Tag: government

Christian Health Care–Courtesy of the State

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Or, should it be Statist Health Care, Courtesy of the Church?

“From the beginning of Christianity, love for one’s neighbor and the example of Jesus’ concern for the sick have compelled Christians to care for the ill and dying. As a result, the Catholic Church has been involved in health care for centuries. In the first hospitals, which were in monasteries, monks and nuns provided care for the sick and dying, especially the poor. The wealthy were taken care of at home.”

https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/christianity-compels-us-provide-health-care-poor-politicians-must-do-their-part

Thomas Reese, a Jesuit priest, published this article less than two weeks ago at National Catholic Reporter. I found it by chance and I thought the above paragraph consistent with history and Scripture. Unfortunately, it was thrown, as an orphaned poor step-sister, into his argument, which started out with this contradictory title: Christianity compels us to provide health care for the poor. Politicians must do their part.

Yes, absolutely, even the non-Christian politicians and bureaucrats must be harnessed to the task. Separation of Church and State be damned!

Reese made pretty short work of the concept that love for one’s neighbor and the example of Jesus should dictate how we approach the issue of health care for the poor among us. Instead, almost from the beginning, he pivoted to the idea that the State should be doing the heavy lifting:

“A single-payer system would reduce administrative costs and give the government the power to negotiate lower prices with drug companies, doctors and hospitals. Hospitals and doctors could be required to post their fee schedules online to encourage competition.”

“The government could also be more generous in forgiving student loans of doctors and nurses who serve the poor. It should also fund research and public health that reduce health care costs. Eliminating vaccines and fluoride, which some of our national health leaders seek to do, will simply raise health care costs as preventable illnesses and dental problems could increase.” 

“As a nation, we need to move toward Medicare for All, a tax-funded health care system that includes all medically necessary care. We can start by allowing employers and individuals to buy into Medicare even if they are under 65. We should also start by providing Medicare for All to anyone under 18 years of age, including children in the womb.”

This is about as political as it gets, but then he adds this gem.

“Such programs will cost the government money, but the current system is both costly and wasteful.”

About which, I ask, who built the current government run system and if it is costly and wasteful now, then why does he think that giving the government more power to manipulate, regulate, and control will make it any better?

All this is beside the point, however, as Reese’s first mistake is to conflate the Church with the State. As individual Christians, we have an obligation to care for the sick and poor, therefore, the political system we live in and under MUST also care for the sick and poor in order to produce the results which are expected from the followers of Jesus. This is a false equation as there is a vast difference between the mission of the Church which is to heal and comfort out of a genuine love for those it ministers to, and the mission of government which is to gain power regardless of the harm it does to those it seeks to subjugate and use.

There is no place in the Scriptures where it records that Jesus told His disciples to take over the political system so that the hungry could be fed and the bed-ridden raised up healthy. In fact, He constantly had to disabuse them of this notion. Instead, He encouraged them to voluntarily give of their own substance to those who were less fortunate and, as a result, the early Church developed a system of community in which they took care of their own and outsiders as they were able–all without the “assistance” of an external entity which operated on theft, force, and violence.

How does Reese expect the government to afford what he proposes? There are only two ways that government can raise revenue: either by borrowing money which has to be repaid with interest out of the second method of revenue enhancement, which has many various versions but is known by one name–theft, e.g., taxes, inflation, outright confiscation, penalties, etc. Government does not own anything which it has not previously taken from someone else. If government spends more on healthcare tomorrow than it does today, it must run larger deficits (borrowing) or take more from productive society (theft). Both these versions are roundly condemned in the Scriptures as either unwise and/or criminal.

Conversely, the Bible promises that the Church gains materially as it gives spiritually. As individual Christians become more like Christ, they are blessed by God and made richer (emotionally, spiritually, physically) for one purpose: that they will give even more to benefit more people. Note that we are not only considering material wealth here, but everything which we are blessed with. Since the Church (and every organization which has two or more persons in it) is made up of individual members, if the individuals, as individuals, become wealthier, the Church, as a collective, will also and this accumulated wealth can then be spread around to needy persons as seen fit by those who control the flow.

