The Catholicist Nation
In the summer of 2016 I wrote a
home page piece about
the truth that hate speech crimes are very real, but that they
should be an accepted element of World System rule. The real freedom
comes from firmly abjuring that realm and adopting a rich abiding
faith upon Jesus Christ as the only deliverance from much of the
contemptibly demonic things that come from the mouths of World
Devotees. Here is a sampling of those things, all shared in that
home page piece.
"It is best to endorse the behavior of people
who do sexually untraditional things with one
another in the name of celebrating our differences
and embracing our individual liberties."
"It is best to be wary of American-English
speaking, conservative, older, masculinity-femininity
respecting, white males because they are mostly
angry sexist racists."
"It is best to enlist government people to
income inequality by rearranging wealth in the name
"It is best to assert that the Bible is merely
one of many books with words, having no more merit
than any other such literary item."
"It is best to leave the concept 'God' to the
realm of fairy tales because there are so many
versions, even as it is best to politely humor those
who hold to one of them."
"It is best to disregard anything labeled
'religious' or even 'moral' because these are by definition not
scientific and unworthy of serious consideration."
"It is best to keep yourself in a constant state
of rebellion against the ordained potentates - they
are your only salvation - even if you must rant and
rage and holler at them in some form."
"It is best to consider the Roman Catholic
Church a meaningless religious entity featuring nice
people in fancy outfits who are only about helping
the poor so they can't be bad at all."
"It is best to be pleasantly daft about
insightfully examining the tribute payments you make
to any and all System offices - government, bank,
church - because if you said something you'll be
made to look like a fool."
Shortly after that I wrote a series of posts in my
to illuminate the
reality and meaning of some of those things. On this
page I'm simply reproducing that blog post series in
its entirety so it is easy to peruse.
The original home
page piece is here,
titled "How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Hate Speech
Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime. But... Then What?...
July 4, 2016
finally uploaded my
latest home page piece, and I
had a goal of making a reasonably clear statement about this thing speech.
I think I was able to share some lucid considerations, but I realize
it is a subject that is so complex and multi-faceted that it
requires much more -- ahem -- talking about
I've seen out there in the big bad world right now is a lot of
rigmarole over what kind of speech is acceptable. There is this
conception mostly among conservative/libertarian types that any speech
is acceptable ("Hey! First
Amendment baby!") but this always
reflects a pathetic refusal to do the intellectual hard work to
understand what's really happening.
fact, I've come to the realization that hate speech is indeed a
crime, and should be fully prosecuted with the full extent of the
law. The terribly troubling part about that is, what
is it exactly that should be
prosecuted? This is a critical component of the presently raging
culture war, and is it raging.
instance, the homosexualist voice out there will insist that if I
say "Homosexual activity destroys the lives of those who engage in
it," that is a hate speech crime. In my view, someone who says
"Those who say 'Homosexual activity destroys lives' should be
penalized in some way," that is
a hate crime, and they should
Thank God for the Kingdom. Thank God for mercy and forgiveness and
grace and hope and the knowledge that He loves and opens His arms to
us from that.
Again, there is so much more to all of this, and I was hoping to
blog a bit more this month about the things I simply could not plug
home page piece. Already it is
a bit less cohesive than I'd like, but it'll do. But again, I can
add some things here, and I hope to. We'll see.
want to say that last night I watched this family Pixar film Zootopia with
my wife and daughter. Some of the film's thrust was pukifyingly
World indoctrination. The theme song was "Try Everything," and when
I hear stuff like that from these kinds of things I know they're
subtly getting across the idea that you should experiment sexually
for you to be truly fulfilled. In Frozen it
was "Let It Go!" and I don't believe there is one person paying
attention who doesn't understand that this means "Stop holding back
on your splendidly novel sexual identity." I've heard too much
already about the pressures on Pixar to give Elsa a girlfriend. Wow.
There was also the horrific racialist angle. Fighting racism is
fine, but when it becomes racialism, it is just as ugly. In Zootopia a
certain kind of animal was labelled and stereotyped and was even
having penalizing things happen to them -- losing jobs and being
marginalized and being sent to the ghetto -- those kinds of things.
So then it was perfectly fine for all those railing against the
racism to go on a witch hunt, accusing anyone who wasn't among the
persecuted kind of being racist because so much fear and loathing
interesting thing is that the movie did, in some way, make a strong
case for how all of this crap
happens. The racist persecution
hysteria was stirred by a politician trying to legitimize her
authority. Pretty much what happens in our real world. Furthermore,
animals were shot with hallucinogenic bullets to make them savages,
yep, that's also pretty much how the real World works.
here, instead of the bullets, it's
the words that pour through the authorized media channels.
about making sure everyone who is wildly different gets along. The
film itself is a glorious paeon to the humanist vision of making
that happen simply through willpower and resolve and the requisite
System dogma pouring through our craniums. Please know that this is
indeed what the System must do
to manage a population given over to licentiousness and racialism
and plain old murder and deceit and theft.
way out of all of that to truly have actual getting
along among people?
That requires the Kingdom.
requires believing on the One Who Loved First.
Fake World love is okay, for a while, I guess.
Wouldn't you want the real one? And wouldn't you want to talk with
people whose speech comes from Him and His words and His Kingdom?
truly believe the sodomist and the racialist so rail against that
because when Jesus is introduced to them, they only have some Catholicist
variation of that Jesus in
their minds, and they've been hypnotically entranced to reject it
with everything they've got.
