As long as you’re happy

A work colleague of mine shared a picture about the LGBTQPXYZ phenomenon being celebrated in western culture at the moment. After a few pictures displaying various pairings of men and women kissing, the question was posed, “As long as you are happy, does it matter who you fall in love with?”

With little to no thought, a person could answer to the negative, “no, it doesn’t matter.”

With more thought, I think most people would hesitate to say, “no.”

But that’s just me speculating, right? Let me stand on firmer ground and speak for the person I do know, namely me!

The fact is that, even in western culture, personal happiness is not the litmus test as to whether acts of intimate and erotic “love” are appropriate. Such an idea that personal happiness is a test of propriety or morality is called hedonism and is still rejected by most. This is easy to prove by asking a few questions to people who use such a hedonistic question to justify LGBTQPHWR.

Me: So you wonder what’s wrong with acts of affection and romantic love as long as that person is happy, right? It doesn’t matter who you love, right?

Free-lover: That’s right.

Me: So if a grown man or woman shows romantic affection to a prepubescent child (or a child under the legal age, if the free-lover is a statist), that’s ok as long as he or she is happy, right?

Free-lover: Errrr …

Me: So if a mother falls in love with a son or a sister shows signs of romantic love to her brother, irrespective of age – they could both be over the state-imposed age of consent or under, whatever – then that’s ok?

Free-lover: But …

Me: If a person shows romantic love to an animal, as long as that person is happy …

There are not many people who can consistently say, “as long as a person is happy, this is all ok.” But in this day and age, there are a few that will stick to their guns. I won’t deal with their argumentation now.

The fact is that incest, bestiality and pedophilia are rejected regardless of the happiness of the participants. But the person who stops at LGBTQESNK and rejects the other variations of “love” and happiness don’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to their arbitrary limit. Neither do they have any authority to tell another human how to live without becoming a bully and a tyrant.

When I see the question, “As long as you are happy, does it matter who you fall in love with?” my answer is the same as that of the Creator of all: YES, it matters, especially when it comes to consummating such a love! And if people are unwilling to have his standard as a standard for behaviour, then such a group will sink into the bile of subjectivity.

Advertisements

What do you stand for?

But what exactly does it mean to stand for something? Rather than the opposite of sitting, it means to hold firmly to a particular opinion or belief. To stand for something means you give it your wholehearted support. (What Does It Mean To Stand For Something? Wonderopolis, https://wonderopolis.org/wonder/what-does-it-mean-to-stand-for-something)

According to Collins dictionary/thesaurus (found here), it has three meanings or connotations: to represent something (hence synonyms such as to mean, to exemplify, to denote); to tolerate (hence synonyms such as to suffer, to bear, to endure); and to support (hence synonyms such as to champion, to promote, to recommend).

It’s that last meaning, to (whole-heartedly) support, that is relevant to this post. I’ll come back to it.

According to the seven laws for humanity as described in the Torah tradition, the base obligations of a human being not Jewish is to avoid certain forbidden actions. The core laws do not directly govern beliefs or thoughts, only actions. Unfortunately that is made unclear by some teachers that state that certain beliefs are commanded by the seven core laws, but, at least in the context of this post, I won’t focus on that. So a Gentile who hasn’t committed acts of injustice, God-cursing, idol worship, theft, murder, incestuous or adulterous sex, bestiality or living-meat eating, they have fulfilled or obeyed the seven laws, regardless of thoughts or belief.

It’s important to set that foundation here because where I go next will show itself to be more a philosophical point, one dealing with thoughts and beliefs, and not necessarily a seven-laws legal point.

Now amongst Gentiles that knowingly and willingly, maybe even devotedly, keep the seven laws, there are those who have a strong allegiance to the values and laws of their “country.” By “country,” I mean the people group owned by a certain gang called “government.” [I’ve already discussed the fact of population ownership by the government-mafia in a previous article so I won’t dwell on it here.] You’ll see from previous posts, there are those that “stand for” British values. There are those that stand for their American constitution (according to what I’ve read, the fact that amendments have been ratified makes them part of the constitution). I’m gonna call these people “noahides,” since many call themselves by that name and generally associate keeping the seven laws with also a conscious belief in their divine Mosaic origin.

So there are a fair amount of nationalist noahides or patriotic noahides. And yet those noahides will say they stand for the seven laws.

I want to repeat something here. The seven laws are the standard, the basic standard, for non-Jewish humanity. It applies to individuals and thus groups and therefore governments and their laws, to the rights and values created by such governments. Those seven laws prohibit injustice, cursing God by his name, the active worship of idols, etc.

So I’m going to compare British and American standards that patriotic noahides claim to “stand for,” support and wholeheartedly give credence to, and compare them to the seven laws that those people also claim to “stand for,” champion and promote. Not only that, but let me also compare the common view of “noahide” that many “stand for,” namely a God devotee or acknowledger who keeps the seven laws based on that acknowledgement, with the values of the “country” those noahides also stand for.

Oh no, David. I can see where you’re going with this.

Yeah, I’m sure you can.

So, according to Article 9 in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in the UK, there is such thing as “freedom of thought, conscience and religion” in which it states,

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. (Human Rights Act 1998, https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1

In an amendment to the American constitution, it states the following.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. (U.S. Constitution, Amendment 1, The U.S. Constitution Online, USConstitution.net – https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am1.html)

As you can see, British and American law protects the exercise, the manifestation, the active worship of all manners of gods. If you look at the whole depiction of the right in British law, you’ll see there a clearer rendering of the fact that such a “right” is actually limited by the dictates of the political gang, that people don’t truly have freedom of religion unless that religion submits to the “true” higher power, the State.

Anyway, that’s a different subject. The main point is that when a nationalistic noahide stands for the US constitution or British values or that of any country that espouses similar values, they say that they give their wholehearted support to the legal protection of the active worship of various religions, including idolatrous ones.

Compare this stance with the seven laws.

A gentile who worships false gods is liable provided he worships them in an accepted manner.

A gentile is executed for every type of foreign worship which a Jewish court would consider worthy of capital punishment. However, a gentile is not executed for a type of foreign worship which a Jewish court would not deem worthy of capital punishment. (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars, chapter 9, law 2)

The seven laws oppose active worship of other gods. Add to that the following teaching.

The general principle governing these matters is: [Gentiles] are not to be allowed to originate a new religion or create divine commandments for themselves based on their own decisions. (ibid, chapter 10, law 9)

So the core divine morality for Gentiles rejects the existence of novel religions throughout time.

So what does a patriotic noahide stand for and support? The legal protection of the free expression of active worship of other gods, the existence and practice of religions? Or the prohibition against such practices and actions? It can’t be both. A person cannot stand for fully supporting the legal protection of idolatry and religionism on one side and fully supporting the legal prohibition of such things. That is called self-refutation or self-contradiction.

I can already hear a counter-argument.

But, David, such a prohibition, even if divine, isn’t practical right now. We don’t live in a time where the seven laws are upheld by nations or communities. So we have leeway to support the best practical system we have now which would be that of my own country at present.

I would love to hear such reasoning with regards to murder. Remember, the seven laws are the most basic standard for Gentiles given by God. As well as being intended to be implemented legally, they are a code of morality too. Thus the argumentation is saying that, because morality isn’t practical right now, we have leeway to give our full support to immorality. If one therefore lives in a land where theft and murder and sexual immorality are prevalent, the seven laws not being practical, one can give their full support to the legal protection of murderers and thieves.

[On a side note, supporting government in our gentile lands normally ends up with giving support to the legal protection of the immoral. Just look at Hilary Clinton or Tony Blair.]

This sort of reasoning makes God’s commandments something of a convenience. When it becomes inconvenient, they can be legally abrogated and the noahide would stand for such an abrogation. And thus such a noahide cannot be said to stand for the seven laws.

It would be my normal modus operandi to belabour the point, going through each place and point where the stance of “standing up” for values of a country’s government contradicts the seven laws or a wider human morality. But why hammer the point on the one who chooses to read this? The point is very simple. I’ll reiterate it.

The seven laws govern actions, not beliefs, so I cannot condemn the patriot noahide for an evil act against the seven commandments. But when I look for faithfulness to the seven laws, the way they judge the actions and “laws” of humanity, then it cannot be found in the nationalist who gives wholehearted support (the meaning of “to stand for”) to a system that opposes that of the seven!

What makes this a bit strange is that those who call themselves “noahides” and their rabbis teach that a “noahide” is one who keeps the seven laws because God commanded them to Moses. Yet the nationalist noahide supports systems of government or values that are anti-truth and anti-God. Does that make sense? “Hey,” says the noahide, “you can only be a ‘noahide’ if you believe God gave the law.” Oh. Ok. “Now let me stand up for, let me champion, anti-God or godless systems of people control.” Huh?!?