One major distinction to make is that everything governmental involves force, sometimes brute, violent, and lethal force. People are made to submit and comply on pain of punishment if they don’t. The message of government can be summed up in just a few short words, “You will, dammit, or else.” The mandated position of the Church could not be further from this, as Jesus taught that anyone (everyone) could participate in His life-giving freedom if they wanted to, but that participation was completely voluntary and had to come from one’s heart without compulsion. There is nothing forced about salvation or true Christianity and for anyone, especially a recognized minister of the gospel, to claim that the gospel must be practiced by taking from those who have to give to those who don’t is a sacrilege and does dishonor to the message of Christ Himself.

Reese begins to wind up his screed with this reminder.

“As Christianity compels us, we need to put aside our arrogance and partisanship on health care and do what is best for the nation and its people.”

Well, yes, we do, but arrogance and partisanship are integral parts of government and to expect those to be extirpated on behalf of the nation and its people is unrealistic and delusional. Besides, as a formally recognized leader in the Catholic Church, he ought to be the first to do so.

Finally, in his last gasp at trying to force the issue, he writes:

“And, if Congress is incapable of reforming the health care system, we should take away their generous health care plan and put them on Medicaid. That should wake them up.”

In other words, to put it bluntly, repay evil with evil, a practice which is strictly forbidden by the Word of God.

The fact is that Congress is incapable of reforming the system, partly because its individual members benefit greatly from the system itself, but also because most Americans, the vast majority of them, from the very top of the heap to the lowest dregs on a trash-ridden slum, demand that the government gives them what they want, at someone else’s expense, and Congress is only too happy to oblige them. They are all, all of them, part and parcel of an evil, unchristian way of life and the only way to change that is to change oneself. Changing the system for the better is not possible. Changing yourself is, provided that the Spirit of God is given permission to operate, no pun intended.

COVID: A Modern-day Hydra

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

COVID is over. At least, I thought it was over. In fact, I wrote an article and posted it here on August 15, 2021, in which I said that the tide of the war had turned and, from that point on, the battle was going to become increasingly desperate for those who were determined to ram the fraud down our throats and inject all of us with their favorite deadly toxin, while trying to shut our mouths with their stupid, silly dust mask mandates. At that time, I called it a “gut feeling” and I still think I was right.

Well, yes, but Adolf Hitler didn’t blow his brains out until the Soviet Army was only five hundred yards away from his bunker and closing fast. And COVID is like that, refusing to die peacefully, still wreaking havoc wherever it can, hanging on until the bitter end, i.e. until there is no more money to be made from it and no more foolish idiots to gull. The fact is that a lot of people still wear their stupid, silly dust masks, believing beyond credulity in the efficacy of a piece of fabric to keep them safe. Chain stores like Walgreen’s and RiteAid are still pushing the Pfizer and Moderna shots, often coupling them with more traditional “flu” shots to draw in customers. Not quite like “Buy one, get one at half price!”, but close enough.

Speaking of the mRNA shots (I will not call them vaccines), I became aware the other day (hat tip, Mr. B) of a bill, H.B 371, introduced into the Montana State House which would ban, literally outlaw, the use of mRNA injections for human “consumption” within the state. You can read the text here. It was just shot down by a sizable majority, with all the Democrats and a large percentage of the Republicans voting to kill it.

https://projects.montanafreepress.org/capitol-tracker-2025/bills/hb-371/

https://bills.legmt.gov/#/laws/bill/2/LC1463?open_tab=status

If I was a swearing man, I’d ask “What the *&^%?” is the matter with these people? Are they not aware that the mRNA shots have probably killed more people than the virus itself, which was probably engineered in a Wuhan, China lab with the strong financial support of certain people in the US government? All paid for with your tax dollars and inflation, no less. Nice, neat, and tidy, wasn’t it? Well, maybe Elon Musk can sort it out. Maybe Anthony Fauci will go to jail, but I’m not holding my breath.