Oh that they'd be introduced to the Real One.
Oh that there'd be Kingdom
people to do that...
Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime, Part II
July 6, 2016
After posting my latest
home page piece, I realized I
should probably blog a bit about all the stuff included in the idea
of speech. Yes, I'll never blog enough to cover all the things I
wanted to write, all the things I'm still thinking about it all.
This is why a critical component is that we're talking about it with
others, indefinitely, just talking.
That's a very good thing.
It is also why I should mention one of the top philosophers
regarding this "freedom of speech" thing, and that is John Stuart
Mill. I wanted to plug him into the home page piece, but I just
couldn't find a place for him without messing with an already
But he deserves a mention. He argued that we should live in an
environment where all our differences may be respected and there is
opportunity for all views to be shared. If a particular view is
considered irrational or unrighteous in some way, well then, we can
all employ our level-headedness and sharpen our own thinking out of
the reasonable comprehension of the ideas shared.
It sounds so noble.
The problem is that many people don't do that. Many people take in
ideas that are wickedly reprehensible, ideas that are shared with
tremendous sincerity and given vigorous weightiness, and
they aren't justifiably rejected.
One such idea is one I noted in the home page piece, and again, I
just felt compelled to elaborate. It is this one, transcribed from
"It is best to endorse the behavior of people who do sexually
untraditional things with one another in the name of celebrating our
differences and embracing our individual liberties."
To make it more concrete, this is the idea that if you want to have
a sexual encounter with someone of the same sex, as long as it is
consensual, then it is perfectly fine, and that if someone objects
then he/she is to be reviled openly in some way as too narrow-minded
or bigoted or homophobic. Where on earth did people, now in droves,
reasonably adopt such an idea?
Now there is a place where they got that idea, and if you look at my
home page piece, you may get started on that course.
The point is, what is the situation with this idea now being
considered mainstream acceptable?
Am I able to share -- openly and boldly and articulately -- truthful
speech about sodomy's horrifically destructive consequences? Am I
able to share that I do so because I care about the individuals
involved in their destruction? Am I able to make an extraordinarily
strong case against their pathetically inadequate attempts to
justify it? Am I able to detail the reasons for my position,
including my view that there should indeed be a law in place to
prohibit such behavior but that there is also a loving Savior who
heals and restores and completely forgives those who act on their
same-sex attractions? Am I able to do this in the safe
environment they expect without the listener resorting to
name-calling -- in the truest sense of what Mill sought?
Thing is, if Mill is right, then unrighteous and destructive
ideas should justly be rejected.
I'd like to share a story with you about this very point. It helps
make the case.
About a year ago I attended a lecture at one of the Claremont
Colleges, as I frequently do. Most are filled by a few fan-boys of
the speaker, students who must be there for credit, and a smattering
of others -- not too well attended. This particular one, however,
The speakers were two women who'd fought in the courts to get
married, and they were regaling everyone with the story of their
struggle. They showed slides with images of the protesters and
supporters and others who helped them along the way. The substance
of their presentation was mostly about the legal and political
challenges they faced.
Needless to say the audience was very supportive, overwhelmingly so.
This is the new civil rights struggle, especially prominent on
campuses. Make sure everyone gets the freedom to do what they want
in the bedroom. Damn -- never mind that colleges right now are going
insane having to address the rampant sexual assault cases that
result from this mentality.
Anyway, afterwards there was a question and answer period, and while
I knew I would not get a chance to ask my question (too many in
attendance and preferences go to students, so they almost always are
the only ones asking questions), I want to share it with you now.
Here was the question I wanted to ask.
"Please do not mistake me for a marriage pluralist, which means I
would be someone who even though I have some passing preference for
marriage only between a man and a woman I'm perfectly fine with your
pretend marriage. No, you should know that I am a marriage upholder,
which means it should be fully accepted that it is a crime for
anyone to have a sexual relationship with anyone other than an adult
of the opposite sex to which one is married..."
Now, I haven't even gotten to the question here, but I think in
honor of Mills I should let people know precisely where I'm coming
from. But really, how many people in that room would have already
not only tuned me out but would be judging me as someone worse than
a Nazi war criminal? Why? Oh, I know why, but these are supposed to
be the most enlightened brightest individuals on the planet.
Also, it is true, yes,
that I don't really have to preface my question with a statement
that will only negatively color what they all think of me. But then
again, who's fault is that? I also shared this preface because it is
why I wrote a similar thing in my home page piece. You may catch it there.
Okay, here's the question.
"Do you think people should be able to have a fully sexual
experience with an animal, or a dead person, or a lamppost, or a
four-year-old girl, or all of them at the same time for that matter?
Are you okay with that, or are you not? Yes or no?"
What would their answer be? Before I continue, their answer,
whatever it is, thoroughly discredits their position. Can you see
why? Think about it. I'll give you a minute. While you're doing
that, the homosexualist voice often tries to argue against the
question by dismissing the merits of the question itself. "Slippery
slope you say? Pshaw. That's just stupid." They do this all the
time, and say nothing. Now these two may have responded this way,
but they'd still be evading the question.
They still do have a feeling about the question.
Let's say they answer it.
