REALLY smart lab rats will LEAVE THE LAB.
Saturday, April 3, 2021
JUAN O SAVIN - WHAT TO EXPECT NEXT (<---click on link for 16 minute video)
Rumble - Highly connected political insider, Juan O Savin, gives us his insider outlook for the coming weeks, the good-news, and the bad news. We are at a very perilous time in history.
Friday, February 19, 2021
Thursday, February 18, 2021
Sunday, January 31, 2021
Wednesday, January 27, 2021
Friday, January 1, 2021
Monday, December 28, 2020
Wednesday, December 16, 2020
Saturday, October 17, 2020
Tuesday, October 6, 2020
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, is a lawyer and member of the German Corona Investigative Committee. Source: https://youtu.be/kr04gHbP5MQ
Sunday, August 30, 2020
Saturday, August 29, 2020
Sunday, July 19, 2020
Wednesday, July 8, 2020
Saturday, March 7, 2020
Friday, December 6, 2019
Saturday, November 9, 2019
Saturday, September 7, 2019
Monday, May 27, 2019
Monday, October 25, 2010
If God Says Civil Government is Oppressive, Haughty, and Abusive, Why Do Religious Institutions Promote It Anyway?
It is a great disservice to the reader to discuss the purpose of government, from a biblical standpoint, without first examining the nature of government, from a biblical standpoint. We also believe there to be no greater commentary on the bible than the bible itself and after examining the nature of government, from a biblical standpoint, the reader may want to revisit Romans 13 and determine if commonly held premises about the purpose of government still hold water. We contend that the mainstream religious institution’s bucket has a pretty large hole in it juxtaposed to what God says about the nature of government.
The most compelling biblical portrayal of the nature of civil government is found in 1st Samuel 8. God explains to Samuel what he is to tell the people who are begging for a king to rule over them. God’s description of civil government is not a flattering one nor does it portray civil government as being worthy of our honor, respect, or fidelity. The desire for civil government is described in simple terms as being rebellion towards God.
The account in 1st Samuel 8 contradicts the notion that government was ordained by God, at least in the classical sense the words ‘ordained’ and ‘government’ are commonly used and referenced today. There is certainly nothing divine about human government even though religious authoritarians would have you believe otherwise. And, even though we, as Americans, don’t live under a monarchy, God’s description of the nature of this form of government certainly seems to rhyme with much of what we’ve seen in world history and our own country’s history pertaining to the ongoing tyranny of civil or human government.
What miraculous transformation occurred in the nature of man, or the nature of government, between the old and new testaments that would justify the common rendering religious authoritarians have extrapolated from Romans 13:1-7? Did not God unequivocally state, in 1st Samuel 8, that a desire to be ruled by man is an outright rejection of Him? Would God institute or ordain something He disparaged in such a way, as depicted in 1st Samuel 8? We don’t think so. Neither do we accept the statist spin many religious institutions place on Romans 13:1-7. The mainstream religious institution’s rendering of Romans 13:1-7 would, by necessary inference, imply either that God lied to Samuel or that the Apostle Paul lied in his letter to the Romans. Even worse, is when their extrapolations make it appear that the Apostle Paul contradicted himself in Ephesians 6:11-12. Why would it be necessary to put on the whole armor of God to protect us from evil world rulers if they were ordained by God to be nicey-nicey? Does God ordain evil? If we were placed in the uncomfortable position of having to choose between the veracity of the Apostle Paul’s translated and seemingly contradictory words as opposed to the veracity and logic of God’s translated words, we would naturally be inclined to choose the latter over the former. God characterizes civil government, in 1st Samuel 8, as being evil and characterizes those seeking to be ruled by it as rebellious. We wholeheartedly agree.
Why are religious institutions promoting the fallacy that civil government is wonderful and good, in the shadow of God’s declaration to the contrary, and in spite of the civil government tyranny readily apparent to anyone willing to look out the window and observe what is going on in the world, at the moment, and what has transpired throughout history? Why do religious institutions continue to promote rebellion against God? We think we’ve found the answer to this most troubling question. If you’ve struggled with the meaning of Romans 13:1-7 and are a bit skeptical and weary of mainstream religious institutions who dutifully and exuberantly pull out their pom-poms and take you through the statist cheer every time this passage is discussed, you may be interested in reading our recently released book The END TIMES Hoax and the Hijacking of Our Liberty.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Donald Trump offered the most rational attempt at bringing resolution to the whole affair when he offered the developer his original purchase price of the property plus a 25% profit and some other perks if he would take his project somewhere else. Trump sniveled about his bid being rejected, but since his offer still stands we’ll cut him a little slack.