What is going on with the legislators in Helena, anyway? Why would they vote to turn down a ban on something which is strongly suspected (speaking graciously) of being a deliberate, orchestrated killing protocol unleashed on a trusting public? Why indeed, and I can only think of one answer: someone got to them and convinced them that it was in their best interest to bury this bill. Possibly, human nature being what it is, the convincing might have involved the transfer of a substantial number of Benjamins. Bribes, in other words, but then, I’m only speculating. Maybe promises were made to donate to the next campaign season, which every politician looks forward to. At any rate, looking out for the best interests of their constituents must have been the last thing on their minds.

Do you live in Montana? Do you want to see an end to this bullshit? Then I encourage you to find out which way your local representative voted and contact them with either a note of thanks for voting “Yes” or a fiery, blistering condemnation of their action if they voted “No”.

Click here, then scroll down to 2nd Reading, Show Full Vote Breakdown.

After all, this is your government, right? Didn’t you just participate in an election which sent these people to Helena as your “representatives”? If they are your representatives, then they are supposed to work for you, not an international corporation which enriches itself by keeping you sick. Or worse, making you dead.

Yes, yes, I know. Pure, blatant populist rabble-rousing, isn’t it? Well, maybe that’s what it takes to get you moving. If the shoe fits, wear it.

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.”

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.

A Potential Blessing from Hurricane Helene

Roger MitchellLeave a comment

Faith in government is a religion.

Since the birth of the nation-state, at the least, and the Enlightenment, many people have sought after and promoted the idea that government (State) is the highest form of authority and power. They have attempted to build systems to bring everyone into the system, which would become all-encompassing or to dispossess and destroy those who refused to bow before that authority. The Soviet Union (1917-1989) is the premier example of such a system.

Religion is inevitable. Everyone has a religion, even those deluded souls who claim that they don’t, because religion is nothing more than a belief system which informs and directs a lifestyle. Everyone believes in something and, at the very apex of that belief is something (someone) which is viewed as the most supreme. God, in other words. Those who believed (many still do) in the Soviet Union’s Marxist principles held it up as the highest pinnacle of achievement that man could reach. The total State was to become everything and everything was to become the State’s property.

In the United States, government has been constantly growing ever since the birth of the nation in 1787, when the Constitution was signed after a successful rebellion against the Crown of Britain. Americans, of all stripes, have continuously advocated for, worked for, voted for, and accepted a government which could become all things to all people. Today, of course, after nearly 250 years of incessant grasping for power, the US government has become a monstrosity which threatens to out-do the now-defunct Soviet Union. It has, for want of a better description, nearly achieved the status of God in the eyes of its followers, adherents, and groupies.

Circumstances, however, have a way of destroying people’s faith in government. For instance, in the aftermath of Hurricane Helene, which devastated much of the southeast, especially in the rural areas of Appalachia, there have emerged reports that the federal government is actively blocking and prohibiting private endeavors from helping and assisting those hardest-hit. Many have lost everything they owned. Many more are literally without food or good water, yet FEMA, the federal agency tasked with working to restore society after a disaster occurs, has admitted that it is broke, out of money, and unable to perform its tasks and responsibilities.

Broke! With the modern ability to move a decimal point on a computer screen, push a button, and inject trillions of dollars into the economy on a whim, how can FEMA be broke? The obvious answer is that the money is available, but the powers-that-be have decided not to use it. In this situation, the real intent is not just to ignore the plight of those harmed, but to actively and deliberately destroy any and all opposing forces, however small, which would seek to take action on their own—WITHOUT the blessing of the State. This is a deliberate attempt to eliminate competition to the State and to force everyone to become totally dependent on the State.

The State gives and the State takes away. Blessed be the Name of the State!

The major problem with this is that the blatant contempt which is shown causes individual people to change the way they view government. People used to see government as “good” and necessary to the smooth functioning of society, but that attitude is rapidly changing and the response to Helene has probably given it a huge push forward. Those in Appalachia who clamored for decades for government “assistance” when they didn’t need it are now finding out that it is nowhere to be found when they are desperate.

