Recent comments

  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 4 years 21 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    I believe with all my heart, with my whole self, that we -- the rebels -- will *always* find a way. After all, there are those of us that, in addition to practicing resistance, are raising revolutionaries.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 21 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Nothing has changed for our Crow and Dolphin cousins on the evolutionary Tree of Life for many millions of years. They're still happy. Is their happiness "permanent" or "temporary?" Much hopey changey has happened to humans. Now we have nuclear weapons, Fukushima, Monsanto, FEMA, slave labor building our MacBookPros, and Newt Paul on some babbling device that was supposed to be educational.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 21 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    KenK, it damn well better be as good as both seasons of Jericho, because I just ordered both seasons of Dark Angel on your word.
  • Gwardion's picture
    Gwardion 4 years 21 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    "We" have been able to change a lot of things. Doubting change is doubting nature. History is replete with change, "permanent" and "temporary". The only thing that will insure nothing changes, is if we don't try.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 4 years 21 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    From the article: "Your stolen tax payer dollars also pay for the SWAT team that killed an American veteran here in Tucson, Arizona. Shot dozens of times in cold blood and left to die. Theft and murder on a grand scale in broad daylight and no one held accountable." For details regarding ex-Marine Jose Guerena see...: http://tinyurl.com/Remember-Jose
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 4 years 21 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    From the article: “However, within the current context, nobody in his right mind can ask for the army to be dissolved,” he noted. The army, like any other national institution, should be under the control of elected civilians and its budget revised by people's representatives to protect national security, he added. THIS is a big mistake! The army should be DISBANDED and all of the guns distributed to all men and women over 15. If ALL the citizens had guns, like in the USA, there would be NO NEED for an army--or a government police force!. See link below for citizen ownership of guns in the USA and second link below for the DANGER that the standing army presents to ALL Egyptians. BOTH of these issues were major concerns for the Founding Fathers of the USA. There is NO possible way that ANY invading force could conquer a fully armed Egyptian population--and NO possible way for freedom to prevail with a standing army. Egypt's 81 million people is larger than ANY army in the world! All they need is to be armed--as are the American people.. The Right to Bear Arms: Over 10,800,000 Guns Sold in the USA in 2011 American citizens have purchased more than 800 MILLION guns in the last 10 years! (There are only 312 Million American citizens.) http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/the-right-to-bear-arms-over-108000... According to Eric Margolis at http://lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis278.html Even if parliament achieves [ a new constitution validated by a national referendum ], it will then have to confront Egypt’s 500,000-man military and equally numerous internal security forces. So far, Egypt’s military, which is financed, armed and sustained by Washington, has thrown former dictator Mubarak to the wolves to appease popular anger, but it has barely given an inch on other key issues. A year after the Tahrir Square revolution, Egypt remains a brutal police state where opponents of the regime and critics disappear, are tortured, and jailed in the thousands. Male and female rape and savage beatings remain standard punishments for protestors and bloggers. The military and security forces still control much of the nation’s high ground, including most of the media, academia, the courts and industry. Egypt’s US-backed military has been used to ruling Egypt for two generations. The generals own between a third and two thirds of Egypt’s key businesses or real estate and enjoy lavish perks and a cushy lifestyle. The military’s senior officers have been trained by the US, vetted by CIA, and are joined at the hip to the Pentagon in much the same manner as were Latin America’s generals in the 60’s and 70’s. Washington gives Egypt’s military $1.3 billion annually, controls its flow of weapons and spare parts, and provides many tens of millions in "black payments" to the military, security forces, and feared intelligence service, the "Mukhabarat." Accordingly, it’s difficult to see Egypt’s plutocratic military easily giving up all of its political and economic power to a rowdy civilian parliament, particularly when the US, Britain, Saudi Arabia, France, Canada and Israel are all quietly backing the military regime.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 21 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    There was a TV show that ran back in 2000-02 called Dark Angel set in a post-apocalyptic Seattle around 2020 that featured an episode where some renegade feds hacked into the local PD's surveillance drones and made them into flying assassination devices. Much like a flyable IED. Maybe that's the whole point of militarizing the local cops; to make it easier for military technology to be repurposed for police use. The R&D is paid for by federal money, battle-tested overseas, and then sold to local police back home. Perfect example of technological innovation by a late stage empire; subsidized development socialized R&D, but big private profits for well connected insiders. A great investment opportunity too if you can live with yourself. On TV the plucky rebels found a way to trash the pig drones. I wonder if we will?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 21 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    One thing I will give a couple of thoughts on is this: "I understand that _all_ contracts in a given jurisdiction are "subject to the laws of" that jurisdiction." ~ Jim Davies Jurisdiction is not determined by "place or territory" alone[1], which is suggested by your use of the word "in". "It is the power of he court to decide a matter in controversy and presupposes[2] the existence of a duly constituted court with control over the subject matter and the parties." ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 853 On the other hand, violations of the "natural law of the human world"[3], i.e. violations of the natural rights of life, liberty and justly acquired property, are violations "in" every "place or territory". Notwithstanding they are not always "recognized" as such in all "places or territories", by all perpetrators, with (wo)men who represent the government itself being the worst "exceptions", in many, many cases. "The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose, but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law has become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself is guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!" ~ The Law by Frédéric Bastiat _____________________________________________________________ [1] "Jurisdiction, is limited to place or territory, to persons, or to particular subjects." ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language (And, to particular things, "jurisdiction in rem".) "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth." [2] A "rebuttable presumption". [3] The natural law and the positive law are not alternative systems of rules that apply to the same thing. The natural law is the law of natural persons and positive law is a law of artificial persons. ~ Natural Law by Frank Van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 21 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    Thank you for your thoughts on this, Jim Davies.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 21 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Sueverans2 is right. White Indian is just a troll. In the primitivist society he says he pines for his form of [sic] "trickery"(e.g., pissing in the village watering hole, smearing dung on your hut, throwing your favorite basket into the fire, etc.) would likely get him a well deserved club swat across the head. Bottom line: Starting flame wars is so 1996 White Indian. Over and out.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 21 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    The "person entitled to enforce", S2, I presume to be the creditor. It's a given that lawmakers never use one word where four will do. As to whether a government court will enforce that will depend on whether the government is a party to the dispute and whether or not it's raining. And whether the judge has been adequately bribed. Not sure about organic beef, but I was pleased to discover recently that gold contracts are now enforcible in government courts; so presumably beef ones are also. But I rather doubt (although a non-lawyer) that a GC would enforce any such contract against a debtor's tender of LTNs, when LTNs are the subject of the compulsory law; I understand that _all_ contracts in a given jurisdiction are "subject to the laws of" that jurisdiction. Until the government era ends, that is. The stripping away of compelled value would happen as I suggested, if fiat money were hyperinflated. "Worthless" was perhaps a careless term; I suppose it would have _some_ value as wallpaper or fire fuel. Not quite zero, but negligible in relation to the numbers printed on it. Yes, I would agree that if someone discovered a literal mountain of gold and mined and minted it, it would fast lose its value. My subjective high valuation on gold derives primarily from its usefulness in exchange as a medium that government cannot counterfeit; many markets over several millennia have so judged. When used as plating on my Rolls-Royce, it also makes it prettier and enhances its usefulness as a chick magnet. Permanent? - no. Nor is the Earth.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 21 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    How much do you think they'd love my several posts about Right Wing Authoritarian personality trait? If anything, I'm Old Man Coyote or Loki. Even a clown, just not Cathy's. "Many native traditions held clowns and tricksters as essential to any contact with the sacred. People could not pray until they had laughed, because laughter opens and frees from rigid preconception. Humans had to have tricksters within the most sacred ceremonies for fear that they forget the sacred comes through upset, reversal, surprise. The trickster in most native traditions is essential to creation, to birth." ^ Byrd Gibbens, Professor of English at University of Arkansas at Little Rock; quoted epigraph in Napalm and Silly Putty by George Carlin, 2001
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 4 years 21 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Don't mind WI, he's just our resident angry conservative. Can you blame him, really?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 21 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    @ White Indian In re previous: WTF? "No matter if it's bullshit to wish for the past, what you defend in the present is even worse bullshit." What I defend? What the hell are you talking about? Where have I ever defended this stuff? I am the next thing to a primitivist self-sustainer myself even if do say so myself. Any particulars you wish to share? Where do you get off saying this? You don't know me. "But perhaps you should be happy with the culmination of technology and human ingenuity into a singularity moment. Imagine, no more Federal Reserve or IRS! Aren't you jumping up and down yet?" I would happy to see all statist entities and their minions go. Not via nuclear holocaust or by massive famine or ecological catastrophe. I have never said this or advocated this either. So again, WTF? I never said that. Do you assert or claim otherwise? In re "nuclear weapons are..." Again, what the hell? Nukes are an abomination as are all state organized military and police outfits. Nukes just happen to be the worst. How is that my issue? That straw-man won't walk. I have never ever said or claimed otherwise and so I must call you on your error, lie, misapprehension or whatever else called forth that brain fart from you. I often wonder if you are agent provocateur with another agenda than just meanness? What say you?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply, Jim Davies. Note that (a), (b) and (c), of Section 382-A:3-603, all have this same cute little legal phrase, "to a person entitled to enforce the instrument"? Does this carry any weight in a court determination? What if you and I, with I being a non-member of your body politic, have a contract that stipulates that you MUST pay me for my services ONLY in organic beef; can I be "compelled", by your government, to accept FRN/LTN's in lieu of organic beef? If a "value is subjective", that is to say, it is being arbitrarily determined by, (in the mind of), the individual accepting these "tokens", does this mean that they are "worthless tokens"? How can a "compelled 'value'" be stripped away? Or, perhaps this question should read, why would anyone "compel" FRN/LTN's to be "worthless"? If the 1924 German FRN/LTN's "...retained value only as wallpaper", then they most certainly are "worth less", but are they "worthless"? If there was suddenly a surplus of gold and silver, or, if there was a shortage of food and those with food refused to accept gold and silver for it, would not the "subjective value" of gold and silver then, be "worthless" or "worth less", also? I will admit, these are all difficult concepts for me to understand.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 22 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    You should be happy WI. Your hotly desired Zerzanian forward-into-the-past scenario could come true then assuming you survive the initial atomic war kill-off.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 22 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    The Chinese have built 3500 miles of stupid underground. Chinese Strategic Tunnels - Estimated 3500 miles - Up to 3000 Nuclear Warheads 12-1-11 A very good educational video made by the Georgetown University, Washington DC, for the Arms Control Seminar, describing China's "Underground Great Wall" tunnel network, which plays an important role in China's nuclear deterrence capability by enabling China to have a survivable second strike ability, while simultaniously masking the true number of China's nuclear arsenal. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5SAtz2uaZY The Russians are just as stupid digging holes in the ground. http://rt.com/news/prime-time/moscow-bomb-shelters-outskirts/ Things that make you go hmmmm.