Again, I’m not going to again bring up the contradiction between what I see as a greater morality and government, like a document or belief that a gang can make loans and make their victims and their future generations pay the cost. [It’s ok; I know rabbis teach that people are the property of the government, so that makes it ok, right? Not!] I won’t focus on each of the seven commands and spout out my deep abhorrence for the successful bullies called “government” due to the way they help to screw up world morality, being very influential in screwing up the minds, hearts and lives of people. No, I won’t do any of that as I think I’ve made the point.

It’s great to be a person who avoids those acts God forbade us Gentiles. It’s fulfilling, not commanded but fulfilling, to know it is God who gave those prohibitions. But how many people push past the simple inner conviction about God and Torah, the religious and spiritual bits, push past the nice feeling of doing what he says, or reading/studying a book from a rabbi, push past that and crave a consistency between private life, seven law convictions and political life?

Life goes on.

https://ia601504.us.archive.org/32/items/WhatDoYouReallyStandFor/What%20do%20you%20really%20stand%20for.mp3

The Strange Things People Say

As an anti-establishment guy still devoted to the seven laws for humanity, for Gentiles, I hear some weird stuff that comes out of the mouths of those deemed rational. Actually the word “rational” is also an source of … errr … damn, I can only think of the word “stupidity” again. I need to work on that.

Anyway, let me start with the odd terms I hear.

“above the law”

Now I ain’t talking about God’s law. I only refer to man’s. And it’s a protest I hear from anyone who feels aggrieved about someone else getting their own form of justice apart from government. Or it may be a complaint when someone disregards manmade law. “Do you think you’re above the law?” “He took the law into his own hands.” And it seems to be intrinsically linked to how people mystify what “the law” is. It is seen as some objective and true standard for human behaviour and morality, as if they are not the product of the human mind, having somehow become detached or immune from human frailty, agenda, bias and imperfection.

What is “law” when generated by a human? At its base, it is an expression of an opinion in the form of an imperative or a command. That opinion is then given the backing of violence by other humans. That is all. Any elevation beyond that is mystification. How so? Well, to mystify is to involve a mystery or obscurity. Then how does the opinion of a person become something greater than just an opinion? Violence? Nope, or else the threats of gangs … I mean the threats of other sorts of gangs (government is just a gang) would be seen as “law.” But they aren’t seen as laws. No, there is some mysterious force, some mystery, that is added to the opinions of another human being that transforms it into “law.” I’ve only found that mysterious force to be baseless faith.

In light of that, what does it mean to be “above the law” with regards to man’s law? It only means that you’ve rejected an opinion and choose to go with your own. When a person “takes the law into their own hands,” without the mystifying faith, it is a meaningless phrase.

So, the phrase, “above the law,” when it comes to man-generated edicts, is a worthless phrase.

The next weird phrase.

“disgrace to the uniform”

This is normally attached to those who are members of “law enforcement” (considering what I just said about “law,” this reveals the inherent unjust nature of this role) or the army. When someone is a “disgrace to the uniform,” they’re seen to have done something against some subjectively selected standard or code of behaviour.

The problem with the phrase is that it assumes something honourable or morally upright about the role or office of law enforcement or about being in the army. Is that assumption valid?

I could take a number of approaches here. I could use the powerful reasoning demonstrated by Robert Higgs. I could look towards the seven laws. Or I could talk about the problem with accepting the role of order-follower which is what a policeman or army officer naturally is. Actually what Robert Higgs said and the role of “order-follower” may be linked, so …

Hmmm …

Let me start with the seven laws for humanity.

There is nothing innate in the role of law-enforcement or army officer that has to do with upholding or keeping any of the seven divine laws, even the law of Justice. There is nothing inherent in the “uniform” that denotes the protection of freedom or the establishment of good morals. In fact, the uniform, the role, has a history of tyranny and bullying, of corruption and injustice than any positive role. The role and the history of the role have more to do with protecting the breaking of the seven laws than the upholding of them.

Why would I say that?

Just thinking about this makes me realise that all the points – Robert Higgs, order-following and the seven laws – are, in fact, one. You may see it too as I continue, if you hadn’t seen it already.

So, going back to the previous question, why would I say that?

Because the army and police are not some independent entity of goodness and love. Because the army and police are merely the physical presence of the threat and violence of government. The government issues the threats (“laws”) and the police and the army are the humans who implement, make real, the threat and coercion.

As governments have not been entities of morality and justice, but rather are the victory of those who seek power and prestige, a trait that rarely goes hand in hand with integrity and truth, then they rarely do good acts and generally do immoral and unjust acts. And the army and police are the actualisation of that immorality and injustice.

In terms of the seven laws, the role of police and army means the protection of idolators and idolatry, the protection of those who curse God’s name under freedom of speech (whilst attacking those who go against the governments’ arbitrary speech laws), the protection of murderers who kill the unborn and the ones who carry out the demands of tyrannical and unjust judges and lawyers. They become the ones who kill and oppress people in their own land and the lands of others, the ones who perform the conquest and invasion dictated by their government, stealing from individuals under the colour of “law.”

History has proved that time and time and time again, yet the deluded chattel called statists, “patriots” and “nationalists” still give honour to the dishonourable, give reverence to the role and uniform that is the punching fist underneath the smoothened glove of political power and the cult of personality.

Assuming there is honour in the role, the uniform, is the assumption, the taking into oneself, of a lie, a dangerous lie.

For the most, all the police and army do is what the politicians, the ruling class, tell them. That dovetails into the words of Robert Higgs and the role of order-follower.

In case you can’t see the image, this is what it states as a quote from Robert Higgs.

The “good/bad cop” question can be disposed of decisively. We only need to consider the following:

i. Every cop has agreed, as part of his job, to enforce laws; all of them.

ii. Many of the laws are manifestly unjust, or even cruel and wicked.

iii. Therefore, every cop has agreed to act as an enforcer of laws that are manifestly unjust, or even cruel and wicked.

There are no good cops.

It’s the nature of cops or army officers, at the very least in its lower ranks, to obey orders, inherently the dictates of the rulers called “laws,” or the dictates of their superiors. [As an aside, it’s been observed that many in the military or law enforcers behave like members of a cult, possibly being trained to behave in such a manner, treasuring the “brotherhood” over morality.] The excuses often associated to these groups are phrases like,

“I was only obeying orders.”

And

“I don’t make the laws; I just enforce them.”

They are phrases of irresponsibility where the human is merely a tool of the masters who are supposedly ultimately responsible for the deeds of the “tools.” If there’s one thing I’ve learnt from the seven laws, especially the prohibition against murder, it’s personal responsibility. If someone hires a person to kill another, then, generally, the culpability of the act falls on the person performing the act, not necessarily the hirer (although the hirer still has some guilt and is not altogether innocent in terms of human morality). In terms of the police and army, the injustice and immorality of the ruler would be nothing without them to make real their dictates.

The truth is that, since the uniform, the role it symbolises, has such a history of injustice and evil, a true disgrace to the uniform is the person who actually does good. But then would such a person, if they are cognizant and aware, don such a uniform, such a role?

Ok, next weird title is this: the “rationalist.”

Now according to a dictionary, rationalism is,

The theory that the exercise of reason, rather than experience, authority, or spiritual revelation, provides the primary basis for knowledge.

And

the principle or habit of accepting reason as the supreme authority in matters of opinion, belief, or conduct.

The doctrine that reason alone is a source of knowledge and is independent of experience.

Now, there is a set of people amongst those who accept the truth of God and the Torah revelation at Sinai who call themselves “rationalists.” A trademark of such a group is that they’ll reinterpret the text of the Torah in light of something called “modern science” or “science.”

As I’ve been complaining in both recent and not so recent posts, that thing called “modern science” nowadays is a perceived consensus of a mystical priesthood holding a tradition of occult “knowledge” beyond the normal everyday thinker. A surface level scraping of that “knowledge” is indoctrinated into children before the age of reason and critical thinking and reinforced using the bombardment of media, both subtly and overtly. Unsurprisingly, it becomes the foundation of reason for the “rationalist.”

Let me ponder on this claim of elevating “reason.”

How far away are the stars? A Jew espousing rationalism told me they were millions and billions of light years away. Is that an answer based on the elevation of reason? He never used the language of reservation or skepticism nor spoke in a tentative manner. It was in terms of truth. Again, is that a rational answer? There is no direct observation of the distance of stars! As was said by a 20th century astronomer, most of the information yielded by astronomy is not based on observation but rather “theory,” tentative explanations based on untestable assumptions. But that information is part of “modern science,” promulgated by a perceived consensus of the modern occultists known as “scientists.” That isn’t truth. Apparently and unfortunately, “rationalists,” those who are supposed to use and elevate reason, can’t seem to tell the difference between an explanation that is meant to be held with doubt, and actual truth.