In a free society, this is how it is done. If you want something bad enough, you simply buy it. If you can’t afford it, you suck it up and move on or you can also choose to sulk, whine, and snivel about it for weeks or months on end to anyone foolish enough or opportunist enough to listen.
Of course, political hacks and political wannabes, who are opportunists at heart, lined up quickly to console Boobus Americanus in hopes of gathering a few more votes ahead of the November rush.
Many have likened or compared the building of this mosque or Islamic Cultural Center to the building of a Japanese cultural center across from the Pearl Harbor Memorial and find such a proposal offensive because of the thousands of Americans allegedly killed in the name of Islam. Murdering is purportedly more palatable when it is done in the name of freedom or democracy and especially so when those being murdered are non-white or non-Christian. A bit arrogant, perhaps, but the whole concept dovetails quite nicely with Empire and the Crusader mindset of the religious right.
It is not our intention to be insensitive to the 3,000 individuals who died on 911 nor do we wish to trivialize any act of violence directed toward individuals or property. Such acts of violence are not a neighborly thing to do and trivializing such acts, as being ho-hum, are also offensive. We do, however, intend to examine the proposed Islamic Cultural Center against the backdrop of another temple we find much more atrocious, offensive, intrusive, insensitive and openly hostile to the community in which it forcefully resides. At the end of our piece, the reader can decide whether the Manhattan mosque issue is a mountain, molehill, or something more comparable to the Bonneville Salt Flats of Utah.
The Islamic Cultural Center, formerly the site of the Burlington Coat Factory, will be a single building 13 stories tall with an estimated construction cost being on the order of 100 million dollars. It will NOT be built at ground zero, as those attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill suggest, but will be located, instead, a couple of blocks away from the World Trade Center Memorial. It will be a multi-faith cultural center open to the public and very compatible with the symbols of tolerance and freedom many associate with New York City landmarks Lady Liberty and Ellis Island. The cultural center will also include a 911 memorial.
Contrast the Islamic Cultural Center with the trophy temple built in the middle of the Muslim world that comprises 104 acres (about the acreage of 80 football fields), 21 buildings, and is occupied predominantly by non-Muslims who are armed to the teeth. The cost to build this monstrosity was approximately 700 million tax dollars and the estimated cost to maintain the facility is 200 million tax dollars per year. The outer perimeter wall of this trophy temple is 15 feet thick.
The personnel housed inside this walled fortress plan anti-insurgent operations (house-to-house raids on the locals) which is, presumably, the reason for the 15 foot thick perimeter walls. There is nothing multi-cultural or community oriented about this trophy temple. It will be insulated from community in much the same fashion Washington D.C. has insulated itself from the rest of the United States. This trophy temple represents 104 acres of military-industrial make-believe surrounded by reality.
What trophy temple are we talking about? We are talking about the largest U.S. Embassy in the world located in Baghdad, Iraq. More precisely, this embassy, in Baghdad, is the largest embassy of any nation. This monument to empire is more likely regarded as the Trophy Temple of Doom, to those living in the area and experiencing the terror this temple continues to facilitate. There is certainly nothing in its structure resembling diplomacy. Most of the diplomats have probably been shoved into some cramped corner cubical with no mission other than shuttling coffee to the costumed real heroes who sell diplomacy and democracy at gunpoint.
When comparing the Islamic Cultural Center to the U.S. Embassy, in Baghdad, Iraq, in size, cost, and character it puts things into a clearer perspective. Compare the death toll of 3,000 Americans during 911 to the death toll of Muslims, via embargoes and war over the last 20 years or so, and the Manhattan trophy mosque issue becomes nothing but a small bump in the road with much more community credibility than the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad will ever hope to achieve behind its 15 foot thick walls.
Picture the outcry in New York if leaders in Tehran proposed building a walled fortress in Manhattan equivalent, in size, to the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad and predominantly staffed with military personnel instead of diplomats. Isn’t it about time we do a bit of reflection and learn to put the shoe on the other foot? If we wouldn’t want something like that in our country, why would we expect people in other countries to feel any different? Is it because they are not a Christian Nation that we can so callously ignore the Christian mandate requiring that we treat others the way we would like to be treated? If so, maybe our status as a Christian Nation needs to be re-examined. We would suggest a Christian Nation IS as a Christian Nation DOES.