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    I suggest the compulsion is real. Read what it says: "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private." So I prefer to call them LTNs rather than FRNs. You are a creditor, your debtor tenders an LTN. You have no legal choice, you _must_ accept it in settlement. If you won't, then there's an interesting UCC provision (in NH it's at http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XXXIV-A/382-A/382-A-3-603.htm but there's a similar one everywhere) that says the debt is discharged anyway. So it seems to me not simply convenience. However they are indeed "worthless tokens" because in true truth, value is subjective; we each place our own valuation on everything. The true value of paper government tokens becomes apparent only when their compelled "value" has been stripped away by hyperinflation, which happens from time to time. I recall that in 1924 Germany, they retained value only as wallpaper. Gold, in contrast, has real (subjective) value for several good reasons. I agree that "intrinsic value" is a difficult concept to understand, but the difficulty is not limited to that of gold; one could just as well wonder what is the intrinsic value of a T-Bone steak, or a bicycle, or a vacation in the Caribbean.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    G'day Jim Davies, I do agree that a "mattress is far safer" than a bank for one's valuables. However, if "everyone is compelled to accept them in exchange", (which of course everyone is not truly "compelled", in the sense that "no one can refuse to accept them"; it is "convenience", rather, which compels individuals to accept them), how is it they are "only worthless tokens"? Is not their "real value", technically, whatever individuals are willing to trade for them, just as gold and silver's "real value" is whatever individuals are willing to trade for them?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 22 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Austrian predictions vs. American history is also as sadly revealing of just how poorly both sides of this religio-economic debate understand reality. The Austrian vs. Keynesian debate is as compelling as the debate of Calvinism vs. Arminianism, because both sides hold essentially the same false premises.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Westernerd
    Thank you, Westernerd; an outstanding article at least until you wrote that Jesus was an anarchist. It was indeed breathtaking to see the heavily Christian audience in SC hiss and boo the very mild suggestion that the Golden Rule should apply to government. It speaks volumes about the link between religion and government, about belief and bigotry. I do wonder, though, whether you can be right about Jesus. You mention his words when brought to Pilate; those I see are in John 19:11, namely "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above." This follows verse 7, where "The Jews" told Pilate that Jesus had "made himself the Son of God." So you'll agree I presume that by "above" he was referring to God. It was an immensely powerful and courageous reply to the threat he'd just been given. But we must surely acknowledge in that case that he was reminding the Governor that all government has power because God has put it in place; exactly the point of Romans 13:1. That, surely, expresses a terminally authoritarian, hierarchical world-view, the very opposite of anarchism?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Soviet2 purports gay marriage isn't "natural," yet throws a tantrum when empirical data—instead of his puritanical assumptions—about natural sexual behavior is interjected into the thread. Apparently reality is a awful shock to Soviet2. The poor dear.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 22 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Since citizen means a person of a city-State, (civilization, see civil: from civis, meaning citizen, from Latin civitatis, meaning city-state,) do you know the nature of cities? The Nature of Cities by Jason Godesky 4 September 2007 http://rewild.info/anthropik/2007/09/the-nature-of-cities/index.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Knowing Your Role as a Non-Citizen. gfywi Who is a Non-Citizen? According to Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “a citizen is a member of a state to whom he or she owes allegiance and is entitled to its protection.” Hence, from this definition, it is implicit that a non-citizen is someone who is not a member of a state nor owes allegiance to the state he or she currently resides [sic]. There are certain inalienable rights to which all humans, regardless of citizenship or nationality, are entitled in principal. These rights are called natural rights. "Natural rights are rights [claims] not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and therefore universal and inalienable. In contrast, legal rights are those [claims] bestowed on to a person by the law of a particular political and legal system, and therefore relative to specific cultures and governments."
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    My sympathy, Doug, for your loss. They were only worthless tokens, but since everyone is compelled to accept them in exchange, you could have used them to acquire real value. Not any longer. I'm not familiar with CA laws, but nationwide banks are no better than IRS collection agents; never, ever trust them with more than you can afford to lose. Even Paypal, built by libertarian Peter Thiel, will respond to IRS demands by asking how high they should jump. The sickest part is that there is no _written_ law that compels such conduct. Many years ago I asked one to point me to the law that obliged it to freeze my account upon IRS request; its lawyer fell silent. I'm still waiting. Banks do it because they like government. Heck, when government gives license to lend at interest nine times more money than is taken in, that isn't too hard to understand. A mattress is far safer.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago Web link Guest
    “I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” ~ George Mason
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    The Sad Truths of Internet Trolls: 1. Trolls enjoy using shock-value statements, [and bald-faced lies], to get angry responses from others. 2. Trolls gain energy by you insulting them. 3. Trolls gain energy when you get angry. 4. Trolls are immune to criticism and logical arguments. True trolls cannot be reasoned with, regardless of how sound your logical argument is. 5. Trolls do not feel remorse like you and me. They have sociopathic tendencies, and accordingly, they delight in other people having hurt feelings. 6. Trolls consider themselves separate from the social order. 7. Trolls do not abide by etiquette or the rules of common courtesy. 8. Trolls consider themselves above social responsibility. 9. The only way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, or take away his ability to post online. gfywi More information can be found here: What Is an Internet 'Troll'? ~ About.com Internet for Beginners [Amended]
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Then should we resolve conflicts via mutual masturbation? In the Middle Ages, canon law cited “natural law” to point out that all animals copulated only for reproduction, and each species had a specific position. So, they said that the only valid form of sexuality was missionary position with the man on top, and then only in the context of marriage, for the purpose of reproduction. This was done from a European frame; they had not yet discovered the bonobo chimpanzee. Bonobos are the only species besides humans which do not have an estrus cycle. Neither human nor bonobo females are ever “in heat.” Bonobos–like humans–have recreational sex. Bonobos–like humans–have multiple sexual positions. Suddenly all the inferences of “natural law” that continue to underlay our ideas of “sexual morality” were tossed out the window. In fact, if we are to take from that example of “natural law” that most closely mirrors our own sexuality, then we should resolve all conflicts by mutual masturbation. Comment by Jason Godesky — 16 August 2005 @ 11:15 AM http://rewild.info/anthropik/2005/07/thesis-1-diversity-is-the-primary-g...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "The laws shall be merely declaratory of natural rights and natural wrongs, and … whatever is indifferent to the laws of nature shall be left unnoticed by human legislation … and legal tyranny arises whenever there is a departure from this simple principle." ~ Elisha P. Hurlbut, nineteenth-century American natural-rights theorist