Civil government is losing the trust of its citizens and with that loss, its authority to rule. Trust in anything must be built up over time and is based on the perception of reliability, but if it is once lost, it is almost never regained and the whole relationship changes. What was once given freely will now be withheld. Governments collapse and disappear because of the widespread loss of trust its citizens give it and it is quite possible that this one will not survive. Hurricane Helene may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. If so, it will be seen in history. If not, it has added measurably to the load.

Who do people turn to now? When it is evident that their god has failed them, they change their religion. Many people will transfer their trust and faith in government and the State to some other authority which will be someone they are at least somewhat familiar with—Jesus Christ. This is, after all, the Bible Belt. They will take this message to heart:

“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.” — 2nd Chronicles 7:14, emphasis mine.

This is a conditional promise. If, then. Time will tell what happens in the hearts and minds of men and history will record the result.

Theft by any Other Name

Roger Mitchell3 Comments

Conquest is what you call simple theft when it’s perpetrated by a large, well-organized group.

I have lifted this statement from an article by Doug Casey, in which he examines why Islam and the Muslims are likely to win out over the Western culture in the long running, loosely defined war between them. Casey does not get into the morality of theft, but says that the reason the Islamic conquerors in the Middle East became wealthy at all is due to military conquest and heavy taxation of the conquered people. Islam, he says, is not suited to innovation and production, but must rely on spoiling its richer neighbors to enjoy the benefits of profitable enterprise.

This article which I posted recently, Murder by any Other Name, explored the issue of declaring murder a crime if committed by an individual but completely acceptable if committed by a large group, I found it quite interesting that Casey would come out with something very similar about theft. It fits with the conclusion I reached about murder. However, simple theft by consensus is far more prevalent, tolerated, accepted, and practiced than simple murder. The average person might not consider himself a thief because he does not take wealth directly from his neighbor on threat of violence, but he is not the least bit remiss in demanding that someone else, a government of his choosing do the sordid deed for him.

See this definition of theft, which is fairly good.

Theft, boiled down to its essence, is the act of taking something by one person (group of persons) which rightfully belongs to somebody else, without their consent. If you want something which is not yours and you take it, even if the rightful owner does not want to give it up, then you are a thief. It does not matter what is taken, if it is taken against the will of the owner, then it is theft. It does not matter whether the item in question is real, monetary, intellectual, psychological, or sexual. A schoolgirl’s gossip which destroys the reputation of a classmate is just as much an act of theft as a street gang extorting cash from a terrified pedestrian, the dispossession of the world’s poor by genteel, suave members of a multi-national bank sitting in a C-suite boardroom, or the mulcting of citizens by governments through taxation.

Most people would protest that they are not thieves, yet in one respect, their protestations are inconsistent and do not hold water–the use of government to force others into actions which are against their will. Most people do not have one bit of trouble about getting government to raise the taxes on their neighbors if they think they will benefit. Most people have no problem with passing laws which restrict, regulate, control, ban, or otherwise infringe on someone else’s life. Yet, the fact remains, that anything, anything at all, which takes away from rightful ownership is thievery and it is irrelevant, should not matter, that the thievery is condoned and encouraged by a large number of people.

What this tells me is that most people, at heart, have a thievish nature and are not remiss in exercising that whenever they can. However, it is entirely possible that they simply do not understand the dynamic of the issue and might change if they did. Not likely, but possible and I would be quite pleased if a large number simply swore off taking things which didn’t belong to them–either directly or via proxy.

At the very base level of any society or culture stands the individual. Every collective of any sort, from very small to very large, is made up of single individuals acting together. It is important to understand that changing the collective thought requires a change of thought at the individual level. To change a society of thieves into one of honest men cannot come from the top. It is not caused by law, regulation, or punishment. It MUST happen within the hearts of individuals, causing them, as individuals, to stop the destructive behavior in their own lives. From that starting point, it spreads outward to their families, friends, neighbors, acquaintances, and eventually the entire society.