Again, “modern science” being more about the consensus and the tradition of accepted authorities … wait, I’m missing something. Oh yes, the philosophy of materialism or naturalism, where “scientists” limit themselves to matter-energy, “natural” cause and effect explanations, rejecting supernatural, divine causes, namely, God. Funnily enough, the “rationalist” not only appeals to consensus and authorities, he prefers explanations from adherents to this philosophy, as if that is “reason.” For the Creator and Sustainer of the world to affect the world in a way that disturbs the “laws” of nature, the supposed fixity of natural order, is deemed almost forbidden as if he had broken a moral law. For him to act in this world outside of natural “law” is deemed wrong. He must work as if bound by his creation, according to the man of “reason.” And, of course, his workings must accord with the tentative explanations of the scientist, according to the “rationalist.”

Does this really sound like “reasoning” or simply following another “authority” and calling it “reason?”

I personally find the title “rationalist” to be like the title, “free-thinker.” It’s an ego stroke to make a person feel their views are on stronger ground, to make those who oppose their method and reasoning seem “irrational” or as a close-minded person. The fact is that a lot of people are using their reason to balance between what traditions to follow, which authorities have expertise and authority, and which lines of reasoning make the most sense.

But, and yes there’s a “but,” what makes “rationalism” strange or, at least, deceptive … did I mean “at least?” … anyway, what makes “rationalism” weird to me is that despite its claim of elevating reason, it is still bound in appeals to unwarranted authority (humans making grand “tentative explanations” about things no human has experienced nor can experience) and consensus, as if those things makes one’s stance more rational. It ignores the limitations of science, prefers statements of adherents of naturalism which can only be probable not objective truth in the place of Torah which comes from a Source that can give objective truth, and that approach is “rational,” reasonable? It ignores the power of bias and agenda in the realm of “science,” ignores the history of science with all the falsehoods and theories held to be true but later falsified or modified, holds tentative statements as true enough to use them to reinterpret Torah, and that’s rational? In a western culture where kids are indoctrinated in what they must believe, where, generally, the “rationalist” tows the same party line, goes with the flow, mainly agrees with doctrines inculcated pre-rationally, before a critical mind can be applied, promulgated by state education, and this “rationalist” deems himself “a man of reason?” A rational person?

Rational?

Yeah, right.

Anyway, that’s a few stances I find to be weird or strange.

Deceived by religion

I’m just sharing what I see as a true statement. The author or sharer is a person on Twitter known as “cyclopticalusion” (@cyclopticalone).

I believed in all science for my whole life and laughed at religion until I realized I had been deceived by the religion of science.

Taking things for granted

I don’t know how I got to hear about the “flat earth” issue or what got me to actually listen to that side of the debate. I had always heard of it in derisive terms, always with a sneer, a view that the people who held such a view were dullards, stupid, retarded. But something had peaked my interest about it, maybe a suggested video on the side of a video I was actually watching. Since I’m in the path of questioning why I hold certain things to be true, I thought I’d give it a listen.

Now let me set this straight now: I have not adopted the flat earth position.

Did I hear a sigh of relief? David’s not gone totally crazy, right? I won’t pretend I’m now acceptable to those who see my views as stupid, Luddite, “pre-scientific.”

But …

Yes, there’s a “but.”

But I no longer see the globe idea as the “true truth” either.

What, you’re still here? Not signed off? Not zoned out? Oh, wow. Errrr … do I … do I go on?

Oh yeah, I write this primarily for me, right? So at least if I’m talking to myself, I’ll always have an audience. (Damn, that sounds conceited … actually, not fully. I talk to myself a lot of the time, so writing my thoughts isn’t too distant from that.)

So, yes, looking into the flat earth subject revealed something to me that I should have known, that I know, but I didn’t fully. It showed me that I still take certain ideas for granted, accepting them as true, when I’ve never had a good basis for it.

For example, why did I accept that the earth was a ball? Because it’s what I was always told. That was simply and only it. It was always in the books or pictures around me as I grew up. If someone challenged me on why it is a globe and not another shape, or flat, I could provide no rationally compelling reason, no evidence. I had taken the words of people on faith. Added to that, I personally had never seen any curve to the place I live on. Added to that, I’ve never felt the alleged spin of the place I live, or its alleged orbit around a sun, or its speed around some galactic centre or its universal movement. Yet I took the words of people on faith.

But I had done that before. Many times. And many times, that faith or confidence was shown to be unfounded and false. So, apart from the comfort of having a viewpoint acceptable to the majority of people around me, why did I accept this teaching about a ball earth?

In the standard understanding of the “local” planetary system, the ball has people and an atmosphere stuck to it by means of a force called “gravity,” yet it spins at its equator at a speed of over 1,000mph, orbiting a gigantic fireball at a speed of 67,000mph, and that fireball is moving at a speed of 448,000mph with planets surrounding it, orbiting it, each planet having moons and there also being an asteroid belt in that system. And it all sticks together because of “gravity.” And the galaxy that the fireball is in is also moving at a speed of 1.34 million miles per hour.

People accustomed to looking at the numbers or who are acquiescent to what they’re told, those with an imagination to picture such a thing in the mind as if they were watching a sci-fi movie may shrug their shoulders and say, “so what?” I look at such an idea and realise one thing, a thing that I mentioned in a previous article: I know where I am and what I’ve experienced. I’m not a cameraman in space, in a place of perfect and absolute rest from which I can judge absolute universal motion. That would be a metaphysical position. That’s another way of saying I’m not in the position of God. I’m here, stuck on the land, looking out around me.

From my position, from the human position, I don’t experience any of that gloriously insane picture. Since humans live on this “plane” of existence, no person has ever experienced such a universe either, neither can they. They can theorise such a picture. They can calculate and create based on assumptions such a picture. They can use their computers to model such a scenario. But, as I’ve learned, science is a method that can be used to create tentative models, but it yields no dogmatic truth beyond what we experience.

Oh, added to that, the idea of the ball earth came with some evidences that don’t hold up, such as objects becoming hidden due to going over the earth’s alleged curvature? Binoculars and telescopes contradict that idea.

I’m not gonna go through the short list of evidences given. The issue is not that I’m convinced one way or another – or maybe I am convinced of something – but that I took an idea for granted and that I now have a skeptical view of all or both ideas.

“DUDE, ARE YOU DENYING GRAVITY?”

Depends what you mean. Do I deny that things tend to fall downwards, to the ground, unless enough thrust is applied? That’s what we experience. Do I believe, therefore, that gas can join together to become a fragment of rock which then attracts other rocks, like a non-metal-attracting magnet, and then becomes a great big rock that both manages to become an almost perfect sphere and ignites its insides to make a molten core, and then manages to get another massive rock to orbit it rather that just be attracted to it to become a bigger clump of rock? I’ve never experienced that or anything like it. And it doesn’t sound credible or plausible to me.

“DUDE, ARE YOU DENYING SCIENCE?”

See, now I’m glad you asked that question because this helps reveal to me the authority, the “god” that many bow to today.

When a person asks this question, here’s what they both imply yet can never truly mean:

“Are you denying the obvious and absolute truth?”

There’s something … That’s the elevation that’s been given to “science” in that it is now the measure of the truth. But what can science never give? The truth! It is a method, one method or a group of methods, that a person can use to investigate the world. But it is limited by the user, a user of imperfect knowledge and limited perception, affected by biases and internal and external pressures cannot hope to get “the Truth” from it, only plausible ideas that are subject to change or abandonment.

But also note, a person can also mean, when they ask such a question, this: “how can you deny what the consensus of the authorities say?” It’s an appeal to authority and consensus as if that too is a measure of a truth to be invested in. In order for such an appeal to be valid, the authority (understood as “experts” not the controllers or owners) must be valid. The expertise must be based on truth. In order for consensus to be worth anything, the individuals and establishment must be bereft of bias or agenda.

The authority/expertise fails immediately in this context. The subjects I’m pondering are not within human experience but are outside of human experience, involving something metaphysical: absolute motion.

And the scientific endeavour would have to have a sufficient record of morality, truth and correctness. But it’s a house built on inferior foundations. Every so often there is a paradigm shift and it’s not based on correctness or truth but popularity and politics. Its method necessitates falsifiability and probability, and its history is strewn with the many carcasses of theories once held dear but were falsified. The science industry, normally a tool of the powers that be to control the people, much like the priesthood of old if not its direct descendant, the science community is set apart from the rest of us humans as objective and selflessly searching for truth when, in truth, it behaves like any religion. It gives a veneer of agreement and consensus, giving simpler statements of belief to outsiders and laypeople, but look deeper and there’ll be the same discord and dissent, disagreement and debate. Its edicts are meant to be taken as gospel with those questioning or rejecting those dictates being discarded and excommunicated, ridiculed and reviled like any religious heretic. Its adherents fancy themselves to be skeptics and claim to be testers (witch-hunters) using objective scrutiny when they are simply acolytes and followers of the words of the scientific prophets.

But the basis of the expertise is still earth-bound humans, the vast majority of which hasn’t left this “plane,” this earth, small minds of imperfect knowledge and limited perspective.