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Westernerd
    I've sat in a pew and heard preachers explain away the plain meaning of the word, mostly via dispensationalism. Its as convincing as Marx claiming a glorious worker's paradise is just around the corner. That ain't happening. And neither is Jesus. That bus is long overdue; he ain't showing up, literally. Now LITERARILY, as opposed to literally, the Sun of God returns every winter Solstice (Christmas) to be born again, and overcomes the Prince of Darkness on Ishtar's holiday (oops, forgot to Christianize the moment when Day becomes longer than Night on Spring Solstice.) The Jesus myth is just another literary story in a several thousand years long line of solar deity worship. Astrotheology, mythicism, drugs, and sacred sex are concepts upon which Christianity is founded. Hey, just the other day I observed the solar deity come in the clouds in glory. Ra-amen! ___________________ References: • Astrotheology & Shamanism: Christianity's Pagan Roots. A Revolutionary Reinterpretation of the Evidence (Color Edition) by Jan Irvin • The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross: A study of the nature and origins of Christianity within the fertility cults of the ancient Near East by John M. Allegro • Sex Rites: The Origins of Christianity (The Ritual Use of Sex, Drugs, and Human Sacrifice) by Diana Agorio
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Westernerd
    .............what [shall be] the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world? Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you. The Christ opens his private communication to his closest with the admonition not to be deceived. The 'End time' would be a time of great deception. This might not be edifiying for you. but may help. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7WzQpCcSCY&feature=related
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Galli priests? Sex Rites, the Origins of Christianity, and the Ritual Use of Sex, Drugs, and Human Sacrifice: The story of Jesus healing the demon-possessed man reflects precisely the rituals of the Galli. Pagan mythology in the Jesus Story Friday, October 1, 2010 http://ancientmeme.blogspot.com/2010/10/pagan-mythology-in-jesus-story.html The apostle Paul was most likely a Galli type priest. Who’s your daddy? The Cuckold Carpenter in Myth, Ritual and Philosophy Tuesday, October 19, 2010 http://ancientmeme.blogspot.com/2010/10/whos-your-daddy-cuckold-carpente...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    G'day Lawrence M. Ludlow, Perhaps this might add a little "connective tissue". "All the apostles, with the exception of Judas Iscariot (Act_1:11), were Galileans." ~ Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary "The Galileans taught that all foreign control was unscriptural, and they would neither acknowledge nor pray for foreign princes [rulers]." ~ Rev. T.F. Wright, Ph.D. And, the Zealot party, who were "partisans for Jewish political independence[1]", asked JESUS, upon meeting him, to join with them. (Ibid.) Zealots A sect of Jews which originated with Judas the Gaulonite (Act_5:37). They refused to pay tribute [taxes] to the Romans, on the ground that this was a violation of the principle that God was the only king of Israel. ~ Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary "They [the Zealots] refused to recognize any human authority, and adopted as a watchword, “No Lord but Jehovah; no tax but that of the Temple; no friend but the Zealots." Instead, certain members of the Zealots evidently joined with the Galilean party. (See Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13) ___________________________________________________ [1] Strong's Greek Dictionary
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Thanks, Lawrence. I think both fundamentalists and atheists view the Bible completely wrong. Both sides take it too literal. Fundamentalists take it literally true, atheists take it literally wrong. I'm a mythicist; i.e., I take the Bible literarily. Just to spell it out: LITERAL exegesis = Fundamentalists , Atheists (reactive to fundies) LITERARY exegesis = Mythicism (More on the mythicist exegesis here: The Mythicist Position | What is Mythicism? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKW9sbJ3v2w ) The Jesus character even told Nicodemus, who was interpreting Jesus' teaching literally, to take the Mythicist position and interpret the teaching literarily, on a central christian doctrine. I'm just consistent with Jesus' exhortation to interpret his words literarily. However, I don't make a whole lot of fundie friends saying that. ;)
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteIndian, I appreciate your defense of humor-from-the-mouth-of-Jesus as well as your skepticism about Jesus. Nonetheless, I find Jesus to be a fascinating and pivotal historical character, whoever he was and whatever he really said and however much of it was allegorical or not -- if for no other reason than that so many people try to incorporate (co-opt posthumously?) him into their excuse-making systems, especially politicians.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Dear Suverans2: I understood one point you made -- namely that Jesus was not of this world -- which is legitimate. But most of the rest of what you were writing didn't have enough connective tissue for me to understand it easily and make an argument of it. When I have to strain at something just to give meaning to it, I give up. You might want to make something a bit less telegraphic and really spell it out for me. Not everyone agrees with this, and there were quite a few comments on it at one time, but I've been fascinated by the similarity to other "catch me if you can" responses of Jesus to verbal entrapment -- even though some of these favorite texts were interpolated into the surviving texts at a later time (I'm basing this on what I've read from Bart Ehrman and his predecessors).
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    You never give me your money (gold/silver) You only give me your funny paper.(fiat FRN.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvA64O2LySc The ultimate metal, gold, became the final store of value for a variety of reasons: 1. Gold was universally accepted; 2. it was malleable, and had the capacity to be minted into small quantities; 3. it was in short supply and difficult to locate: the quantity of gold couldn't be increased rapidly, thereby reducing its ability to be inflated;, 4. because of its scarcity, it soon acquired a high value per unit; 5. it was easily portable; 6. gold also had other uses. It could be used in jewelry, in art, and in industry; 7. lastly, gold was extremely beautiful. http://www.scribd.com/doc/9647831/Epperson-The-Unseen-Hand-An-Introducti... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcb7mbALcBU&feature=player_embedded