The U.S. government has been forcefully spreading the gospel of freedom and democracy in the Mideast for the last 60 years. It is estimated that 500,000 innocent Iraqi children died of starvation during U.N. embargoes planned, promoted, and funded by the U.S. government. Madeline Albright was rather nonchalant about this occurrence when confronted a few years back on a 60 Minutes segment. She certainly didn’t deny the accuracy of the numbers and basically postulated that this type of collateral damage was acceptable.
Isn’t it about time we begin to link cause and effect (actions and consequences) to our failed foreign policy of U.N. sanctions that include embargoes and military interventionism? Do they really hate us and attack us because we are free or do they hate us and attack us because we threaten them, disrupt their food supplies, and attack them and occupy their homelands? As long as we are over there stirring the hate pot, they will be attacking us here. Have we become so arrogant, as a nation, that we think we can reap other than what we sow? If we want peace, we have to sow the seeds of peace. If we continue sowing discord, strife, and social conflict can we really expect it won’t be returned to us, in kind, no matter how well intentioned, or seemingly noble, we think our cause to be? To expect anything other than that just ain’t natural.
So, how would you characterize the Manhattan Islamic Cultural Center issue? Is it a mountain or a molehill?
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Is the right to secede conditional upon someone or some entity granting us permission to do so? If freedom is something granted (an assumption), how can we ever hope to be truly free? We either believe that we as individuals choose to be free or we believe others grant us our freedom(s). If we believe others bestow our freedoms on us, how do we reconcile the issue of the equality of mankind? If, as many proclaim, we are all equal, who would be so arrogant to assume they are in a position to grant or bestow freedom upon their equals? And, if the arrogant assume they are in a position to grant or bestow freedom upon their equals, what assurance do we have that they will be any less arrogant in the reversal of such bestowment?
Can one imagine the public outcry if corporations successfully lobbied for bills making it illegal for employees to terminate their employment? Can one imagine the public outcry if landlords successfully lobbied for bills making it illegal for rent paying tenants to terminate their lease agreements? Can one imagine the public outcry if automobile manufacturers successfully lobbied for bills making it illegal to terminate ownership and use of their particular brand of automobile? Can one imagine the public outcry if cities, municipalities, or states forbade residents to leave their territorial boundaries?
The early American colonists came together in a voluntary union and made a decision to secede from British rule. Voluntary union and secession was the basis upon which this nation was founded. If voluntary union and secession was the basis upon which this nation was founded, why wouldn’t it also be the basis of its continuance?
What Abraham Lincoln did, in coercively suppressing the secessionist movement of the South, was treasonous and un-American and this act of coercive suppression represented a reversal of something considered very fundamental and unique to the forming of our nation. No longer, after Lincoln’s tyranny, would the federal government be truly answerable to the people. No longer would the federal government seek to create an environment of mutual consent and voluntary association. Lincoln brought us the beginnings of a haughty and abusive form of government that continues, to this very day, to flaunt its power intrusively and obnoxiously. We’ve evolved into a nation of serfs no better off than the colonists, under oppressive British rule, and in many instances the tyranny we experience today is worse than the tyranny experienced under British rule. The primary difference being that today the tyranny is much more creatively disguised through the management of perceptions by mainstream media.
Why was secession from British rule applauded as being something akin to the Divine while the Southern States secession from the Union was, under Lincoln, characterized as being heretical or treasonous? Why did the United States government applaud the state secessionist movement in the U.S.S.R. and elsewhere while continuing to pooh-pooh the same liberty for their own individual states? Is there a double standard for freedom?
Is not voting with our feet and our money true democracy practiced in its most pure form? Can we imagine the degradation of products and services consumers would experience if a law was passed prohibiting shoppers from discontinuing the use of a product or service? Can we imagine the abusive and haughty behavior that could be found in marital relationships if laws were created to prohibit withdrawal from those relationships? Can we imagine the abusive and haughty nature of a government run amok, as witnessed on an almost daily basis, not having some connection to Lincoln’s treasonous act against the South? How many past civilizations embracing coercion, as the patriotic glue uniting their societies together, did not witness this coercion morphing into more oppressive forms and serving as the catalyst for the next revolution?
When sellers of products and services are required to compete for our loyalty, doesn’t that make for more choices and better service in the marketplace? When a spouse understands their partner is not shackled to the marital relationship, in a coercive fashion, doesn’t that garner more mutual respect or respectful behavior towards one another? Why wouldn’t a similar voluntary and competitive structure, in government, provide equally more choices, freedom and better customer service?