For some people, for many, the pomp attributed to the scientific priesthood is enough, even for declarations with no basis in everyday life or experience. Quantum fluctuations? The distortions in spacetime? A curved water layer, conforming to a curved surface, a notion that makes no experiential sense? For them, the experts know more than us and we must trust the experts. But experts in what? Experts in absolute motion? Experts in mathematical models? Experts in practicals ignorant of the underlying philosophy? Experts who are still earth-bound humans like you and me? Experts in a field with as much of a history of failure as that of success, if not more failure? Experts that demand we assign the appellations “absolute truth” and “fact” to the products of their endeavours which necessarily must be deemed tentative? Isn’t that last point a sign of deep ignorance within these “experts?”

And here I am. How much have I swallowed and absorbed in my youth, throughout my life without a second thought? How many times have I been guarded about and against the obvious religions in the world and ignored the secular one, and hence been unguarded?

The essence of this post is that, again, I’m made aware of things I’ve just assumed to be true simply because I was programmed so by the repetition of ideas from my youth, ideas for which I sought no basis, yet never challenged. And once again, what I saw as fact to be assumed is now seen as a claim needing sufficient reason to be adopted afresh, or else I’ll just flush it.

I think I’ll end this one with no disclaimer.

Back to basics

I live in the UK. My brother and sister are probably more into politics than I am, with my brother having taken a school course in politics (or was it university?), and my sister being a voter, both of whom have probably better knowledge than me of current affairs.

My brother mentioned a choice that the political parasites and the voting chattel have to make with regards to “Brexit,” how the country will leave the European Union.

You know, even mentioning those words, “country” and “European Union,” highlights for me how the words I feel compelled to use are ambiguous distractions with regards to what is actually happening. The “country” leaving? What does that mean? The individuals that make up the occupants of a landmass? The politicians that make up the visible part of the gang called “government?” And leaving what, the “European Union?” A union of what? Politicians that didn’t have the cloak of mob rule, so called “democracy,” to legitimise their control over the legislation that would affect the disparate people groups that live in the fiction called “Europe?”

And the amount of weight given to such a linguistic ambiguity, where if the wrong choice is made, people paint predictions of pandemonium, poverty and pain. GRIN! Hmmm … just a bit of alliteration there. But people make it sound as if the world or “Britain” will end. So much is invested, financially and emotionally by so many.

When my brother brought up the sort of deals the British politicians would have to make to leave the European set of politicians, it reminded me of why I do my best to dissociate from politics, at least the volitional support of it.

I said,

I think when you run a system based on theft, coercion and against God’s law, the choices you choose in and for that system will always be immoral.

It brought my mind back to what should be my basic values: the seven laws. And in my mind, the seven laws are the standard for humanity, for all of us, for the attempts at control that politicians create called “laws.”

Where I live, the politicians put “laws” on the books, or sustain such laws, that go against the seven laws, that oppose them. For me, it is that simple. God makes law forbidding certain evils. Wannabe gods, politicians, make laws permitting and protecting evil. Playing with the superficial, in effect legitimising the band of wannabes, can’t lead to a better world.

I’m sure people find a lot of importance in politics and see it as an avenue for meaningful change. But, for me, as long as the roots drink from a poison stream, the fruit can’t be a remedy, only another form of poison.

Mystical Priesthood

There is a certain sense of “mystical priesthood” about what is called “the scientists” nowadays. They hold the secret knowledge and tell us “the truth” (which is beyond the power of science). Go against popular theories and conclusions and be ridiculed and excommunicated.

More and more informs me that we humans are religious creatures, even those societies that deem themselves to be secular. In fact, it’s worse in the secular society because they delude themselves into thinking they are non-religious, but when you see their enforced indoctrination centres (schools), their gods (science, government, celebrity), and the group mindset of outing the undesirables, they are just as religious as the christians of the inquisition or pogroms, or the imperialistic moslems.

Anti-Jew

There.

I’ll keep the title simple.

I’m not sure if it’s the cold I’m coming down with or something else, but I struggled to come up with a title. So I’ll just … you know … keep it simple?

I’ve said that already, haven’t I?

Anyway, in this article, I’m dropping a certain word: anti-Semitism. I ain’t using it. To me, it’s a silly term. It’s like someone who has hatred towards British people being called “anti-European.” I have no idea why Jews got the monopoly on being descendants of Shem, and I prefer to be precise with my statements. So I’m just gonna refer to “anti-Jew” or something of that sort to continue with this article.

Right now, I’ve got no idea how this article is gonna flow or go.

So, I’ve been using YouTube for years. I’ve subscribed to a good number of channels. I can normally find some videos that I enjoy. But more and more, in and around those types of video, I’ve been noticing a growth in anti-Jew sentiment. Hmmm … that’s not exactly what I mean. So much for being precise. I mean that I’ve noticed it more and noticed how frequent it is.

There’s a guy I watch because of his anti-state views. But he keeps making statements like “Israel really runs America,” “America is in the hands of Zionist bankers,” or other statements about Israel and something he calls “Zionism.” Even though I’ve asked him to clarify who exactly he’s referring to, he’s made no attempt to respond if he even saw my repeated questioning of his statements.

Recently he made a video about “Israelis” celebrating when/before the World Trade Centre got destroyed and he links his video to another that highlights “Israeli” spies being deported from America soon after “9/11.” I paid attention to the comments under the videos, his and the other person’s. Before I give an idea of what I saw, let me say that guy claims to not be “anti-Semitic” – I’m quoting him – but he does say he’s “anti-Zionist,” whatever that’s supposed to mean. I say this not because I give his claim any weight – I’m losing more and more faith in this claim of his – but because I think the uncontested comments on his videos show his claim to be questionable at best.

Anyway, the sort of comments I see are that the Jews are satanic, the cause of multiple crises in the world including 9/11, that Israel controls the USA, that certain people must hold their tongues lest they lose funding from Israel, that politicians are funded and therefore controlled by Israel, that Jews control the media, that Israel is a massive stain on every nation, that Israel is a cancer, that ISIS means Israel’s Secret Intelligence Service, that Jews are the greatest liars in the world …

Do I really need to continue?

I did a search for other videos about equating anti-zionism with anti-Jewish sentiment. Again, the comments under those videos are still filled with anger or suspicion against Jews.

I wondered to myself what the difference is between anti-Zionist and anti-Jew. When I contemplated the idea, of course, I would have to figure out what a Zionist is. Now my personal view is that a Zionist is someone who supports the idea of Jews returning to or staying in their homeland, the Holy Land, Israel. Is the dictionary definition the same? Just as an example:

Zionism, Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish national state in Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews (Hebrew: Eretz Yisraʾel, “the Land of Israel”). Zionism | nationalistic movement | Britannica.com https://www.britannica.com/topic/Zionism

I think that’s just about what I said. A Zionist would support this.

But this shows me there is a difference between Zionist and Jew. Zionism is an idea which anyone can have, Jew or Gentile. But a Gentile can’t be a Jew. There are even Jews, even religious Jews, who are against the current existence of the state of Israel. But I can’t say they, the Orthodox ones, are anti-Zionist. They are only against the means by which or the time in which the land of Israel is restored to the Jewish people. They’re ok with the land of Israel becoming the possession of the people of Israel, but not using what can be seen as political or manmade means.

But there are Jews and Gentile against any sort of Zionism, any sort of return of Israel to their land. This could be for various reasons such as thinking that Jews have no claim to that land, that it now belongs to the so called “Palestinians,” that the land is now “Palestine,” that it is an invasion against the people living there, etc. I would say that these people reject the God who gave the Torah – yes, biological Jews do this too. These are anti-Zionists.

Therefore it could be said that anti-Zionism isn’t necessarily anti-Jewish since some of them are Jews. But then again, that reasoning isn’t cogent. People can hate others of their own race, treating them as lessers, working against their own people. So a Jew can still be an anti-Jew. So anti-Zionism could still mean anti-Jew.

In thinking about this, it’s important for me to realise that there’s a difference between theory or principle on one hand and effect on the other. Applying this to my current thinking, being blunt and saying this in unequivocal terms, the land of Israel belongs to the Jews. I’m not stating that with reservation as if it’s just a faith statement. God gave the land of Israel to the Jews and that claim of ownership hasn’t been revoked.

Thinking about the history of the Jews in exile and also acknowledging the weakened and vulnerable position of being foreigners in a strange land, the evictions in different lands, the persecutions and anti-Jewish trend across history, it is very important for the Jews not just to have a homeland (any place will do), but to have their own homeland back. Whether Jews are in their own land or in the land of others, the animosity and hostility that exists amongst the nations is a risk to the life of the Jew living amongst the nations. To be anti-Zionist, whether you’re a Jew or a Gentile, to not want the Jews to have a/their homeland means, in effect, a desire to keep them in a place of scattered vulnerability. And remembering where that has usually ended up in history, namely, dead Jews, to hold such a position is to be, in effect, against the welfare of the Jew, and is therefore “anti-Jew.”

So although, theoretically, being anti-Zionist is not anti-Jew, in effect, I believe the stance to be anti-Jew.