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    Something similar happened to me after my father died. It is hard to express the angry and ripped-off emotional reaction to having your stuff stolen aided and abetted by the very people you entrusted your stuff with. Maddening. I feel for you Doug.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    Gold is so worthless. Throw away your personal computer. Or Mac, as the case may be. Hunting and gathering? There's an "app" for that! Curse you Farmer John too for giving us all the extra time to spend in front of video screens.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    Let this be an 800 frn ("federal reserve note") lesson-learning experience, Doug. Recognize that large numbers of persons over long periods of time have been led to redefine reality into fantasy (or vise versa might be the better way to phrase it -- reality being redefined to fantasy). You and I have been at the low end of that chain until we began to understand and re-redefine ourselves back to as close to reality as possible, along with a small percentage of others who are dipping their toes into the icy waters of liberty. And your 800 frn loss is the price of getting a glimpse of the insanity that has gradually become the social norm. Liberty, I think, is redefining oneself back to reality. "California" took nothing from you. Predators and their fawning parasites who claim to govern and rule a group of folks residing on a parcel of land we've come to refer to as "California" stole that resource from you. But you had consigned that asset unknowingly into their hands by opening an account and making what we've been conditioned to call a "deposit". The 805.87 digital figure was supposed to represent the value of your hard-earned labor and ingenuity in Alaska -- or at least you and millions like you were led to believe that's what it represented. Banks at one time in remote history were legitimate enterprises in a free market economy. Over a long period of time, culminating with the advent of the "federal reserve act" scam and the "16th amendment" fraud, they have morphed into extensions of the thievery process called "our government". Through fiat, it has become a requirement that "we" use these gse's ("government sponsored enterprises") to tend to our daily exchanges. Many have tried barter, but that's a cumbersome process. Precious metals have been virtually outlawed as a means by which to store and conduct daily exchanges of value between persons. Other than the uses Gwardion outlined above, precious metal coins and bullion would be and have been in history convenient methods, but that made it difficult for the predators of state to conduct their thievery, so they forbid gold or silver as means of exchange. A sociopath by the name of Roosevelt even went to the extent of demanding all gold be brought to "banks" to exchange for devalued fraudulent tickets called "dollars", and made trade in specie "illegal". Compliant serfs marched to "banks" in droves. Freemen kept and sometimes buried theirs -- some of which could be dug up today if one knew where to dig. It is probably wise to make as little use of the Wells Fargo's of the world as practicable. I switched to a local credit union sometime back, but I wouldn't trust them with more than enough to exchange my revenue for needed services. I keep some frn's in printed form, and try to pay in "cash" (a false use of the language) wherever convenient. I believe in storing wealth in non-perishable commodities and/or specie in safe locations. But most important of all: Abstain From Beans. Sam
  • Guest's picture
    Marvin (not verified) 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Douglas Herman
    Mr. Douglas Herman, I am glad to see another article from you. I have enjoyed your past articles very much and it is through them that I found STR. I enjoy your frank style of writing and the simplicity of the message of individual freedom. Thank you for all your work and still looking forward to when you write about the myriad of jobs you've had over the years. (Especially Porn actor)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Is there another possibility, even the slightest possibility, that it wasn't a "joke". It seems to me that JESUS [sic] was a teacher (rabbi), not a jokester. What if he was teaching his students (disciples) that sovereign individuals [kings without subjects[1]] didn't have to pay state taxes[2], just as he was accused? Luke 23:2 And they began to accuse Him, saying, We found this One perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Caesar, saying Himself to be a king, Christ [anointed[2]]. Really? Where did he do this, "forbidding"? Matthew 17:24 And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him... What if Pontius Pilate knew that sovereign individuals weren't “of” the Caesar's jurisdiction? John 17:16 They are not of the world, even as I am not of the world. What if “world” in that verse was translated from the paleo-Greek word kosmos, which meant, according to Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, “1) an apt and harmonious arrangement or constitution, order, government”? What if he was teaching them, a lesson within a lesson; the difference between fiction and non-fiction? Whose" is a possessive pronoun. Pay strict attention to what he asked: “Whose image and superscription hath it?" What does the Caesar get if they render unto Caesar what has been determined to be Caesar's, according to the above question, i.e. the “image and superscription”... Haggai 2:8 (LITV) The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine, says Jehovah... ...and they render unto God what is God's, i.e. the “silver”? Do you think this could possibly be why "the chief priests and the scribes"...who "sent forth spies, which should feign themselves just men, that they might take hold of his words, that so they might deliver him unto the power and authority of the governor"..."marvelled at his answer, and held their peace"? gfywi ____________________________________________________________________________ [1] Matthew 20:25... Jesus said, You know that the rulers of the nations exercise lordship over them, and the great ones exercise authority over them. 26 But it will not be so among you.... [2] G2778 κῆνσος kēnsos (kane'-sos) Of Latin origin; properly an enrollment (“census”), that is, (by implication) a tax [3] "The use of oil in consecrations, was of high antiquity. Kings, prophets and priests were set apart or consecrated to their offices by the use of oil. Hence the peculiar application of the term anointed to Jesus Christ". ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 4 years 22 weeks ago
    The Irish Revolution
    Web link Don Stacy
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Sje2VYw99A&feature=related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2CZ1j9bz4J8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AFRCWg_kOc&feature=related
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    A "dupe and imposter" is what Jefferson wrote regarding the apostle Paul. http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/dupes-and-impostors-quotation
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    ONLY THE MADMAN IS ABSOLUTELY SURE. ~Robert Anton Wilson The Illuminatus! Trilogy (1975)