If they respond, "Yes, we think that's okay. Full marriage equality,
to each his or her own, full sexual freedom that's what we're
First of all, I don't think anyone in their right mind would endorse
such a thing. But to be truly consistent with their position, they
have to. How often do I hear the words "marriage equality" or
"marriage inclusivity". Really? Does that include my marriage to my
dog? The lamppost out front -- really, it does love me. I want to
marry my grandmother, we're in love, but she's dead -- that
shouldn't matter though! Total freedom and equality and inclusion,
that's what we're all about.
See, right away this reveals the bankruptcy of their position. But
that's just the righteousness aspect. Most people do indeed see the
wretched unrighteousness of those things, and yes they do wholly
endorse law enforcement policies and practices to prevent them.
What about the logical aspect? It too destroys their claims. That is
If they're in favor of whatever-whoever-however when it comes to
sexual experiences, then what in blazes are they doing here? Why are
they here blithering about their marriage, when according to their
view it can be anything they want it to be? In fact, if it can be
for anyone anyhow for any reason, then why have marriage?
If these two women answer "Yes" to the question, then marriage
What are they then doing, telling us all about how they need the
courts to decide this or that, or how they need public opinion to
swing in their favor, or how government must sanction this or that
particular "marriage" thing?
I know why. It is because much of this is merely their way to feel
good about their wickedness, and the more and more people and courts
and government offices to approve it then the better they can feel
about it. Funny, who're being the intolerant ones here?
Now to the other answer to the question. What happens if instead of
"Yes", they say "No". "No", they say, "we don't approve of those
kinds of sexual behaviors."
Then I wonder, how can they be consistent with their own
insistence that we all rally behind them and approve
of their unrighteous sexual behavior?
And where do they draw the line? Do they draw the line at three
people having a sexual encounter? Would they go so far as to say
bestiality is okay but necrophilia is not? Where exactly on the
sexual encounter between whoever continuum are they okay and where
are they not?
Here's the key part of this:
Who decides where that is?
To cut to the chase, who decided it was okay for two people of the
same sex to have a sexual encounter? Did they? Was it
just they decided because it felt good?
Yes, lots of people do lots of things, many times not very wholesome
things, because it feels good. I got that. But who said we all have
to be perfectly fine with people regularly engaging in sexual abuse
crimes and saying nothing when the movements to get everyone to bow
to the precepts of such activity become too entrenched?
Who said that point there on the continuum, namely the one allowing
same-sex relationships to be openly and publicly celebrated, was the
accepted one? Because if it was just whoever wants it to be there,
then you're simply back to supporting true marriage inclusion, and
that means you can do anything you want no matter how wicked.
But if there is a transcendent standard-giver, namely God, who said
in both His word and in the natural order He created that the
standard is a distinctly particular thing, then there is indeed a
grounding for why anyone should or shouldn't do something.
Furthermore since we can never be perfect in meeting that standard
doesn't mean we shouldn't dismiss it in the name of "individual
liberty" or "sexual freedom."
It does mean we can call on His name, and know that He does answer
in the person of His Son Jesus Christ.
It is easy to see why I couldn't really ask that question in that
setting. Oh did I want to.
But it involves continuing
the conversation. I can do a small part by posting here in my blog,
my webzine to begin with. I
could say a lot more here in this post, but it's long.
The conversation can go forever.
I do wonder, how many of those college students, if I were to ask
the question, and if they were to hear what the response from those
women was, would be able to determine that their entire enterprise
is truly bankrupt?
And believe me, I don't revile those women or the students in
attendance. I do feel for them, however. I do feel great sorrow for
them, and can only pray that they'd be able to see the truth in all
And the Grace as well...
And that we could have a conversation...
(July 7 note, I cannot refuse to add this passage from a piece from
Vanity Fair, something I was just browsing through tonight. It is
stunning to me, and just makes the case above stronger. This is just
a small part of the expose on the increase in "sex work", the
selling of one's body to pay the bills.
Jenna says that a friend of hers was sexually assaulted by a man she
met on a sugaring site. “She didn’t want to report it,” she says,
“because she didn’t want her parents to know what she was doing.”
Women in sex work reportedly experience a high incidence of rape, as
well as a “workplace homicide rate” 51 times higher than that of the
next most dangerous job, working in a liquor store, according to
the American Journal of Epidemiology.
“If prostitution is really just physical labor,” says the Canadian
feminist writer and prostitution abolitionist, Meghan Murphy, on the
phone, “if it’s no different than serving coffee or fixing a car,
then why would we see rape as such a traumatic thing? If there’s
nothing different about sex, then what’s so bad about rape?”
And they say there is no such thing as a slippery slope. Have they
no shame at all.)
Hate Speech is Indeed a
Crime, Part III
July 7, 2016
I am blogging yet again on
a day when otherwise I'd be at work giving every once of attention
to my job. I am blessed to do this now because I have time off from
work for a while. I'm also committed to sharing more out of my latest
home page piece in which I make
the case that hate speech is indeed a crime, and that there should
indeed be laws governing it.
The twist is that just as much as the liberal politically correct
crowd is obsessed with speech police enforcement of offensive
language violations, they too are subject to the same laws. When
someone screeches "You microaggressed me!" I am perfectly within my
rights to insist right back, “You're microaggressing me! You're the
one who's violating healthy speech expectations!"