Change yourself, change your world.

Another parable He spoke to them: “The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened.” — Matthew 13: 33, cf., Luke 13:21

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.

Fear is a Harsh Mistress

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

This article was inspired by a conversation with an acquaintance and encouraged by this recent quote from Gary Barnett:

“…the truth hurts, but without acceptance of truth, what is left is a deceitful lie…”

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2023/08/gary-d-barnett/the-only-national-defense-needed-in-this-country-is-defense-against-the-real-enemy-the-ruling-class-and-the-u-s-government/

The title of the article is adapted from Robert Heinlein’s novel, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I have reason to believe that Heinlein would not be offended by my use of it.

There are only two reasons to believe that government is necessary, neither one of them positive nor uplifting:

1. A personal desire for power and control over other people, with the purpose of getting what one wants via the use of force, and/or,

2. A deep-seated, irrational desire for protection against imagined events which might, but are not guaranteed to, happen.

It is accurate to say that those who use government at any level from the very top to the very bottom seek control of others via the proxy known as government for personal, selfish desires, i.e., to get what someone else has OR as a bulwark against loss, i.e, to keep what they already possess. Neither of these are Christian attributes. Both are grounded in one basic emotion–fear. Both use force, either implicitly or explicitly to attain their goals. Both are a violation of the commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Steal.”

Everything which is negative in life can be boiled down to fear. Fear was the very first emotion expressed in the Garden of Eden after Adam and Eve ate the apple, causing them to cover themselves with fig leaves out of shame for their nakedness. Fear of being found wanting caused them to try to hide from God, resulting in their being driven away from and deprived of the right to live forever. This assumes that the Genesis account is accurate. Whether it is or not, the principle is the same.

Fear, all-encompassing, unreasoning fear, consumes us as individuals and societies. It conjures up imaginations deep within our souls which, if allowed to come to pass, might cause enormous pain, suffering, and deprivation, perhaps even death, which is usually resisted to the very end with all the strength we can muster because we are afraid of dying. Fear causes us to develop tactics and strategies to overcome these imaginations, which, being rooted in irrationality, exacerbate the fear and drive us to greater effort in devising new methods to overcome it. It is a repetitive cycle, a doom-loop, which never ends within our minds–unless it is broken completely and thoroughly discarded as a way of life.

In all of this, it is understandable why people first banded together to oppose enemies, whether they had two legs or four. When violent death via saber-toothed cats was a constant threat, they learned quickly that there was safety in numbers. When marauding Stone Age bands from different tribes appeared on the horizon, it was necessary to follow the leader to repel the threat. What evolved out of these situations was a system in which some people learned that existential threats were good for their status within the community and they began to devise ways to manufacture fear to keep their subjects in a continual panic-driven state of mind. Government became the norm as it became more and more evident that the populace could be manipulated into submission and subjection due to a perceived, existent threat. We have now progressed to the point where the threat does not have to be existent, i.e., Covid, Climate Change, or Russia!, Russia!, Russia!, but is only perceived to be. We are constantly bombarded with propaganda which serves the purpose of maintaining and consolidating the false narrative–which is designed to keep us in a perpetual state of fear.

Bad things do happen to good people. This is true. It is a fact of human life. Into every life a little rain must fall. However, this does not justify giving up our human liberty to an external government in the hope that somehow, perhaps, just maybe, the threat will not materialize or, if it does, that the government will defeat it before it strikes us, keeping us safe and our way of life secure. We do not need to live this way.

We do need to be aware of the potential dangers around us. Yellowstone might blow. Kim Jong-Un might unleash an EMP attack in the airspace above Nebraska. A respiratory disease might kill half the population, including myself and/or those close to me. Aliens might invade. A meteorite might strike the world. The economy might collapse tomorrow. And on, and on, and on…infinitum. [Note: the present economy will collapse someday and another will take its place. This much is certain. All the others mentioned are purely conjectural. Of these, there is no guarantee that they will occur.]