If we can understand the benefits of secession from the British Crown, can we not understand the potential benefits of secession from the Union? When we succumb to the false ideas of - my country, right or wrong; my church, right or wrong; and my family, right or wrong; how do we avoid resigning ourselves to the inevitable negative consequences (tyranny) arising from such self-destructive paradigms? Unconditional loyalty to one’s country, one’s church, and to one’s family soon becomes the breeding ground for the selfish and arrogant.
If the secessionist movement isn’t successful on the state level, it can certainly be successful on the individual level. If the United States government appears to have great difficulty in keeping illegal immigrants out of our country, how can it be expected the United States government will be any more successful in keeping those desiring to leave (secede) from doing so? The best and brightest liberty minded people will leave for more hospitable shores and many are doing so right now. Those who understand what liberty is will certainly find it.
In the final analysis, there will be only two impediments to the masses desiring to secede from the Union in whatever fashion deemed appropriate to the circumstances. Those impediments are personal debt and dependency upon the Nanny State. Debt and Nanny State dependency keep us in perpetual slavery and we do it to ourselves by our choices. The famous Pogo cartoon quotation summed it up best when lamenting, "We have met the enemy and he is us."
The most prosperous nation states of the future will be the ones who compete with each other in providing an environment of low taxes, privacy, and the elimination of onerous regulations and frivolous lawsuits. The personally responsible and solvent will be attracted to their shores.
The impoverished third world nation state wastelands of the future will be the ones who incentivize personal irresponsibility, personal debt, and dependency upon the Nanny State.
We have a choice to be loyal to the principles of freedom and our core values or the choice to be loyal to the brand and the expectations of others. Freedom is a choice!
Sunday, June 6, 2010
How many of us look around at the calamities going on in the world such as the BP Deepwater Horizon oil gushing crisis, the banking collapse, the “forever wars” in the Mideast, the implosion of residential real estate, the exportation of our manufacturing sector, the escalating unemployment rate, the rioting and bloodshed in Greece, the Columbine styled school shootings, the bombing of the Murrah building, the collapse of the Twin Towers, or the Hurricane Katrina aftermath, and sometimes feel compelled to label or categorize these events as being or representing something outside of our own control and miraculously separated from the choices we individually make whether we are talking about where we choose to live, our choice of employment, our recreational pursuits, our personal associations, our political worship, or how we choose to invest our money? It is much easier, when faced with such seemingly unexplainable events and calamities, at least by mainstream media’s standards, to place them all in the “too hard to do bin” by making the rather weak and unconvincing proclamation that, “God is in control,” thereby automatically dismissing out-of-hand any personal responsibility for the outcomes we may encounter along this journey we call life.
In making the statement, “God is in control,” does it not appear to be an effort on the part of some to simply avoid thinking about cause and effect or the associated implications (consequences) of their beliefs, decisions and actions? If we can quickly shift personal responsibility onto something outside ourselves, doesn’t it tend to make for more happy thoughts? When someone is attempting to mindlessly shift their personal responsibility onto God’s shoulders, with such a reckless cliché as, “God is in control,” the automatic response bursting forth from our lips is, “In control of what?” What is God in control of? Do we, or do we not, have freewill, or are we all just hapless victims of a cruel joke played upon us by our Creator? Are we really just robots or automatons? Does holding on to the “God is in control” paradigm encourage us to be more responsible for our personal behavior, or less responsible? Does the holding on to the “God is in control” paradigm encourage us to be better stewards of our natural resources, or less so? Does the holding on to the “God is in control” paradigm encourage us to be more loving of our neighbors, here and abroad, or less loving?
Ironically, many Christians who proclaim that, “God is in control,” when faced with overwhelming calamity that they are not willing to accept responsibility for, are the same ones who cheer on or actively participate in the annihilation of brown skinned babies, of Muslim parents, because they think God may have fallen asleep at the switch and that he may need a little nudge. They may verbalize or intellectualize that “God is in control,” but their contradictory actions, even if it’s just a warmongering wink and a nod, from the safety of their pews, bespeak something else entirely. Their contradictory actions imply a degree of impatient benevolence towards a God who apparently does not know what is going on in the world and who needs their help to bring on Armageddon to the Axis of Evil (anyone not bowing to their whims, desires, and expectations). This contradictory push-pull is much like an adult rendition of the childhood straw squeezing game where giggling little girls pinch the straw and verbally speculate, “He loves me, he loves me not,” being replaced, in the adult Christian version by, “God is in control, God is asleep.” So, which is it? Is God in control or is he asleep? God can’t be both, can he?