Yesterday I went into a bit more detail about how sodomous behavior
actually destroys those who engage in it and as such I am perfectly
justified in speaking out against it, and indeed it is those openly
and vocally insisting on society's celebration of it who are
committing the hate speech violations. Today I want to get a bit
more into another of the claims/statements/assertions fomenting
everywhere, this one particularly nasty with relation to the spewdom
of the mainstream newscasting hegemony.
It is that of racialism. Not racism, racialism, which is the witch
hunt for anyone who is perceived to be doing anything that may even
remotely be considered racist, calling them out, and amplifying
their violations so they may be duly prosecuted in the court of
public opinion if not in actual courts where the most severe
penalties may be assessed.
I could address the intensely hysterical amplification of any
instance a white police officer shoots a black man. Whether or not
the shooting is justified is beside the point -- now even
writing that makes the racialist go apoplectic, by no means do I
think any unjustified shooting is okay. The point is when the media
disproportionately showcase a black victim harmed at the hands of a
white man, they are sending a hate speech message. The message:
Whites are racist to the core and penalties must ensue in some form.
This is racialism, it is evil, and it is hate speech.
One of the most wretched examples of this comes from the Los Angeles
Times. Recently they've been on a zealous crusade to make sure
people working in Hollywood are sufficiently diverse. It has gone so
far as to become mean-spirited, nasty, vicious -- this is the whole
tenor of the crusade. Essentially: "Hey white Hollywood power
brokers, if you don't deliberately showcase more people
considered minority then you will be tarred with the
label racist and we will not stop browbeating you with vitriol until
you either bend the knee or completely disappear."
Who are those considered minority? I could list all the
classifications, but you can look at them all plainly exhibited in
their newspaper -- they've had this kind of gallery more than once.
It can, however, be narrowed into one simple classification, really.
It is identified in the second of my examples of the worst kinds of
hate speech from my home page piece:
"It is best to be wary of American-English speaking, conservative,
older, masculine-oriented, white males because they are mostly angry
It is plainly the case, the Los Angeles Time echoing the wicked
mentality of much of their constituency: "We need more
diversity!... except for American-English speaking, conservative,
older, masculine-oriented, white males."
One of the reasons this itself is hate speech is because besides
being horrifically racialist, it is indeed, yes, quite racist. I
refer to "American-English speaking" because white people with
accents tend to be considered foreigners and are due some special
privileged considerations. I also make reference to
"masculine-oriented" because included among minorities
are any LGBT-minded individuals.
Know what else? See if you can see who else it is racist against? It
is one of the fascinating aspects of this that is completely lost on
the racialist crusaders.
It is racist against those they claim to be helping.
Look at the message. "You minority people, you are losers because of
the white power hegemony and you must have our help to make it in
life." The racialist crusaders are certainly not against the most
despicable paternalism, no, that's perfectly fine.
In fact, much of this is driven by a still raging devotion to the
philosophy of postmodernism, even as those in academia have fully
grasped its logical bankruptcy. Postmodernism is still giving cover
for those who want to feel better about their asinine paternalistic
Postmodernism is the
position that there is no truth, and that any claims that anyone
should know the truth are merely (a) narratives derived from one's
interpretive community and as such have no real cognitive strength
or meaningful value outside of that community and (b) attempts to
exert an unjustified measure of power over other groups who have
their own perfectly reasonable narratives.
The reason academia are seeing the
untenable nature of such a position is phenomenally simple. You
don't have to be a genius to get it, by any means. Postmodernism
rests on the assumption that there is no objective truth. Thus the
question: Is it true that there is no truth? The postmodernist: "It
is not only true that there is no truth, but I assert the truth of
narrative distinctions and power assertions and blah blah blah..."
Not a whole lot of people want to sound like an idiot.
What happens now is
academia personnel backtrack on that aspect of it but they still
live by its precepts. And those precepts continue to seep into the
mainstream through the disseminating broadcasting personalities who
merely spout the stuff that's written on the script for them to
such example was in a brief video I saw, I don't know how I was
directed to it, a friend on Facebook or something maybe, not sure.
But it was of a young black woman, I believe she was even sharing
this on MSNBC -- I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be surprised because
the NBC network is one of the main folly marketers and an
extraordinarily powerful one at that. She essentially said this:
"It is okay for blacks and other minorities to get away with being
racist because they are not part of the white power establishment.
This is why it is not okay for whites to get away with it."
The brutal irony of this is that if her postmodernist take here is
accepted as the valid one and fully adopted by all, what happens
when her particular community -- presumably that of this monolithic
force minorities, finally exerting their power as the
::gulp:: majority -- become the power establishment? Does that then
make it okay for whites to be racist?
Besides the fact it is stunningly racist, racialist, paternalistic,
and silly because it is based on the silliness of postmodernism, it
is also shared without any challenge by anyone who is smart enough
to call her on it. How discouraging it is that so many who know the
truth about this evil are saying nothing.
Furthermore, she is getting her copy from someone. As much as she
says she's doing her own thinking and she says she's her own person
and she gets commended by so many for her own genius brilliant
insight and thoughtfulness...
She is being fed this tripe from someone.
Even if you can identify the people in the university where she was
trained in this stuff, from whom did they get their indoctrination?
Do you know?
In fact much of the media world elite would love for you to benignly
dismiss understanding that truth. While I was in the doctor's office
the other day I browsed through a Time magazine and came across an
article about an individual whose "stage" name is "PewDiePie". I'd
never heard of this guy, but he's extremely popular among the
teenage/young adult male demographic -- 44 million regular
subscribers. It seems that all he does is show Youtube videos of him
playing video games and riffing on any other hip thing he wants to
drone on about.