Add to that the overt anti-Jewish sentiment that finds itself somewhere near anti-Zionism, as I gave an example of above, how people who may deem themselves to be moral will allow uncontested Jew hatred on their forums without clarification of their stance. Such a position only adds to the evidence of the anti-Jewishness that is very close to anti-Zionism, if not equivalent.

Now, again, I know, Gentiles and some Jews are against Jews getting back to their homeland or maintaining a dominant presence in it for various reasons. They may perceive a conspiracy amongst Jewish bankers. They may believe the state of Israel carries out terrorist attacks against “Palestinians.” There may be other reasons. And they will see people, Gentiles or Jews, who agree with Jews remaining dominant in that land as “Zionists,” the word seen in an evil light by the anti-Zionist. I may not know how to change such a mindset, but tagging along that sentiment is the directly anti-Jewish sentiment, the anti-Jew.

The popularity that anti-Jewish sentiment has is concerning to me. I’m not a prophet or prognosticator, and I’m not aware of any ability within me to use the signs of today to predict a likely future. But I don’t see any reason why things would get better, why Gentiles will love Jews more or why more Gentiles will have at least a neutral view of Israel and the Jews, or a positive view.

But a question that comes to mind is this: what is the status of the anti-Jew in the eyes of God? How should I view or treat such a person?

You see, although Gentiles aren’t commanded to love the Jews, the Jewish Bible still declares that God says regarding Israel, “I will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you.” A person who wishes harm for the Jewish people is not in good standing with God!

But does that mean that anti-Jew is now wholly evil? Or is he evil to a significant enough extent? The same guy who speaks out against Zionists and who allows anti-Jewish sentiment to go unchallenged in the comments under his videos will go out of his way to help a person in trouble. He is against injustice and deception, and wants peaceful, voluntary interactions between people. He sees abortion as murder. Do I disassociate totally from him? Do his good deeds and good intentions get covered over because of his negative characteristics?

Hmmm …

Why would a person who doesn’t accept Israel’s God keep the seven laws?

They keep saying it’s unlikely or even impossible, that the chances of it are so remote that people ponder why it’s even mentioned. I mean, you must know of God or Torah to keep the seven laws. You must!

And yet the logic, the reasoning of such people who hold this view, rabbis included, seems wrong to me.

David, do you have to take a dig at the rabbis with every post? No, I don’t have to. And I’m not talking about all rabbis. But as they’re there, in a place of high respect, and pushing this nonsensical way of thinking … errr … why not?

A friend of mine thinks it’s a “pipe dream” for a Gentile to keep commandments while rejecting the God who gave them. And I’m sure that many agree with him.

But I wouldn’t be writing this if I were among those people. Why write something to just go with the flow?

So why do I disagree with such thinking?

A simple answer would be that I believe such thinking to not be based on the seven commandments, but rather on the religion that more modern rabbis, Jews and their Gentile followers have built around the commandments. For a certain group of people, the seven laws are more like statements of faith rather than a standard for behaviour. And you may be able to see where I’m going with this, or where I’m coming from.

When I see “seven commands were enjoined on humanity,” I don’t see the following: “And God spake these words saying, I am the Lord your God who called you out from amongst the nations, from the other Gentiles. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. You must worship God and, on that basis, keep the following seven commandments …” I don’t see the following: “it was enjoined upon Gentiles to know God; it is commanded that non-Jews must keep the seven commandments because he commanded them in the Torah, telling Moshe that Noah’s descendants were previously commanded to keep them.” I see nothing of the sort.

When I see “seven commandments were enjoined upon humanity,” I see that there rests an obligation upon all non-Jews to keep the seven laws, the Jews having been set apart by a different body of divine law for themselves. And that latter part, the separation of the Jews by means of a different body of law, is very important regarding a non-Jew’s obligation and a Jew’s. I put it to you that it was the Jew that was commanded by God to know him (Deuteronomy 4:35,39), not the Gentile. I put it to you that the Jew was given commands to worship God at various times. I put it to you that the Jew was given the command to love God. And I put it to you that the Jews have this divine command, not the Gentile, not the non-Jew. And it is apparent and clear based on the fact that their whole nation experienced God in a most direct way, a tradition that was passed down from generation to generation, a part of their factual history. The non-Jew does not have this history, so there would be something inane in making knowledge of God, the worship of God and love of God a most basic obligation for Gentiles.

What are the obligations, the divine commandments, upon Gentiles? Heeere we go!

  • a command to set up systems of justice; a prohibition against perverting justice
  • a prohibition against cursing God’s name
  • a prohibition against actively worshipping idols and aspects of creation
  • a prohibition against murder
  • a prohibition against certain sexual partners
  • a prohibition against theft
  • a prohibition against eating meat taken from an animal while it’s alive

There is something strikingly obvious about these universal obligations: God does not demand for a Gentile to know, love, fear or worship him.

I believe it is hard for an ex-religionist or a Jew to take this on board. The Jew has this command and it should be a part of his psyche, something indelibly written on his heart, rehearsed as he goes through the written Torah during the yearly reading cycle. He knows the fundamental importance of God. It may see incongruent for a Gentile not to be commanded to recognize the Cause of all. For the ex-religionist for whom devotion to God is like breathing air, something that should be so natural, it may seem like an utter uprooting for a positive command to acknowledge God to be missing from the obligations he places upon his creation.

One of the best articles I’ve read is by rabbi Israel Chait called “B’nai Noah: The Religion, The Danger!” What I say next is not a quote from the article, but it’s what I get from the article.

There is always a temptation to add to God’s commandments, to improvise and improve upon them, to add rituals and commandments to fill some void. Someone who loves God will feel something is missing from the Gentile commandments and feel the urge to over-stress the need for the knowledge of God until it becomes a command. But it never was. Someone may crave some ritual to signify one’s yearning for spirituality, and the Jewish Sabbath is for the Jews (duh!) so there is a desire to create a seventh day celebration or think of a universal sabbath.

But God’s commandments, in a way, say “no” to this creative urge, this overspill of desire, and demands a person rein in their own urges in order to direct them to walk his actual path.

Echoing this, Maimonides teaches,

The general principle governing these matters is: [the Gentile] is not to be allowed to originate a new religion or create [religious commandments] for himself based on his own decisions. He may either become a righteous convert and accept all the [religious commandments] or stand/remain his own Torah/law without adding or detracting from them. (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars, chapter 10, law 9, emphasis mine)

Personally, I see how rabbi Chait’s words reflect those of Maimonides.

So for a Gentile, there is no positive command from God to know, fear or worship him, although Jews and Gentiles try to add it.

Since the seven commandments do not enjoin acceptance of God’s existence upon any Gentile in the world, but it does enjoin the avoidance of certain actions from the people of the world, then that is the basis from which a Gentile can be judged. In other words, as a friend of mine would say, the seven laws are about correct actions, not correct beliefs. Therefore that makes it possible to not know God and yet live in a way that accords with the seven commandments, thereby living according to the obligations that exist objectively regardless of whether a Gentile accepts God’s existence or not.

“But such a Gentile won’t get a place in the world to come!!!”

I can hear that argument already! It’s such a shame that there is such focus on reward. I won’t argue with it now. My focus is on the obligation, the commandment incumbent on all Gentiles. I’ll let God deal with the afterlife.

Let me bring it back to the subject of this post. The question was this:

Why would a person who doesn’t accept Israel’s God keep the seven laws?

I will ask the question more specifically.

Why would a person not do acts that pervert justice without being commanded? Why would a person try to be fair and support fairness in his community?

Why would a person not curse God’s name without being commanded?

Why would a person not actively worship an idol or an aspect of creation as if it was a god without being commanded?

Why would a person not steal or murder without being commanded?

Without command, why would a person not have sex with another of the same gender? Or another man’s wife? Or a close family member? Or an animal?

Why would a person not eat meat taken from an animal while it was alive?

Now for each of these questions, I believe introspection and an examination of different peoples in the world gives various answers. I believe Maimonides’ words are suitable enough: it’s just an individual’s mental convictions or intellectual leanings. Some could say “it’s just how I was raised,” how that person was conditioned. Some would say “it just goes against what I feel to be right.” Or doing such an act doesn’t make sense to such a person. Or it could be that a person thinks that the world would be a worse place by doing these acts. It could even be that the idea of such an act didn’t even enter their mind.

When it comes to cursing God’s name, you need to have certain ideas about God and experiences in life to even consider doing such an act. When it comes to having sex with animals, some people would have no idea why a person would do such a thing.

Such people may have never heard of creation’s God giving instructions against such acts, but some internal or external component in their lives means they avoid the forbidden act.