Do we really want to sit back and entrust others to play squeeze the straw and discover the answer to that question for us, or do we want to more broadly explore our own questions and answers that don’t serve to limit the outcome to such narrow and equally disturbing possibilities? Neither of the two possibilities, above, seem very complimentary to a loving God who made each of us in his own image to autonomously rule over the animal kingdom, plant kingdom, and our own families, does it? Is it possible we sometimes attempt to mold and shape God to our own skewed images?
The two conflicting and contradictory paradigms, “God is in control” and “God is asleep,” often held by Christians simultaneously can only be embraced, in such fashion, by those who’ve awkwardly and vainly attempted to compartmentalize and segregate their spiritual lives from their secular lives. They represent a sort of Jekyll and Hyde dual personality struggling to achieve congruity between their incompatible religious and secular belief systems. In their minds, killing little brown babies is justified because God must be asleep at the switch in allowing Muslims to exist and pursue their dreams of autonomy and that Armageddon must happen within their lifetimes because the Bible says so. Never mind the fact that their Bible is the same Bible their parents, grandparents and great grandparents read and that Armageddon didn’t materialize within their lifetimes. They, without the least bit of shame, postulate that maybe if they kill even more brown skinned babies that maybe they can prove to a loving, kind, and compassionate God that they are actually worthy of the rapture for which they are desperately longing.
Is there possibly a third paradigm we need to explore that makes much more sense than the contradictory and opposing “God is in control” and “God is asleep” paradigms many so-called Christians equally and contradictorily embrace? What would that third paradigm be?
A third paradigm that makes much more sense to us is the one that says, “I’m responsible for everything I do and everything that happens to me…period.” Although we recognize that God instituted the natural laws designed to keep our Universe from spinning out of control, we also recognize that within this framework of natural law that we, as human beings, are blessed with the freewill to design our own destinies. The more closely our life design parallels the natural order of things, the more peace, joy, love and happiness we experience. When our lives continually bump up against the sharp edges of natural law, the more pain we experience. When we seek and embrace natural law and make it our ally rather than discovering it haphazardly, we show gratitude and allegiance to our Creator and experience more peace, joy, love, happiness and abundance. When we embrace man’s law, on the other hand, we experience all manner of mischief, calamity, inequality, scarcity, hate, strife and discord.
We, as human beings, are not victims of anything other than our own choices…good, bad, or ugly and we cannot realistically separate the consequences of life from our own beliefs, decisions and actions.
We can already hear a few readers mumbling, “Yeah, but what about…babies born with physical and mental challenges? What beliefs, decisions and actions are they responsible for making that brought them these challenges?” These are the ‘lifeboat cases’ that are invariably raised by those disinclined to accept personal responsibility for their beliefs, decisions and actions. They’re hoping to philosophically piggyback or hitch a ride off the infirm. Ironically, how many instances have we witnessed autistic children becoming virtuosos in some field of endeavor? Or, what about those who’ve overcome severe physical disabilities and achieved personal fame in the sports world? Yes, it would appear that some may have been dealt a bad hand, at the inception of life, but what is our excuse and who are we to judge their challenges as being disabilities? Who are we to judge their purpose in life as being subpar to our own? Who are we to judge and place limits on their capacity for achievement?
Those inclined to put on their victim faces and philosophically hitch a ride off the infirm will be shamed to tears after viewing the following video:
Saturday, April 10, 2010
The scripture above has been brutally butchered and bastardized over the years and has led to many great distortions and incorrect conclusions among many Christians. These distortions and wrongful conclusions have negatively impacted Christians and their attitudes toward money and have adversely affected their behavior toward the accumulation of wealth. The butchery and bastardization of I Timothy 6:10 takes place when the “love of money is the root of all evil” topic is wrongfully separated from the concept of covetousness.
The above scripture, in Timothy, when taken in its complete context, implies that it is not the love of our own money that is the root of all evil, but the love of other people’s money. Covetousness is commonly defined as an inordinate desire for money or things we don’t own. Obviously, money and things we don’t own belong to someone else. We can’t covet money or property we’ve legitimately acquired through moral means. We can only covet that which belongs to someone else. Covetousness implies that the item, money, or property in question is in the rightful possession of someone else and implies also there may be a temptation, on the part of the one coveting, to acquire the property of another through immoral means.