Lev Grossman closes his piece of June 6 of this year: "Nobody
directs PewDiePie, nobody writes his lines, nobody handles him. He's
pioneering a new kind of fame that never existed before: it's not
manufactured by a studio or network, it's handmade, at home,
subscriber by subscriber, view by view."
PewDiePie is just as much a product of the people who put things
into his brain to bilge into the brains of his followers as anyone
You are following
Ultimately it gets down to two different people. You are following
one or the other.
You are following Jesus, or you are following the Devil.
Yes, this is not a new truth or one that is lost on very many
people, yes. It is just that it is violently dismissed by a humanist
naturalist academia-media power hegemony of itself led by those
hypnotically devoted to wiping out any semblance of the supernatural
influences on our lives.
Lots of people have influenced PewDiePie to say and do the things he
says and does, no matter how ribald or novel his rants are. The
question again is, who is influencing those people?
Who is influencing millions to be racialist, or sodomist, or
anything else that gets people to straight away reject the words
Jesus has shared, all in the name of doing what they believe
is really the righteous stuff?
When really, it is just as much hate speech as anything else.
The key here is that while the hate speech laws should apply to them
just as much as anyone else, followers of Christ want people to not
have to endure the brutal reality of that hell. That is why
they do share Him and His work and His authority.
The follower of Christ knows he/she is just as guilty as anyone
else, the law condemns them just as much as anyone else. The
difference is they know what real mercy is, what real forgiveness
is, what real grace and hope and beauty is. There is eternal life,
and there is death that looks like life.
It is a matter of the World, which keeps people enslaved to their
benighted, destructive conceptions of what they think is righteous,
or the Kingdom which authentically frees.
(July 7 Note: Just
tonight eleven police officers in Dallas were shot, four of them
fatally, during the tail end of a "Black Lives Matter" rally. On
Facebook I shared a friend's photograph -- shown below -- and added
When will we stop the racialism. Yes, racism is bad, but racialism
is just as bad. What happened in Dallas tonight is due in part to a
racialist mainstream media that goes apoplectic any time a white
police officer takes any action against a person of color. Words
often translate into the actions of those who heed them --
especially when they come from the extraordinarily powerful MSM. I
fear tonight's incident in Dallas isn't the worst of it...
It is good to know we have a Savior who holds us in His hands no
matter what happens. In light of these horrific events, I may still
pray and pray and pray that people would actually see this
nightmarish stuff for what it is, get out of the humanist-powered
racialist idiocy, and turn to Christ.)
Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime, Part IV
July 14, 2016
A few years ago I wondered why a video
game company didn't invent a gaming experience in which the player
can shoot at his enemy of choice -- zombie, monster, Nazi, whatever
-- and do so in and about his
regular environs. That is, he dons
a set of glasses, goggles, or other such somewhat non-obstructive
reasonably fashionable VR device, and the images of his targets
appear from behind the tree across the street, from around the
corner of the building in front of him, from behind the couch in his
Blam blam blam --
using your fake pistol aimed at fake threats in a real setting,
there you go, you just saved your family from some evil being right
there about to invade your home. Or at least you could feel like
Well, now there is something that is
coming close to that, Pokemon Go, and it is the biggest video game
craze since Pong. Apparently you can hop out and find Pokemon out
and about in your regular environs,
sort of a combination of video Pokemon and geocaching. What a blast!
Thing is, it's
all just fantasy. It is very fun,
but it immerses one in seeking life fulfillment in a fantasy world.
I know why. When you do it with another you get all three true life
needs met: relationship,
Life otherwise has turned into a dreadful bore, really, when you
look at it. People are assholes, and actually not very interesting
to talk to, for the most part. Everything out there already seems to
be arranged for the spiffiest life-living for everyone, so what's a
young person to do -- he can't even get a decent job. And hey, video
games fill that need to see new, exciting, blood-spewing stuff
without the risk of something traumatic happening. Hey, it's what
not real life.
Many have derided Pokemon Go as being too dangerous, players are
obliviously walking into traffic or allowing thieves to snatch their
mobile devices. But that's not the worst of it.
People are simply not doing the hard work to see what real life
I share this because this gets at the
third of my initial hate speech violations, things people say that
should indeed make them subject to the most rigorous hate speech
prosecution. The first was about sodomism, essentially the words,
"Sexual relations with someone of the same sex should not only be
endorsed but celebrated" do qualify as hate speech. The second was
racialism, "Certain kinds of people are inherently racist," also
definitively hate speech and something that the now renowned protest
group "Black Lives Matter" build their entire crusade upon.
The third is this
one, and one that many Pokemon Go enthusiast young people embrace
with the greatest zeal. From my
latest home page piece:
"It is best to enlist government people to fix income inequality by
rearranging wealth in the name of charity."
Yes, this it better known by its
qualifying terminology: socialism.
I'm simply not going to get into all of it
here, too much. But it really isn't that complicated. It sounds so
good, help out poor people. No one wants to be poor. That's fine.
But what is often forgotten, neglected, or just flat-out dismissed
by the socialist is that for every dime government hands to anyone who
did not do the requisite value expression to earn that dime, it must remove that
dime's worth of value from someone else. And that someone else had
to do some kind of work to produce something that makes that dime worth something.
