians are enamored of the belief that America is “good” regardless of the evidence to the contrary and will not listen to anything else? How many are prepared to die for their country, but will not sacrifice their comfortable, middle-class life for their Sovereign?

My country, right or wrong! This is a common phrase among the true believers in national politics. Unfortunately, it is used as an excuse to condone the evil which emanates from society and its government. Those dedicated to the cause of Jesus Christ are not allowed to rest here. Instead, they are required, to root out evil within their own personal lives wherever they are, wherever they live, wherever they go, in His Name and sometimes this means that a separation from the mainstream is in order.

Do not be equally yoked together with unbelievers. For what fellowship has righteousness with lawlessness? And what communion has light with darkness? And what accord has Christ with Belial, Or what part has a believer with an unbeliever? And what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For you are the temple of the living God. As God has said: “I will dwell in them and walk among them. I will be their God and they shall be My people.” Therefore “come out from among them and be separate, says the LORD. Do not touch what is unclean and I will receive you.”

Apostle Paul, 2 Corinthians 6:14-17

This is a lonely road. Do not take it lightly.