And that’s all the core commands of God demand of Gentiles. Remember, they’re the minimal, the bedrock, not the totality of Gentile morality. So, as I told a friend of mine:
A person can choose not to do actions that pervert justice. So he fulfils the law of justice, without belief in God.
A person not knowing God or just not believing in him can see no need to curse him by his name. He fulfils the law against cursing God, without belief in God.
A person can respect no god and thus give no worship to any false god. He fulfils the law against idolatry, without belief in God.
A person can kill no one. He fulfils the law against murder, without belief in God.
A person can steal from no one. He fulfils the law against theft, without belief in God.
A man can choose not to have sex with another man’s wife, with another man, with an animal, with a family member. He fulfils the law against forbidden partners, without belief in God.
A person can simply think it’s cruel to hack the limbs off of animals and distasteful to eat such meat. A person may not even knowingly eat such meat. A person can even be vegetarian. Thereby he fulfils the law against eating such meat, without belief in God.
In all these things, this person fulfils the seven laws without belief in God. They keep commands of God who they may not even accept.

I look at all these fulfillments of law and wonder to myself if self-proclaimed “noahides” and Jews think all Gentiles are so depraved as to need external commands, accepting the truth of God, to avoid these actions. Or it may be more innocent, that they think that simply avoiding these actions is not the actual command, but rather God plus avoiding the actions is the actual command. But I’ve stated before, God and/or the Talmud stated what the actual obligations are and they don’t include an obligation to accept God’s truth, God’s existence.

One Jew attempted to argue that acceptance of God’s existence was assumed and thus not related clearly. But the following example shows such an idea to be lacking.

For example, let me look at the difference between a Gentile divine command, and a Jewish one.

The Jewish command: you shall love God with heart, life and substance.

The Gentile command: Don’t actively worship aspects of creation.

Question: what does loving God necessarily presuppose? Answer: the acceptance of the existence of God.

Question: what does not bowing in divine reverence to an idol necessarily presuppose? Answer: Only that the individual does not accept the divinity of the idol. The reasons for the rejection could be many, and not necessarily the acceptance of God.

That is the difference between the clear unstated assumption is Jewish Torah Law and the lack of such an assumption in the Gentile Seven Laws.

So to conclude, the notion of a Gentile without or rejecting knowledge of Israel’s God, without the notion of the Creator giving instruction, fulfilling the seven laws is not just theoretical. It’s not a pipe dream. Once it is accepted that the seven commands mainly prohibit action and do not include a positive command to accept God’s existence, then a person fulfilling the requirements of the law becomes not only a reality, but a way open to many a Gentile, even ancient ones.

It’s bound to come up: what’s the point in avoiding such acts if a person doesn’t accept Israel’s God? Other than the fact that it can just make that person’s life qualitatively and morally better, let me end this article with a quote that is very applicable to this article and question.

There is, sometimes, an opposite process when outside actions (not connected or controlled by the person) influence the internal thinking of a person as it is explained in Sefer Ha’Chinuch #16, explaining why the Torah has so many practical precepts:

“Know that a person is governed by his actions. His heart and all his thoughts are influenced by the actions that he is involved in be they good or bad. Even a wicked man whose thoughts are concentrated on doing evil all day, if he should start studying Torah and Mitzvot, even if he is not doing it for G-d’s sake, he will start acting in a more positive manner. This is because the heart goes after the deeds. The same holds true, concerning a righteous man, who lives according to the Torah and Mitzvot, but makes a living from dubious transactions, or if for example he is forced by the King or ruler to deal in such dubious matters, he will eventually be transformed from a righteous man to an evil one.”

Government: Meant for good things?

It’s been bugging me so I’m just gonna scratch the itch and get rid of it.

So I get emails from First Covenant Foundation with their newsletter, First Covenant Connection. Michael Dallen was one of the first to get me into the Seven Laws. I bought his book before I got the first edition of the Divine Code. I even had the book signed by him. He was a helpful resource. There’s little point in saying I disagree with him on certain things or his book on certain sections, but there’s no one’s book or stance that I fully agree with. Even going through the evolution portions of Alan Cecil’s book, Secular by Design, … my God! I’ve never been able to complete them because I just can’t stomach it. But the other parts are excellent; I think he unwittingly helped me on the road towards antiestablishmentarianism (YEAH!).

Anyway, I see the most recent newsletter has a section called “Government, Tyranny and Anarchy.” And you know I have to check it out. The online version can be found here. Let me deal with the pertinent sentences.

The Noahide Commandment is one of “dinim,” or “laws,” which means government.

I’ll define government. Government is that gang who claims to own a territory who people think has the right to threaten, hurt and kill people. It’s a monopoly on (legitimised) violence. The essential “power” of the government is death, because that’s at the end of every threat (“law”): if you don’t do what we say, we can kill you. That’s it.

For Dallen, one of the seven laws is “Laws,” and he believes laws must mean government. How did the Talmud share the understanding of “dinim?” In Sanhedrin 56a it focuses on courts and court procedure. That’s kind of odd if “dinim” means government, unless Dallen is conflating government with courts. In societies in the past, “laws” were generated by court decisions and precedents. But government isn’t about simply arbitrating conflicts, using fairness, but rather about domination and giving threats (laws) where there are no issues. If “dinim” is really and simply about government (which would be expressed in the Talmud more as “kingship” rather than “courts”), then the Talmud knows nothing of it. Rambam speaks nothing of it when he lists the seven laws in Mishneh Torah, Laws of Kings and Wars, Chapter 9. Ramban says nothing about kingship or government when he discusses the law of Justice commenting on Genesis 34:16, even though he puts forward the interpretation that Gentiles are obligated to have a system of punishments to deal with various immoral behaviours.

But Republicans have been professing great antipathy to governmental institutions, denigrating the power of government – that is, government of the people, by the people, for the people, in Lincoln’s words) – to elevate the people’s culture and do good.

There are serious delusions in this one sentence. He speaks of the notion that the power of government is to elevate the people’s culture and do good, and he thinks government is supposed to be “of the people, by the people and for the people,” words put forward by one of America’s most well-known tyrants, Abraham Lincoln.

Now, let me deal with the second claim first. Let it be known, I’m not calling the notion of “government of the people, by the people and for the people” delusion simply because Lincoln did bad things. I actually challenge the phrase in and of itself.

Now, in case you didn’t know, I utterly reject the claim that government owns everyone and everything. Such a position can only be a fiction. I say that unapologetically. It’s silly to say there’s a law against theft, the taking of a person’s property without their consent, and then to claim they, in effect, own nothing as the “government” owns it all. To me, it’s nonsense.

It goes back to what some Gentiles have deduced. Yes, I’m actually referring to Gentiles for once. Amazing, isn’t it? Gentiles can say good things. It’s a bit like that saying, “if someone tells you that there is wisdom amongst the nations, then believe them; but if someone tells you that there is Torah among the nations, don’t believe them.” [Aside: it would be interesting to find out what exactly “Torah” means in this saying. Why? Because according to Jewish tradition, there is a Torah that only Israel accepted, whereas the seven laws is or can be something different to “Torah”, see https://torah.org/torah-portion/livinglaw-5769-noach/.%5D Anyway, there are two useful teachings I learnt from Gentiles.

Firstly, it’s important to distinguish between fact and opinion, between fact and interpretation. That’s the first teaching. I learnt that from a person called Marc Stevens and from people who reject the grand story of humans evolving from single-celled organisms over billions of years. For example, where the anti-evolution people are concerned, they helped me see the distinction between the observations that in certain rocks that have a certain proportion of radioactive “mother” material and a certain proportion of its “daughter” material, into which the “mother” material breaks down, and the observed current rate of radioactive “deterioration” on one hand, and, on the other hand, the opinion about the age of the rock. Another example would be the difference between evidence of a crime on one hand, and a guilty verdict on the other. It’s important to be aware of the distinction between the fact and the opinion.

The second teaching is attributed to some guy called Confucius.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name.

Now using this sort of inspection, let me look at the idea of “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”

First remember that “government” is just the name for a bunch of humans having the same nature as the rest of us, made out of the same stuff. There is absolutely nothing innate to them that causes them to have authority over anyone else. There is no “right to rule.” What makes them different is only the opinion of other people who wish to grant this group, this gang, the manpower to force its will on others, and the faith that such “right to rule” or “ownership rights over others without consent or proper and real contract” exists. (It’s necessary to say “proper or real contract” since there are people who think an imaginary, fictional “social contract,” just a rationalisation that doesn’t meet the criteria of a proper contract, is actually real.)

So the gang, called government, humans like you and me, are supposed to be “of the people.” This has two possible meanings: made up of those from amongst the common people; or belonging to the people, ruling over them. These days, government isn’t made up of the common people, but rather of the rich and manipulative amongst them. America and the UK, like most other places, is essentially a plutocracy, rule of the rich. A person needs to get lots of money to get into politics.

But am I saying it is more moral for a member of such a gang to be from the common people? Hell no! Power corrupts and will still attract the corruptible. The amount of money a person has may not tell you about their moral fibre. I’m talking about the power to force people to do what you want, to take what is theirs without their consent and that being acceptable to the majority. That is an attractive power and leads inevitable to the harm, pain and death of many as can be seen in a cursory glance or an in-depth inspection of government history.