Yes, only the most cold-hearted individual
would be against making sure some dimes
are handed to the four types of people who simply cannot produce:
children, the elderly, the sick or injured, and the disabled. The
first three are really not in question, at all.
The really tricky part of that equation
is the disabled. What
does that mean? Sure it means people in wheelchairs, but many people
in wheelchairs have perfectly fine jobs everywhere. Could it mean
people who simply don't have the intellectual capacity to do
high-paying work and could be then classified as ::gulp:: poor?
Could this kind of "disabled" also mean people who simply don't have
the character to hold some income-earning position?
That means they just aren't reliable, punctual, persevering,
prudent, modest, industrious, or any of the many character traits
that are required to effectively produce and in turn earn a decent
living. Wow, what about that kind
of disabled? I'm making no value judgment here, I'm just elaborating
on some considerations that aren't as boldly articulated as maybe
they should be.
And when these people are handed money
they didn't earn, what happens when others without the most
expansive amount of character attribution start to see how the World
defines this thing disabled?
"Hey, I can now make great excuses for not working! I can be
'disabled' too! Well, I can see my gravy train a-headin' my way!
And out of this codependent "I've got to
rescue you from yourself" mantra you start to get the most explosive
rent-snarfing society there is -- that's
what we've got right now. You start
getting a virulent reduction in the incentive to produce things.
People may say they're disabled, but that doesn't mean there'll be
enough stuff for government to get for them. Look at the final
results of such a system, right now that's Venezuela.
You've got exactly what Marx said we should get, government
insisting people get stuff based on their needs instead of allowing
people to be rewarded for what their abilities can make. You merely
have a whole world of needy people taking from the producers whose
capacity is so stressed that produced things start to diminish.
Yes, everyone is needy, no matter how
smart, knowledgeable, and productive. But we've gone from "I'll
proudly and righteously earn my keep" to "Because I'm needy you must
feed me no matter who I am or what I've done." Neediness
is the new disability.
There are nearly 100 million people in the
United States not in
the labor force participation rate. That's now, really, 100 million
people who could be working but can't get jobs because, well, are
they disabled? Could it be they're being exploited, too? Of
But the fact is that's 100 million people
who still need to buy groceries. And
yes, someone somewhere somehow is paying for those groceries. Whether
it is government public assistance in the form of "food stamps" or
it is modestly well-off Uncle Irvin, there is a very measurable
transfer of a very meaningful value assignment derived from the
sweat of someone's brow.
The key point in all of this is that the
U.S. Government -- in setting up this system, in maintaining the
system, in its people maintaining
this system through electing its government officials, is indeed...
Yes, the whole thing right now is indeed –
Right now. With everyone's full consent. U.S.A. might as well stand
for "United Socialists of America". Seriously! Not being sarcastic
in the least!
Oh the blowback from such a statement.
From the conservatives "What -- you're not American?!
How could you say that you communist!
We're free market, we're capitalist, we're America!" From
the liberals "What? With all the poverty still around and kids not
getting free college and the rich getting richer -- are
you kidding? This country is still
the worst country with all the inequities, we're not close to
the socialist ideal yet!"
But, what can I expect. Tens of millions
of people still living in their fantasy worlds. Playing their real
life Pokemon Go's, thinking that Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton is
the answer, or fuming that each of these bonehead candidates leave
them with no choice, or believing that they can continue to keep
saying "Disabled!" and
have government ensure they keep getting sent stuff without the
overall destructive repercussions.
They haven't the faintest idea of what real
I've got to zip off to run some errands now, spend time with my
family, take the afternoon coaching my high school sports team, I
just can't blog any more –
But there is an answer.
Really. I want to share it with you. I want to expand on this. I
will, later, sometime. If you can't wait, read some in
my webzine. The answer is
there. Even better take some time and read
this. The answer is really there.
Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime, Part V
July 17, 2016
I wanted to continue the thread from the last post with a few more
thoughts, but I won't have time to continue it as I'd like. I just
don't have the time. I may put in a "Part VI" with more later, but
I'm afraid there will always be more to blog on. There is so much
the World is doing to draw people into its clutches, and much of it
involves the most hateful speech there is.
For now I can briefly add this to top off my remarks on socialism
from the last post.
No matter how much you think socialism is
the answer in some form or another, even if you are the nicest
sounding Christian -- and yes, much of socialism's strength comes
from very nice-sounding Christians -- governance works
it out so that powerful exploiters, rich people very good at value
extraction, continue to get rich so
governance can appropriate more of wealth.
Progressive taxes mean it can get more tribute. And governance needs
gobs of rent-bestowed exploiters out there for sucking up more
The question is, where did said rich
person get that measure of value? From his/her customers, of course!
It's really their money,
a reflection of their productive
value. In most cases it
is legitimately handed over in some form or another, but far too
often it is extracted through exploitative means.
Governance manages the sinful behavior of its charges, and must
extract tribute for that. How great to appropriate more of it
through a rich person! It still comes from the lower income
extractees no matter how it looks. And how great is it for 100
million non-labor-force participating people to believe they can
only be someone through the good graces of rich people.
It's all human sacrifice. "Socialism" is just another
way Cain's legacy can do its duty.
The World is only about which exploiters are powerful enough to put
a whole slew of exploitees on the altar. And they switch around
which one is which all the time. There is always some exploiter more
powerful than you. Funny how so many think they're somebody. Funny,
if not pukifyingly tragic.