Yes, there are dangers and threats, but we do not have to be afraid. We can conquer the fear within our own individual lives to the point that every potential threat remains just that…only a potential threat and refuse to allow it to gain control over us. We can choose to live fearlessly, unafraid of what the future might bring.

“You shall know the truth and the truth will set you free…” (John 8:32) were the words spoken two thousand years ago and they ring true today. This brings up the question, however. What are we set free from? Obviously, wars, diseases, and earthquakes still happen. Auto accidents occur. Marital infidelities abound. Crime is rampant. Any of these, et al., might happen to us at any time. Therefore, we cannot say that the truth will automatically preserve us from these nor from any other specific negative event. What we can say, however, is that the truth sets us free from being controlled mentally and spiritually by fear. The truth sets us free from one thing and only one thing–fear. If we are free from fear, then there is nothing which can stop us from achieving our destiny in this life. If we are free from fear, we become uncontrollable by other people and are accountable only to the truth–that we are children of God, responsible only to Him, and, as such, can live freely.

As people who profess faith in Jesus Christ, we should understand that the greatest enemy we face is not an external one, but the one which resides within us. It should be our goal to overcome this enemy so completely that it is rendered perfectly impotent. We are, as the Scripture says, more than conquerors (Romans 8:37). Instead of giving in to the fear which we are all prone to, we ought to recognize that God, not a government nor any impersonal event, holds our future and that nothing, absolutely nothing, can happen to us unless He allows it.

“Without faith, it is impossible to please Him.” — Hebrews 11:6

I do not need government. I am not a threat to anyone and I am not afraid of what life might bring. I am confident in my faith in the Sovereign God Who is my provision and my protection.

Why would I have need to fear?

The True Nature of Politics

Roger Mitchell2 Comments

Hypocrisy in political life is not uncommon. In fact, most people pander to it in one form or another. Both Republican conservatives and Democrat liberals are united in one thing—their shameless inconsistency whenever pet issues are brought up and their support for “righteous” or “virtuous” government whenever it is convenient. See Jacob Hornberger or Laurence Vance for examples of this. See my own articles here and here.

Let’s look at a few issues hotly debated today—abortion, drugs, immigration, and guns. Should these be controlled and regulated by the Feds or by the various states? Sadly, both factions believe that one or the other should hold the controlling reins, depending on what is at stake and the popular political opinion on that specific issue.

For the purposes of this article, Democrats will include anyone who is generally left of center, liberal, and/or progressive. Republicans will include anyone who is generally right of center and conservative. Keep in mind that these are only generalizations on a large scale and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint(s) of any single individual.

Democrats are in favor of the federal government controlling the abortion issue. Roe v. Wade cannot be tampered with or weakened in any way. Any state law which attempts to circumvent it must immediately be stopped. The federal blessing of abortion on demand must be maintained at all costs, no matter what.

Democrats are also in favor of the federal government controlling, regulating, restricting, and/or outlawing and prohibiting guns. In fact, as time brings more mass shootings, the calls for the Feds to “do something” only grow louder. For them, this issue, like abortion, is much too important to be left to the states.

However, when it comes to drugs and immigration, Democrats are usually quite vocal about wresting these issues away from the Feds and allowing the states full control over them. Quite often, liberal-leaning states find themselves at odds with Fed policy on these.

Republicans, on the other hand, tend to favor smaller, more local government when the issue is abortion (Roe v. Wade must be overturned) or guns (the ultimate state’s rights issue), but are in a hurry to grant the Feds a huge amount of power when the conversation turns to drugs (outlaw them all, especially the harder ones like heroin, cocaine, and meth).

For Republicans, immigration also comes under the purview of Federal control, not so much because it is Constitutionally mandated to the Feds, but because the states, especially the liberal ones, simply can’t be trusted to do what is “right” about the limitless hordes pouring across “our” borders.

There are countless others which could be compared in the same way, but I think I have made my point. Both factions adamantly favor federal control over some issues, while vigorously supporting state control over others. The only difference is which side of the political divide one stands on.