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    Remember this was a people who had ,by this time, witnessed the miseries and plagues which the LORD God had afflicted the nation of Egypt. Later on when the Lord paved a way across the Red sea and destroyed Pharaoh's army,the people supposedly: the people feared the LORD, and believed the LORD, and his servant Moses. Ex 14:31 EGYPT STILL IN THE SLAVE That's what they said,but they didn't really believe him. Moses was able to take the slave out of Egypt,but he could not take Egypt out of the slave.They were only three days into the wilderness without water when: Exd 15:24 And the people murmured against Moses, saying, What shall we drink? Moses appealed to the Lord and the Lord provided clean water.Again, two months and fifteen days into the wilderness the people murmured against Moses: Exd 16:2 And the whole congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and Aaron in the wilderness: Exd 16:3 And the children of Israel said unto them, Would to God we had died by the hand of the LORD in the land of Egypt, when we sat by the flesh pots, [and] when we did eat bread to the full; for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger. Apparently the Egyptians,although hard nosed bureaucrats (taskmasters),they took good care of the Israelites. It appears that the Egyptians apparently understood the principal, ''feed them and you can herd them.'' But later on when the Lord fed them manna they couldn't follow His rules.He told them to gather bread for six days but not on the seventh. They went to gather bread on the seventh day,and: Exd 16:28 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? It seems as though the Israelites were only contented when their bellies were full of what they wanted and when they had plenty to drink. They had more faith in the King's system (Babylon's) which provided for the basic necessities of life than they had faith in the Lord. Every time things started getting little rough they murmured against Moses. Shortly after the bread was provided they again wanted for the water: Exd 17:3 And the people thirsted there for water; and the people murmured against Moses, and said, Wherefore [is] this [that] thou hast brought us up out of Egypt, to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst? As a result God brought forth water from a Rock. It is interesting that all the Israelites witnessed the plagues upon Egypt ,the parting of the Red sea, the destruction of Pharaoh's army,and they had even been fed and watered directly from the hands of God. Yet even after witnessing God's power,all of the above murmurings happened within just three months of their departure from Egypt. They had been obeying the laws of Egypt for over two hundred years and they became tired of freedom (God's laws) in less than three months. It was much more convenient to be a good slave in Egypt obeying Pharaoh's laws than a freeman obeying God's laws in the wilderness. It is just like the mentality in this century that says welfare is good and it is better to be red than dead. SEEKING A NEW MASTER When the children of Isreal had been in the wilderness for three months they arrived at Mt. Sinai. The people heard and accepted God's covenant,and when God spoke to the people, "They trembled and stood afar off,"(Ex 20:18) and asked Moses to get the Lord to speak through him. If God wouldn't let them have Pharaoh as a master perhaps God would allow them to have Moses as a master.However,while Moses was on the mount the people became restless and said unto Aron; Ex 32:1 make us gods, which shall go before us; Amazing! Only four months into the wilderness and they still could not accept the greatness and power of the Lord,and they made and worshipped idols. The Egyptian bureacrats had schooled the Isrealites very well. They most have known once a slave always a slave. Shortly after the first day of the second month of the second year after they left Egypt they were still complaining: Num 11:4-5 And the mixt multitude that [was] among them fell a lusting: and the children of Israel also wept again, and said, Who shall give us flesh to eat? Num 11:5 We remember the fish, which we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers, and the melons, and the leeks, and the onions, and the garlick: The mixed multitude that was among them was a negative influence upon the Israelites,constantly reminding them of the customs and good foods that were in Egypt.But God said if it is meat you want,it is meat you you shall get.In fact he said they would eat it. Num 11:20 until it come out at your nostrils, and it be loathsome unto you: because that ye have despised the LORD which [is] among you, and have wept before him, saying, Why came we forth out of Egypt? They would not accept the perfect food from God.God's manna had to be complete nourishment,and therefore a perfect food source. When they rejected it,They rejected the LORD. The LAST CHANCE Later when spies were sent into the land of Canaan to report on the people and the fruit of the land,they returned and many were afraid: Num 13:32 And they gave the children of Israel an evil report of the land which they had spied out, saying, ........and all the people whom we saw in it [are] men of [great] stature. Num 13:33...........'' and we were like grasshoppers in our own sight, and so we were in their sight." As a result of these reports the people wept and again murmured against Moses and Aaron , saying; Num 14:2,4 ...... "If only we had died in the land of Egypt! Or if only we had died in this wilderness! Would it not be better for us to return to Egypt?" So they said to one another, "Let us select a captain and return to Egypt." This was the last straw as far as God was concerned. He told Moses: Num 14:22 because all these men who have seen My glory and the signs which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have put Me to the test now these ten times, and have not heeded My voice, It was than that God told Moses to turn back to the wilderness and that all (save two) who were twenty years of age or older would die in the wilderness during the next 40 years , and He would bring only the young back to the promised land. It bears repeating that Moses brought the slave out of Egypt but could not take Egypt out of the slave. During the years to come God brought a plague against some,and some were consumed by fire and an earthquake,and still they did not harken unto the LORD.Another time they were again without water: Num 20:5 And why have you made us come up out of Egypt, to bring us to this evil place? It [is] not a place of grain or figs or vines or pomegranates; nor [is] there any water to drink." The problem was they were still good slaves of Pharaoh and not true servants of God .They remembered the flesh pots the leeks,onions,and coffins of Egypt and did not harken unto the LORD. and continued to murmur against Moses and the LORD. Num 21:5 And the people spoke against God and against Moses: "Why have you brought us up out of Egypt to die in the wilderness? For [there is] no food and no water, and our soul loathes this worthless bread." This time God sent fiery serpents to bite them.Nothing God did satisfied them. The murmurings of the people continued,even into the promised land,until the future generations of those who died in the wilderness finally achieved what their forefathers could not do --- they finally became slave to a new earthly master named Saul,who would make plenty of laws for them to obey. Even though they were warned what would happen to them if they had a king,they insisted.....God provided. GOVERNMENTS ARE BABYLON Throughout the centuries little has changed.Next came the great world empires mentioned in Daniel: the Babylonia empire, Medo-persia ,Greece, and the Roman empire. Than came the numerous small kingdoms of clay and iron which have plagued mankind into the 20th century. Beasts are Kings ,Kingdoms, or governments. In the Exodus Pharaoh was a king or the head of the government and he had a bureaucracy to assist in the enforcement of the state's laws.The same was true for Alexander,for the Caesars ,and is true for the 20th century heads of government and their bureaucracies.The names and structures of government have changed and they have become more sophisticated but they still function as slave masters to their subjects.there are only degrees of slavery as there is no freedom in the world today.As long as government enforces it's will on the people,the people are slaves of the government.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    The real trick was, for me, taking Egypt out of the slave. "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..."