And what, exactly is this thing, governance?
It is composed of nothing other than the Roman Catholic Church, the
federal government, the Federal Reserve, the mass media
conglomerate, the college and university conglomerate, and all of
their subdivisions: non-profit churches, ministries, and charities;
the state and local government offices; the banks and financial
There is only one way off the altar.
That is through the Kingdom.
You can't get there through the wide gate.
Only the narrow one.
Again, I can't write more now. I'd love
to. I always am. Visit
my webzine if you're interested
in more of the contrast.
Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime, and Understanding This May Take Some
July 22, 2016
Sadly, for so many, understanding that
hate speech is indeed a crime will never happen. It'd be nice, but
it just won't happen. We've been a civilized people for, what, at
least 6,000 years, and we're still not getting it. We look around at
people trying and trying and trying and just get exasperated.
I confess, I do
too. I look at it all, and get exasperated. I'm working at
acceptance, something I myself have been on about for some 20, 30
years. Acceptance is a very good thing, but it is still hard for me
to not feel it when people simply refuse to see what is right in
front of their eyes.
Oh, Jesus did the same thing, trust me.
You can find how he felt in Scripture, His own words. Read about His
feelings here, in just these few verses from the
gospel of Mark -- 3:5, 6:6,
8:12 -- yeah, check it out.
Jesus got exasperated.
So yeah, I really can't add anything else to what I've shared, to
what I've encouraged people to look at in Scripture or in a more
intellectually rigorous approach to things happening all about and
how they got that way, history, science, current events,
philosophies, movements. I've thought about adding more on the
idiocies of sodomism, racialism, and socialism, and yeah, there is
so much more. So many people are rocketing themselves to hell based
on their willful adoption of the hate speech vomited at them
regarding these things.
And that is indeed a lot of it. So much of
what people should be seeing and understanding in this thing reality is
told to them by their "handlers." I like that phrase, your handlers.
Those are the powerful people out there, sometimes they are referred
to as the mandarins, those
who have the System-girding privileges to govern your thoughts and
feelings about things.
You know, I've been reading Acts again in my devotional time. I was
very interested to note that when he could be out and about after
his conversion experience, the very first major address Paul made
was to tell a poser, "You are a child of the devil and an enemy of
everything that is right! You are full of all kinds of deceit and
trickery! Will you never stop perverting the right ways of the
I mean, those words truly blew my mind, because really...
They are the exact same words we should be saying to the people
managing the mainstream media networks regarding its extraordinarily
overwhelming hate speech dissemination.
I've already gone into great detail about
what precisely that is in my
last home page piece and all
the blogging I've done since.
If I continue with it I'll be up to "Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime
Part 57", and more. And there will be more. I'll continue blogging
about it all. I'll continue writing in my webzine about the details,
praying people would read -- and
You know, last week in and around all the
terror attacks, all the grand political goofiness, the
communications app company Line went public. The stock started
around $42 and has still been hovering in that range. I'd never
known about this company, I guess it was a big deal. When I looked
it up, I discovered Line is all about making sure all your messaging
phoning texting posting photosharing emailing chatting groupchatting
grouptexting nationforming any and all that stuff is alllll taken
Here's the thing.
What, really, is the substance of what courses through those wires?
What exactly is that?
What is meaningfully transmitted from one
individual to another, from one
group to another?
Is it hate speech disguised as the most tolerant pusillanimous plap
that people feel they must share with one another so they can be so
pukifyingly polite, or is it
Truth and Grace?
Do you really want to see, know,
comprehend, grasp truth,
and then find the greatest joy in discovering that truth is really
Again, I like blogging, and will do it
again sometime. Thanks for stopping by to read some, thanks. But to
get the full breadth of what it means to look deep into the far
reaches of Truth,
I'd love to invite you to look over my
webzine. My home
page piece about exasperation
from a number of years ago is here, by the way.
Even better, find Him here.
Hate Speech is Indeed a Crime, One Last Take... At Least For Now
July 31, 2016
I just wanted to briefly confess some naivete, and elaborate a bit
on the things I shared that are hate speech crimes but the World
seems to be perfectly happy blapping loudly about.
Remember those things?
If I told you to go steal something from the store across the
street, and you were particularly impressionable and went off to do
it, would I not be complicit in the theft? If I am, I can't see how
I haven't committed a hate speech crime.
If I told you to go commit a sexually immoral or indecent act with
someone else, even if that someone else appeared to be perfectly
fine with it, and I furthermore shared with you explicit
instructions about how to do it and how to feel about it, would I
not be complicit in sexual abuse? If I am, I can't see how I haven't
committed an act of hate speech.
If I told you to act on your desire to obtain something someone else
has, particularly when it appears that someone else is in a
different tribe with common physical features divergent from yours,
and I furthermore enlisted the forces of established powerful
individuals to secure those things to play up the perceived evils of
the other tribe as a rationalization for your actions, would I not
be complicit in exploitive appropriation?
The fact is millions of people are complicit in these acts all the
time when they engage in socialism, sodomism, and racialism. What is
so sorrowful is that most of those millions don't even know they are
Look at that first one. Socialism. Again,
people like that things are equal,
that things are fair,
that people are treated with respect no
matter how educationally disabled they are and unable to do a job
someone with less disability can do. That's fine. But when powerful
individuals, groups, or institutions mandate that others have large
measures of their value appropriated to make sure this notion of equality eventuates,
isn't that simply a form of theft?