Covetousness also implies a lack of contentment or gratitude for what we already have (our capacity to earn) and a basic ignorance of the natural law that dictates we can’t have something for nothing. Another way of stating this natural law is that there is no free lunch. Genesis 3:19 supports the concept of there being no free lunch when it states, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return to the ground…”
Sadly, church leaders, pastors, and preachers are often the worst offenders when it comes to taking I Timothy 6:10 out of context and may be the worst violators of the scripture’s truer meaning. They convince many of their flock that money is evil while it is residing in their member’s wallets but that the very same money is miraculously sanctified when it hits the church collection plate. Will the real coveters please stand up? These church leaders appear to be coveting the money of their flock while hypocritically preaching on money’s evil nature. Are they not deceiving their flocks and shearing them in much the same manner the profane Jewish religious leaders (Pharisees) did in early New Testament times?
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon. And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him. And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God. – Luke 16:13-15 (KJV)
So, should Christians be good little sheep and stand ready to receive their shearing? Not hardly. While Christians were often given the descriptive attributes of sheep, they were also admonished to recognize the voice of their Shepherd and to be wary of human wolves (Pharisees, false prophets) dressed in sheep skins who were pretending to be something they weren’t. Whether modern day preachers and pastors have ill intent or are simply ignorant on this matter, we will let God be the judge. In the meantime, however, we will be more inclined to take responsibility for our own charitable giving rather than using religious institutions serving as wealth redistribution centers. Their bloated administrative budgets and staff absorb much of the charitable giving and far too few dollars ever reach those truly in need compared to the ratio of money going to glitzy buildings, massive bus fleets, and the Six Flags Over Jesus theme park atmosphere.
Covetousness is truly the root of all evil and biblical examples of covetousness can be traced as far back as Eve, in the Garden of Eden, who was tempted, by Satan, to eat of the fruit from the tree that would give her knowledge of good and evil and make her equal to the gods. Eve, therefore, coveted knowledge and angelic esteem that was not hers to possess.
If one erroneously believes that the love of money is the root of all evil must they not first define what money really is?
So, what is money? Is it not simply a tool of exchange? Is money not a representative unit of one’s labor or energy used to produce items or services others desire and voluntarily pay for with money they, themselves, have also earned?
If one erroneously believes that the love of money is the root of all evil but correctly recognizes that the root of money, itself, is simply representative of one’s labor, would they not be forced to accept the uncomfortable conclusion that the love of labor is ultimately the root of all evil? If the love of labor is the root of all evil, by what means did labor originate? Did not God establish the natural law of labor shortly after the Garden of Eden incident? Should we not love and respect the natural laws God has instituted? How apropos was it that God selected a form of punishment (no free lunches) so precisely suited to the covetousness and crime exhibited in the Garden of Eden?
The value of money is not determined by government decree, central banks, or by those who exist off the labor of others. The value of money is determined by those who produce items and services others value and who willingly and voluntarily exchange it by trading value-4-value absent the tools of guilt (fraud) or fear (force).
Which comes first in the natural order of things; money, or looting and mooching?
Looting is the forceful taking or plundering of products or services, or their monetary equivalent. Looting is, therefore, the forceful taking or plundering of another’s labor or energy. Mooching is the acquisition of products or services, or their monetary equivalent, by preying on producers in society through the use of guilt (fraud) and separating them from the fruits of their labor. Money attracts looters and moochers. The looters and moochers produce nothing but immorality and therefore lend nothing to the value of money.
I Timothy 6:10 is not describing those who possess money gained through the use of their own mental faculties and labor, but instead is describing those looters and moochers who desire and/or possess something they have not earned. In other words, those who live off the backs of others are the ones guilty of loving money at the expense of morality (coveting).
By what logic can we damn our money without damning our own existence? We exist by our ceaseless labor and money is just a representation of that labor. If we damn our money, we, by necessary inference, damn our labor. If we damn our labor, we, by necessary inference, damn our lives because to live is to labor. How can we damn our own lives or its moral derivatives without damning our Creator?
Money (honestly earned) is therefore the root of all good because it represents a form of indirect exchange we can use to exchange our labor for the labor of others. Trading value-4-value honors the principle of the golden rule in which we treat others as we would wish to be treated. Money, as previously defined, exemplifies and supports the golden rule.
Looters and moochers who come by money through immoral means (fraud, theft, robbery, political and/or legislative) are the ones who denigrate money and dilute its value. Those who do so are society’s counterfeiters and hitchhikers.
Article credits: The Bible and Atlas Shrugged (Francisco D’Antonio’s Money Speech)