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIGTc2W_zWA Creating "robots" without free will would have been meaningless. God wanted his children to choose good, not evil. Without knowledge of good and evil, there was no sin. Conscience means "with knowledge". We all know what is evil, and choose to do it anyway, and so it is sin, separating us from an eternity of blessed fellowship with a righteous and holy God. And so... evil began in Paradise, bringing death into the world. To compound the problem, around the 450th year of Adam's life, the Fallen Ones began to convey forbidden knowledge and evil practices to mankind, and married the daughters of men. This very nearly resulted in the extinction of the human race, and culminated in the Great Flood. But that didn't end the problem, since the Bible tells us that there was more mingling with the Fallen ones after the Flood, producing more giants. The seed mingling theme runs deep in the Bible. The Serpent may have had something to do with the birth of Cain, Abel's brother. The wording "she bare again" indicates (in my mind at least) the possibility that the boys were not both sired by Adam. Cain was a prototype of the Antichrist. Eve thought Cain was the Redeemer, and gave Abel a name that means '"useless". Abraham got in trouble with God by allowing the Pharaoh to take Sarai into his harem. God intervened and protected her, but later in life Abram took the Egyptian handmaid Hagar and the resultant mingling produced Ishmael and centuries of conflict. Moses' wife came from among the Egyptians... more mingling of seed? You see, the Angels that sinned had polluted the bloodlines of various races, and the bloodline of Jesus Christ had to be from the untainted seed of Adam, not mingled with demon seed. The mingling of the Fallen with the daughters of men filled the Earth with violence and bloodshed, and threatened to prevent the coming of the Redeemer, either by polluting the gene pool or killing off His forebears in the bloodline of Mary. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PQnqpiz_Tc When I think of "aliens" and demons, I think of the Fallen Ones and their part-human, part-angelic offspring. I think the demons are disembodied spirits of demon seed beings that died in the Great Flood. The "armies of the aliens" that were turned to flight through faith (Hebrews 11:34) were heavily influenced by the demon seed giants, offspring of the Fallen Ones and demi-gods mingling with humans. Because of the extreme violence, cruelty, perversion, and Satanic religious practices of their culture, God ordered Joshua to kill them and destroy everything. Israel and the bloodline of the coming Messiah were nearly destroyed on numerous occasions through corruption of their religious practices by association with these mingled people. http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=3402325689850240729
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    The Egyptians were smart.Notice that the Egyptians paid the Israelites wages and than later took part of it back? Some of this was probably tribute and the rest in food and other necessities which had to be bought at the king's supermarkets. The situation is reminiscent of the song about a man who ''owed his soul to the company store''. All that he made in wages went back to the company as it was the only place he could buy food and supplies and obtain credit when he ran out of wages. Moses was later able to take the slave out of Egypt but he never could take Egypt out of the slave. The Israelites finally arrived at the position of being completely dependant upon government. (It is historically proving fact that whenever you can create a dependency,you obtain control.)Over a period of time those who didn't cooperate were probably levied an additional tribute (tax penalty) and sometimes given a few lashes for good measure or put to death as an example to others.In the 20th century we are too civilized to punish by lashes and death for civil offenses,we simply put tax protesters in prison. The relationship between the Israelites and Pharaoh's department of human Resources,Internal Revenue Service,Transportation,and Commerce was such that just to survive the people had to cooperate (obey all the laws) or else.However, they must have been satisfied with their condition to a great extant at best, or too dependant upon the state at worst ,as there is no recorded uprising of the Israelites who were still more in number,and mightier, then the Egyptians. THE LEVITES-----FREEMEN OF ISREAL It stands to reason that the Levites would have been the ones to warn the people of Israel and that they ,like our brethren today,WOULD NOT HEAR. Interstingly enough ,according to the book of Jasher ,the Levities saw through the Egyptians' scam from the beginning. But the children of Levi were not employed in the work with their brethren of Israel, from the beginning unto the day of their going forth from Egypt. For all the children of Levi knew that the Egyptians had spoken all these words with deceit to the Israelites, therefore the children of Levi refrained from approaching to the work with their brethren. And the Egyptians did not direct their attention to make the children of Levi work afterward, since they had not been with their brethren at the beginning, therefore the Egyptians left them alone. Jasher 65:32-34 If this is true,than for some reason, since the levites never volunteered ,they were not forced to enter the system even though the Egyptians ,by than, apparently had the power to force them into the same conditions as the rest of the tribes. The levities would probably have rebelled because they had not been gradually introduced to voluntary servitude ,whereas in the words of past Supreme Court Justice ,Wm O. Douglas; "those (Israelites) who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm" THE CONDITIONING TOTAL Moses recognized that the Israelites had been conditioned unto slavery when two Israelites confronted him the day after he killed the Egyptian Taskmaster.The Israelites were as much afraid for themselves because of what Moses had done as Moses himself.So ingrained and accepted was their status of voluntary slavery that they not only feared retribution upon themselves for their own acts, but also feared retribution against themselves for the acts of others. Forty years latter when Moses returned to Egypt and confronted Pharaoh,demandind that he release the Israelites,Pharaoh simply added to the Israelites' burdens by making them gather their own straw.The Israelites understood the message:They had better cooperate (obey all the laws) and be good slaves to the state or Pharaoh would increase their burdens. The Israelites confronted Moses saying: Ex 5:21 And they said unto them, The LORD look upon you, and judge; because ye have made our savour to be abhorred in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of his servants, to put a sword in their hand to slay us. The king increased the production quoteas and tribute to the p[point where no one could perform to the king's satisfaction,which gave the taskmasters the reason they needed to oppress the Israelites even unto death. So ingrained and accustomed to being good slaves (obeying the laws of Babylon) were the Israelites that when Moses tried to tell them what God said they wouldn't even listen to him. Ex 6:9 And Moses spake so unto the children of Israel: but they hearkened not unto Moses for anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage. TAKING THE SLAVE OUT OF EGYPT They were more afraid of not obeying the laws of Egypt (Babylon) and the administrative bureaucrats than they had faith in the word of God. What they told Moses was ''Go away and leave us alone. It is better to serve the Egyptians than to die." We know this to be true because the Scripture records that after they left Egypt Pharaoh followed and: Ex 14:10 And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them; and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto the LORD. Exd 14:11 And they said unto Moses, Because [there were] no graves in Egypt, hast thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt? Exd 14:12 [Is] not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For [it had been] better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    Rev 18:4 Come forth, my people, out of her that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. 