Isn't this a violation of the commandment against theft?
Or how about the one on sodomism? The term
is one deplored by the System devotees, but it merely means the most
zealous endorsement of sexual immorality and ruthless rejection of
anyone who opposes it on sexual health grounds. Thing is, as I
thought about it, as I thought about the teleological truth that the
only healthy sexual relations are those between a committed adult
man and woman, and that having a sexual encounter with anyone
else is a crime against the ones in
that committed relationship, then isn't that simply a form of
Isn't this a violation of the commandment against adultery?
Then there is racialism, and my confession of naivete. When I wrote
in one of my previous blog posts in this series, I referenced a
video made by a gal who said, essentially, that blacks cannot be
racist and that only whites can. Since then I've gotten the idea
that this is an idea that has been prominent in the World devotee
black community for a long, long time.
I just didn't know.
First, I can only refer you back to my
question from the previous blog. Ask yourself this question, very
seriously: Where did they get
that idea? Really, who put that
idea into their brains? I did deliberately emphasize "World devotee
black community" because I know so many blacks who are smart, savvy,
spiritually gifted, and they understand the demonic nature of such a
I truly believe one of the reasons I'd never heard of this idea is
because so many people, of all races, know how contemptibly idiotic
that mentality is, and are very careful with its dissemination. I
guess in today's wretchedly racialist environment it is more
permitted to share, I don't know.
But I do want to make this overarching point through all of this.
It is that those hate speech crimes are ultimately violations of
three of the Ten Commandments.
Oh, sorry, by the way, what is the violation of racialism, there in
the Ten Commandments? Did you catch it?
Isn't this a violation of the commandment against coveting?
I'm not saying blacks shouldn't have anything that
is good and righteous that whites enjoy, but covetousness is a heart
condition, really. And in the sense of racialism, it is the claim
that whites have a lot of things blacks don't have for the expressed
purpose of keeping blacks in a persistent state of victimhood.
Is it true exploiters in all of these instances violate the Ten
Commandments? Sure! Rich people could indeed be stealing from the
poorer people. Married people could be abusing each other with
terrible emotional violence -- many do! Racists get away with a lot
of the worst kinds of exploitation. The Ten Commandments condemn
each individual equally.
But the ultimate answer is not Donald
Trump or Hillary Clinton! Each of them actually want these
things to flourish because then they get more air time to tell
everyone how they're the ones to solve them! This is how its been
for millennia! They're given marching orders from deeper politics
operatives who keep it all assembled and thriving!
One of the main purposes of the Ten
Commandments is to show us that we'll never meet those requirements,
and that we need a savior who makes us alive again to be empowered
to love one another so we can even live above the
requirements of the law.
That's merely because we may love because Christ loved us first.
And from that is this truth...
It isn't about socialism, sodomism, or
racialism -- really. I mean, really, I can understand why people
believe in the precepts of each. I can see why they feel the way
they do, why they say the things
they say. They're hurting, wounded,
angry, scared people.
It is, however, all about whether or not they actually understand
the principle behind the First Commandment. It is simply the answer
to this question.
Do you have any other gods besides God?
That's the main question, really. All the other considerations of
who's doing what, who's violating what commandment or not violating
it, all of it comes from the truth about who you are worshipping.
And I know, there
are so many gods. I grieve for
those who worship a god of ___. (Fill in the blank with just about
anything. It seems most people like putting in that blank "The
Crusade", both humanists and religionists alike. It just feels so
Sadly, are people fellowshipping with
people who understand and know God? I've written tons in my
webzine about how churches who
say they believe on Christ are just as much the World as anything,
and are so frighteningly inadequate to share Christ and His love
with World inhabitants who can't imagine not being a loud,
blustering part of The Crusade.
This is the last post of the month. All this stuff about hate speech
I can only pray, as always, that people would find the Living World,
a refreshing fountain of mercy and grace.
And I can of course write
a little about Him.
December 2022 Postscript: As I learn more about the World
System and its machinations I've discovered so much about the
insidious ways the Roman Ecclesiocracy works. My perusal of history,
in particular looking deeply at what potentates do in the service of
Rome, tells me conclusively that the deepest state operatives make
these horrors happen for the expressed purpose of showcasing what
great grand leaders they are, and for the implicit but quite obvious
goal of managing the sin of a nation's populace through
imaginatively regimented human sacrifice practices.
In a very real sense it is one gigantic trolling operation, and
millions of smart educated people Scripturally ill-equipped to
understand it still get sucked right into the maelstrom. This
feature of the sin management program Cain was tasked to execute
millennia ago is progressing and will continue to progress by God's
divine permission exclusively for those who choose not to live by
Christ and dwell in His Kingdom.
This reality is always there in plain sight, only left to be
recognized by those who do decide to let Christ share with them His
mind, His eyes, and His ears. As much as what I share here may
reasonably be considered just as much susceptibility to the massive
institutional trolling ("Lookit how evil sodomism & socialism &
racialism & all that is let me explain!...") I'd like to
think my readers would see the only purpose of my webzine ministry
work here is to encourage them to see it for what it is, "abjure the
realm," and turn to find that true peace and rapturous joy in the
| Site Map
This page was originally posted by David Beck at
yourownjesus.net on December 2,