And “government over the people, belonging to them” is never really fully true because it’s normally a proportion of the people who accept the gang, and there is no real means to transfer the wishes of the apparent majority onto the minority without coercion. Of course, the gang called government will be over them, dominating them, but it will dominate regardless of whether a person wanted it or not.

So it’s really a government for some of the people and a gang/mafia for the rest.

“by the people” may refer to either, once again, the gang being made up of those from the common folk (dealt with), or the way that the gang is put in place by “the people,” i.e., democratically, might makes right. Once again, the latter is factually incorrect. It is only a proportion of the individuals that put the gang in place. The rest are trampled over. It’s never “by the people,” only “by some of the people.”

“for the people” means “for the good and benefit of the people.” Once again, the phrase is tripped up by the words, “the people.” “The people” is an abstraction of a group of individuals. A gang can never work for the benefit of all the people, only the portion of it whose interests align with that of the gang. And what actually normally happens is the gang works for its own benefit, for its own good, and whatever scraps fall upon everyone else is merely coincidental.

Think of the fact that the holy constitution of the united slaves of America is supposed to give Congress the “power” to create debts that the citizens are supposed to pay back via the thievery called “taxation.” It turns the people into indentured slaves for the gang. The amount of debt the US and the UK is in now means that future generations of citizens are involuntarily roped into paying the debt under the threat of violence and death that taxation brings. The gang gets to sell the people as slaves, and this is supposed to be for the benefit of people.

Add to that, the amount of people currently incarcerated because the gang makes up “laws” that criminalise actions that hurt no one. The benefit of the people? Or is it more the benefits of getting more votes by appealing to the fickle winds of public opinion?

In fact, the glorification of this phrase by Dallen only highlights the way he believes that the American form of government or idea of government is the ideal for everyone across the world. American exceptionalism at its best. Government has been varied across the world, and there is no objective grounds to show that the American way is the way it should be universally.

It’s gonna be hard for patriots of a certain kind to acknowledge that.

On so many levels, the notion of “government of, by and for the people” is rotten, from its core outwards. Again, factually, government is that group of people who issues threats, demands obedience, uses coercion, and can get away with it because enough of the other people think such behaviour is acceptable for that “special” group. It is not eloquence and righteousness, justice and fairness; it is violence. Right or wrong, it will still mow down anyone in its way.

This whole summation shows why Dallen’s belief that the power of government is “to elevate the people’s culture and do good.” I wonder if such an idea went through the Japanese-Americans who were put in concentration camps during the second world war. I wonder if that’s what goes through the mind of a mother put in prison for three months because a cop, using tests known to be faulty giving false results, mistook cotton candy for a chemical government forbade its citizens. “to elevate culture and do good.” What a distasteful joke!

The power of government is not for any of the lovely intentions its devotees impute to it. No, its power is for one thing: to control people. That’s it! That’s what the word necessarily implies: control.

Look, government is not some creation of God, revealed to Adam, reiterated to Noah and then to Moshe. It does not contain some ideal, God-given purpose intrinsic to its divine creation. Its first usage in the Jewish Bible is linked to Nimrod, that great hunter. That’s just the text. It’s been understood that Nimrod was a man who hunted and trapped people, ensnaring their minds by his words, misleading them to rebel against God (Rashi). He was the first to rule people by force (Ramban). According to rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, nations have emulated him ever since, that “hunter” is frequently used to refer to the hunting and entrapment of human beings, that Nimrod began to oppress (don’t forget that word, you’ll see it in Dallen’s words later, and reveals a way how he undermines his own claims) his fellow man “in the name of God,” misusing it to surround brute force with the halo of Divine approval, or, rather, to demand the recognition of his might “in the name of God.” (Hmmm, sounds a lot like how rabbis and other Jews teach that the force and people ownership of government is part of our divine commandments.)

That’s the first kingdom or government in the Jewish Bible, the thing that becomes Babylon! When people try to romanticise government into some pure force for good, to uplift, to preserve, edify and find a place in all corners of life … *cue the classic Disney music in the background* … where we all live in peace, law and order, where the lion shall lay with the lamb, and there’ll be … Ok. Cut the music! And let me cut the BS!

The “ideal” of government, its actual purpose, is as fickle as the men who created it and those who take office in it or use it. To take some of the words of Hirsch, governments are “rulers who craftily crown themselves with a halo of psuedo-sanctity and whose power, politics and hypocrisy are characterised by the saying “like Nimrod, a crafty hero before God.”

When someone tries to put forward some pleasant ideal for the purpose of government, all I hear is “it’s time for a fairy tale, children!”

Let me move to another of Dallen’s statements.

Contempt for government is no virtue.

As someone with contempt for government, I’m going to be biased against this claim of Dallen’s. But I’ll provide my reasons as to why my bias is justified.

The seven laws are the obligation of all Gentiles, our fundamental laws from God. They prohibit injustice, cursing God’s name, idolatry, certain sexual partners, murder, theft and eating the meat of a living animal. A Gentile legalising or protecting such acts cannot be deemed as good or righteous. A bunch of people who use threats to protect those acts that God forbids can be classed as evil or contemptuous. As Psalm 15 states, a base person is despised in the eyes of a good person. It is a virtue to hate evil.

Therefore, if government does that which is evil, then it is a virtue to hold contempt for it. Governments create, fund and profit from the mass slaughter called war, protect the murder called abortion, teach people that taking the money of others without their consent to get what they want (legal plunder) is right and good, protect idolatry and the creation of new religions, even make cursing God a legal and protected act. Injustice is enshrined in law, to use manipulators as salesmen called lawyers and to use the ignorant as a form of judge called “the jury.” They do much more evil than this.

Violence is the main power of government and death is the threat it hangs over its slaves and victims. Its history is filled with the blood of the innocent, with injustice, with corruption and pain. Even when people seek to use its violence for good, it ends up with evil ends, the law of unintended consequences.

Again, it is a virtue to hate evil. At its core, government guarantees evil, where even rabbis and good people revere the idea of the theft called taxation, putting it in the mouth of God as a divine law.

If there is anything in this world that deserves contempt based simply and only on its track record, it would be government. If you add all the other aspects of that beast, contempt, distrust and bitter scorn should be the first thing that comes to mind when government presents itself.

So Dallen, who was himself an attorney, a lawyer (fancy that!), thinks there is no virtue in holding government in contempt. The mountains of evidence against such a notion puts it to utter shame.

If a person is against bullying, to be consistent, that person should be against government. If a person thinks it’s wrong to take a person’s property without their consent – if, unlike what is taught, a person actually thinks they can have ultimate ownership of things through purchase, agreement or homesteading – then that person, to be consistent, must be against government. If a person doesn’t like inefficiency, incompetency and waste, they should be against government. If a person values human life, since government is the most successful mass murderer in history, then they must be at least highly suspicious, if not totally opposed to government.

To be blunt, if a person values morality, no positive estimation should be given of government. Even if it found the cure for AIDS, it was only through theft and robbery.

Unfortunately, I live in a world where people, even good people, think the ends justify the means, that beneficial results justify immoral means. A government that legalises abortion as well as a plethora of other immoralities can be seen as partially upholding the seven laws, as good, because it makes life comfortable and sends funds to the state of Israel. And we should all support the Jews, right? Right?

I miss the message of rabbi Meir Kahane that stressed the true independence of Israel rather than letting citizens of other countries think they are doing Israel a favour by sending them billions of government currency. What a sad state the world and Israel is in!

Dallen’s call for the removal of contempt for government, that violent gang, lacks any grounding in sense or morality.

One of the principal objectives of every human society should be to perfect a more perfect union: to make government work well. Government doesn’t exist merely to defend private property; its mandate is much larger than that. It’s perfectly proper for government to fix and maintain roads, for instance, or subsidize scientific research. The claim that’s so often heard today, that this or that is not “a proper function of government,” is often extremely dubious.

It takes so much temperance not to resort to the sort of bluntness and directness of speech that sentiments such as this deserve. But I’m fairly certain some of the religious people, the prudes, who read this article couldn’t tolerate such language, so I won’t use it, as much as I’m tempted.

Humans are to create a more perfect union, make the gang work well??? So, again referring to the warnings of old about government, its innate violence, its capacity for killing and wielding the threat of death, this guy thinks “a perfect union” is linked with a well-functioning mafia??? Can an idea be more crazy?

It could be asked what “a perfect union” means. Unsurprising for an American Jew, two traditions rife in statism and the worship of the ruling gang, the phrase comes from the preamble of the constitution of the united states of America. You remember the constitution, right? It’s that document with no innate authority that was imposed on the majority for all time by a small minority one time in history. It’s those scribbles of dead agenda-driven men (not saints or the wise) that was apparently supposed to limit government but rather both instituted it and either allowed it to grow to the mammoth it now is or was powerless to stop it. As Lysander Spooner opined in his book, “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,” (an opinion with which I fully agree), either way, the constitution is unfit to exist.