2Cr 6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean [thing]; and I will receive you, This passage is generally perceived as being a conclusion based upon the previous passages where Paul discusses the difference btween wicked and evil people,or of the righteous and the unrighteous.However,this is a partial quote from Isaiah which states: Isa 52:11 Depart ye, depart ye, go ye out from thence, touch no unclean [thing]; go ye out of the midst of her; be ye clean, that bear the vessels of the LORD. Isaiah wrote this in 712b.c.,after the captivity of the northern kingdom (house of Israel)which was deported into Assyria during the years 745-721 b.c. (2 kings17). eight years latter,in 713-714 b.c. (2kings18:13),Assyria also captured the majority of the southern kingdom (two tribes) and also deported them into Assyria to the north.Than about 100 years latter,after Assyria had fallen,Babylon invaded the city of Jerusalem,and took the inhabitants to the city to Babylon. This means that Isaiah would be writing to the Israelites in Assyria telling them to flee,or he could be writing prophetically to the inhabitants of Jerusalem,who were latter taken into captivity. Paul adds a little to what Isaiah had to say with the words : ''Be ye separate.'' Coming outof Babylon can be viewed as a physical departure from a place and a relocation to another place,or it can be viewed as simply being separate or different from those in Babylon.The bible and history confirms both as being true. Those who were in Assyria generally fled out of that land and migrated to the north and west.,while those in Babylon were unable to flee but were admonished to remain separate,which they did to some extant. Jeremiah also records: Jer 50:8 Remove out of the midst of Babylon, and go forth out of the land of the Chaldean's, and be as the he goats before the flocks. Jer 51:6 Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity; for this [is] the time of the LORD'S vengeance; he will render unto her a recompense. Jer 51:45 My people, go ye out of the midst of her, and deliver ye every man his soul from the fierce anger of the LORD. Jeremiah is writing in about 595 b.c which would be in the middle of the Babylonian captivity. A reading of the entire chapters reveals that Jeremiah is addressing BOTH the House of Israel and the house of Judah,as well as those taken captive to Babylon. A reading of Ezra and Nehemiah reveals that the former inhabitants of Jerusalem left Babylon with the permission of the King. There was no fleeing from Babylon at this time as this was a planned and orderly return to the city of Jerusalem. THE fleeing from Babylon was left to those in Babylonian and Assyrian captivity who would escape or flee when those nations were being devoured by other nations. "BABYLON DEFINED'' Strong's concordance defines ''Babylon'' as: confusion 1) to mix, mingle, confuse, confound a) (Qal) 1) to mingle, confuse 2) to mix Websters dictonary,1st. ed., 1828, Vol 1, p. defines Bablylonian as: ''2. Like the language of Babel; mixed ;confused.'' It is interesting that both Strong's and Webster's show in there definitions that Babylon is ''a type of tyranny,''therefore it can be concluded that any form of tyranny is a babylonian system. Certainly this would fit not only the Assyrian and Babylonian government,buy also the Egyptian government from which Israel had fled in an earlier day.It is to this period of Israel's history that we must turn to see how our people reacted to Babylonin type systems. ISREAL IN EGYPT Historically,the best example of satisfied slavery comes from the book of Exodus. Jacob (israel)had moved the clan to Egypt (their ''Babylon'') to be with Joseph,where they prospered: Exd 1:7 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them. They were sojourners and strangers in a foreign land and things were going along real fine until a new king came upon the scene who didn't know joseph. This new king said: Exd 1:9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel [are] more and mightier than we: Therefore the king appointed taskmasters (bureaucrats) over them and set them to work building cities.The new king had them making bricks,worked them in the fields,and employed them as servants.In short they became slaves of Pharaoh (the state.) The interesting point of this story is that even though the Isrealites were ''more and mightier'' than the Egyptians, none of the Isrealites seemed upset enough to do anything about it. The Isrealites were basically a people who were dependent upon the land. They worked the land to grow crops that fed the animals. They literally lived off the land. If the Isrealites became warlike and took over the government ,the king and his bureacrats would have to fight their own wars,go to work,and produce their own food. FABRICATING SLAVERY There had to be a soulution to the problem. The king understood that war wasn't a good solution when he stated they were more and ''mightier than we''. Any attempt to enforce out-and-out slavery would bring on a rebellion.Therefore Pharaoh said: Exd 1:10 Come let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and in the event of war, they also join themselves to those that hate us,and fight against us,and depart out of the land. Dealing ''wisely'' or ''cunningly'' with them would be a program of not imposing total tyranny immediatly,but rather to cunningly coerce them into voluntary servitude over a peroid of time. First of all he set up an educational system for the youth of Isreal. Than he hired some Isrealites to work in the palace and other government agencies in 9-5 jobs with weekends off and paid vacations. They would no longer have to work in the fields dirtying their hands from dawn to dark. He hired them as chariot (bus) drivers,construction workers(building cities) manufacturing plants (making bricks), vine growers(pressing grapes),etc. paying good wages. Having that program well underway,Pharaoh started increaseing their burdens. He applied a tribute(tax)to all wages(income tax) and land (property tax),and than began slowly increasing the tax until many could not afford to pay it.These lands were foreclosed upon and placed under the management of the taskmasters (p.c.a, F.H.A.etc.) Now the king again owned the land and employed the Israelites to work on his farms and paid them a wage,which he also taxed,therby increasing their burdens and oppressing them. A similar story is recorded in the book of Jasher, recording that Pharaoh told the elders how they would subdue the Isrealites by deceit. He ordered that cities be built and that they were to invite the Isrealites to assist in building the cities as fortifications to protct Egypt and the children of Isreal from attack. Perhaps this was the first treaty organisation- IETO (Isreal/Egypt Treaty Organisation)The bait was the protection of the country and the daily wages. The elders of Egypt then went to the children of Isreal and said; ''Whosoever of you from all Egypt and from the children of Israel will come to build with us, he shall have his daily wages given by the king, as his command is unto us.''the book of Jasher 65:19'' The Isrelites were not forced,they were invited to assist and were offered daily wages for thier services,and they were to be treated as equals with the Egyptians.The Isrealites swallowed the bait hook line and sinker,and voulantarily left the Land of Goshen to become wage earners. ''And all the servants of Pharaoh and his princes came at first with deceit to build with all Israel as daily hired laborers, and they gave to Israel their daily hire at the beginning. And the servants of Pharaoh built with all Israel, and were employed in that work with Israel for a month. And at the end of the month, all the servants of Pharaoh began to withdraw secretly from the people of Israel daily. And Israel went on with the work at that time, but they then received their daily hire, because some of the men of Egypt were yet carrying on the work with Israel at that time; therefore the Egyptians gave Israel their hire in those days, in order that they, the Egyptians their fellow-workmen, might also take the pay for their labor. And at the end of a year and four months all the Egyptians had withdrawn from the children of Israel, so that the children of Israel were left alone engaged in the work. And after all the Egyptians had withdrawn from the children of Israel they returned and became oppressors and officers over them, and some of them stood over the children of Israel as task masters, to receive from them all that they gave them for the pay of their labor. And the Egyptians did in this manner to the children of Israel day by day, in order to afflict in their work.''The book of Jasher 65:21-27