So having pledged allegiance to this dead worthless document, Dallen pulls from it to link some union to a good mafia. I believe the worthless document was referring to a stronger union between the states and colonies that made up America. It doesn’t have a strong meaning internationally unless he thinks having a good mafia, a good ruling gang, makes people in general more unified. It’s interesting that government makes people more divided. Capitalism vs communism/socialism. One political party against another. Everyone vying for control over the lives and funds of their neighbours. And a ruling class vs everyone else. A good mafia generally brings union if it can find something the people fear, somebody to be against. The governments of today are not forces of morality; being secular, they cannot be, as all moralities (that are agreeable to the state) are equally valid. So called “tolerance” and all that trash. Hence, division will always be a function of government.

Plus, if a mafia wants to retain power, which people in power generally want, then the people can’t be too unified. That’s too much of a threat. If the mafia does something the bigger group doesn’t want, then it can be threatened. But if enough division is added to the mix, maybe, for example, multi-culturalism, then it’s easier to stay in control of a broken people.

So it’s not in the best interest of the gang to have too much unity.

His idea of the ruling gang is that it can have its hands in as many pockets as it wants, anything to help society progress, right? It’s proper for the gang to do this, to do that, to become so integral that people can’t imagine life without it, that people can’t imagine life without a monopoly on legitimised violence, without a bunch of humans, like you and me, threatening compliance. Oooh, that didn’t sound as pretty and nice, did it? But hey, it’s a spade, so I’ll call it “a spade.”

So, for Dallen, and for many a Jew and Jew-following Gentile (“noahides”) and even just a normal Gentile, the idea that this or that is not a proper function of the gang is extremely dubious. In the eyes of the author of the Divine Code, the gang owns everyone and everything, and anything not covered by the seven laws – a whole lot when you consider that even human life can be considered part of the economy and, to rabbi Weiner, the government controls the economy – is fair game for the ruling territorial gang to stake a claim to, to demand obedience.

You see, for such people, almost anything is within the reach of the gang. Although we all realise liberty is not an ultimate goal, Dallen and likeminded people, in effect, want liberty rooted out, for the gang they revere to “fix” the world. And it may be said, “I don’t want that!” But look at what they teach! What is not a proper function of government? According to the words of Dallen, that’s a question with a dubious assumption: that there may be a place government shouldn’t touch. Outside of the seven laws, where it comes to personal choice, is there any real limit to the ruling gang? Realistically, no! They’re supposed to be limited by law, but guess who makes the laws? Yep, the same group! Who interprets the law? Those who the ruling gang choose. What is law, but their own opinions back by the threat of violence and death?

Dallen seems to want to fix the world with that, or at least use it to do some fixing. He’s free to want what he wants. I just think it’s folly to put faith to fix in something that has theft and destruction in its very essence.

Just look at the nonsense he follows up with.

One more point: people who don’t recognize that 1) government should be by and of and for the people – which, we believe, is the only type of government that is fully consonant with the principle that God made each person in His image – and that 2) law must govern leaders, rather than leaders, autocratically, determining what is law, generally deserve what they get. Which is to say, tyranny: oppression of the weak by the mighty.

I can feel sorry for christians. They’re so locked into their faith that they don’t see the delusions. Those who worship the state are in the same place.

Dallen firstly feels or believes that Lincoln’s depiction of government is the only type fully in agreement with each person being made in God’s image. That makes it seems as if the American version of government not only is the best (Babylonian elitism; Roman elitism), but it agrees with the notion of “all men being made equal,” in God’s image. But wait! We’re all equal right? All equally made in God’s image, right? So if we’re all equal, then no man has any innate right over another to rule him, thus undermining the whole concept of a ruling gang!

Well, that argument fell on its face. Tripped over its own feet.

Then he thinks law should govern what? “Leaders?” Dallen wants to be led? Where are those “leaders” taking him and those other sheep that follow? Each of the “leaders” of his country have bombed more and more people, have plunged his country deeper and deeper into debt, increasing the chains of slavery and serfdom that hold the people, those who are forced to give tribute (taxes) in his country. His “leaders” still go against the seven laws. His “leaders” still direct theft, murder and deception. Where does he want to be led again?

And “laws” must govern these “leaders?” It boggles my mind when such people treat the law on the books as if they’re something objective, cut off from the foibles and agendas of human beings. DUDE, THE “LAWS” ARE JUST THE EXPRESSED OPINIONS OF OTHER HUMAN BEINGS!!!

My God!

It reminds me of people who take the “theories” of scientists as if they are Truth, as if they’re cut off from the limitations of the source of the theories.

Anyway, to Dallen, if a person rejects the American conception of government, revealed by Prophet Lincoln (he must have reached the levels of Moshe), and also rejects the idea that the opinions of humans should govern humans rather than humans governing opinions, then such a person “gets what he deserves.” Oooh, sounds negative, right? Well, Dallen says what that negative consequence is, right? “The oppression of the weak by the mighty.”

It’s … it’s like Dallen gets his stance just right, aims a gun carefully at his own leg, makes sure it’s just right, and proceeds to shoot himself in the foot!

Do you remember how I told you to remember the word “oppress” back when I was talking about Nimrod, the originator of government? Now Dallen wants to try to say those who reject the fruit of Nimrod, the oppressor, get oppression!?! How can lunacy by written by such a sane hand?

“Oppression of the weak by the mighty.” But what is government, that ruling gang that demands compliance from individuals that don’t have the power to resist? That sounds like “oppression of the weak by the mighty.” What about democracy, the democratic process used to institute “leaders?” Well you have a majority who gets to impose its leader, its rule, over the minority. So that’s the oppression by the mighty in number over the weaker in number. What about those individuals who see two or more evils, and don’t want to support evil by choosing the lesser one? They still get oppressed by the choices of the mightier numbers of those who will see two evils and think it best to support evil. What about the police force imposing themselves on people who haven’t broken one of their “laws?” Videos of that are so easy to find. So in the world of the statist, such as Dallen, the stronger police can get such an individual, and not only oppress him using weapons and the ability to call upon more of his pack of wolves, he can use the attorneys to create crimes to impute to the victim after the arrest. Or he can manhandle the victim for a few hours, release the victim and get away with it. “Oppression of the weak by the mighty.” How such people who give such honour to government can be so blind to its violence and then claim that those who reject government will get the results of government, “the oppression of the weak by the mighty,” is beyond my ability to fully understand. What utter bile.

Then I get a perfect view of his power of reasoning (as if I didn’t already see it).

Tyranny and anarchy are not opposites. When government is lacking, when anarchy rules, the result is still the oppression of the weak by the mighty.

Wow. That’s amazing. Since my point of view has certain similarities to philosophical anarchism, surely I must have been blown away by such an argument, such a claim.

How exactly do I deal with this? Hmmm … let me think.

Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukrainians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill 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; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children.

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. (a quote from Robert Higgs)

I could use that.

I could use the actual definitions of “tyranny” and “anarchy,” pointing out that a tyranny actually refers to unjust or oppressive governmental power or a government where a single ruler is vested with absolute power, or an abuse of authority, whereas anarchy, in this context, refers to having no government and no authority. Therefore tyranny and anarchy are actually opposites, unless he’s trying to compare the metaphorical meaning of tyranny (just oppression) with the literal meaning of anarchy (no rulers).

He has a very narrow view of what happens when governmental power wanes and anarchy rules. Why? Because places where government doesn’t get involved is still extant in our existence, but not as simply and as negatively as he depicts. When I have a dialogue with my friend, government is not there to govern how we communicate or how we become friends. Without government, we just get along. When someone sells their TV privately using a simple ad, with no government in mind, they can make a non-governmental exchange with another person. There are enough good interactions that happen without the interference of that gang, anarchistically. But Dallen focuses on the worst case scenario.

“But David, you focus on worst-case scenarios with government.”

Actually, no! Amongst the first things I said was about what government actually is, not simply a worst case scenario. It is just a gang of people demanding compliance via threats called “laws.” That’s not the worst case of government; that’s government 101, government basics. When I refer to taxation, the taking of a person’s property without their consent under threat of force, that’s not the worse case of government, it’s the daily grind of government, the very thing that gives it life. When I refer to war and abortion, these are a normal way of life for government, something the pilfered funds normally goes to. Whereas with simply living life without the gang, that’s not so set in stone, not so inevitably violent, unless you believe humans are inevitably and normally violent. I don’t believe that. There’d be little point in me believing we’re all made in God’s image if I thought we had such a nature. I used to think it was just a christian belief, but seeing rabbinical and noahide pessimism about Gentiles makes me doubtful.

Let’s wrap this up.

To underline the self-contradiction in Dallen’s newsletter, he says the following:

National sins are followed by national calamities. Trouble comes to every culture that fails to uphold the Seven Commandments.

I agree that trouble comes to every culture that fails to uphold the seven laws. Funnily enough, generally, governments don’t uphold the seven laws. Can I hold them in contempt now? Or would there be no virtue in it?

Fin.