Electric Pollution, the Regulatory State, and the Wild West

This is an essay inspired by a podcast James Tracy published at his Memory Hole Blog, where I am a frequent presence.

I publish it here now, inspired by Rich’s recent comment, which hoped I would generate some action here.  I certainly will try.  As I replied to him, time is a problem I am always fighting.

Another issue is that I created this site to be about the Stairway book, and have felt constrained to keep the thing somewhat tied to that theme.  Much of my most inspired recent writing I have done at MHB, and not cross-posted here, because of that.  I think I shall change this way of thinking, and break out of that mold I set for myself.

Another thing I shall endeavor to change is the clunkiness of this web site’s presentation.  Since I put it together myself, and only learned by doing, that will be a further challenge.  Pray for me on that one, everyone.  I’ll need all I can get.

Here’s the piece:


Josh Hart, in his recent conversation on James Tracy’s Checkin’ It Out podcast, made some interesting offhand observations about what he called “capitalism,” and a sort of “wild west” environment he perceives as prevailing when new technologies are introduced in our era. While I am sympathetic to what I think he’s trying to say, I thought it might be helpful to explore this idea a little more closely.

It’s always nice to begin at the beginning, so I’ll try to summarize the origins of America as I understand them, and see how the country has changed fundamentally, to the point where monstrous tyrannies can be imposed upon all of us without our consent, by vast corporations, without the Federal or State governments having any interest at all in representing mere human beings. “We the People” supposedly created the Federal government, but you’d be hard pressed to see any evidence of it today, given the way Leviathan acts.

We can say that America was founded in four waves of immigration from four regions of the Island of Great Britain, as David Hackett Fischer argues so wonderfully in his book Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America. These were the Puritans, who went to New England; the Cavaliers (those who conformed to the Church of England), who went to Virginia; the Quakers, who went to Pennsylvania and Delaware; and the Scots-Irish (protestant Celts), who settled over the Allegheny mountains. Each of these groups came from a different part of the English Island, spoke with different accents and had always lived life very differently one from another. All were anglo/saxon or celtic protestants, but each had a VERY different notion about what protestantism was supposed to look like. For all their of similarity, they were very diverse indeed: the idea of them joining together into one nation would have seemed preposterous to them at the time.

Each of the colonies was pretty much like a distinct country, although colonies with the same folkways felt a kinship. The four folkway-groups were sufficiently separated geographically and economically that there was little strife between them in the first century of English presence in America. Meanwhile, back home, the place was in religious (which was intensely political) turmoil, what with the English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, and the Restoration. This proved a very fortuitous distraction from the point of view of Liberty here in America: the British king (when there was one) was too distracted to try to govern the colonies, so we got used to taking care of ourselves. Depending upon what part of America you lived in, this was probably the freest civilized place in history. We had proved that, given a shared set of moral principles, people will naturally govern themselves; people who self-govern don’t need police to threaten to punish them if they misbehave, much less need politicians to create new laws to impose upon them.

But then again, was that America’s REAL beginning?

While we are supposed to believe that Columbus discovered America, anyone who looks into the matter quickly learns that it’s not true. The Knights Templar discovered it, in the person of Henry Sinclair (Columbus, who sailed in a direct line, as if he knew exactly where he was going, had the Templar Cross emblazoned on his sails). Look up the mysterious and amazing Roslyn Chapel, built by Henry’s grandson, which has stone carvings of plants and animals only found in America, that predates Columbus. No doubt this is the reason the estimable Francis Bacon, notably of the court of Queen Elizabeth, wrote his book about the future of America, The New Atlantis. The future use of the new continent was long brewing in esoteric minds. It was a Masonic vision of a perfected future.

So the Christians who founded America were salted with, for lack of a better term, illuminati, from the start. There was a grand plan for America that the Christians who set about building this country knew nothing about. It brings to mind Jesus’ parable of the wheat and the tares, growing together unto the End. Even as the world that Bacon flourished in was being destroyed in the chaos of English religious politics in the 17th century, America’s people were growing confident in the easiness of living happily while being truly free from state control. No one here would have noticed the Masonic “tares” growing amongst us at the time; we were just happy to be free of the strife on the other side of the Atlantic.

It was perhaps inevitable that we separate ourselves, once British overlordship was restored with the renewed stability of the British state as the 18th century unfolded. Certainly, the constitution we adopted reflected the principles of the goodness of freedom from state power we had spent a century and a half learning—a kind of point/counterpoint George III could not comprehend. The Articles of Confederation were perhaps the perfect expression of that freedom we had learned to live while England was burning: if the former colonies, now independent countries, were to bind themselves together, it would be very loosely. The new countries were on their own, in most matters of state, and they liked it that way.

But this did not sit well with the faction Bacon’s vision had set forth. James Madison, through various means, managed to convene a Convention of the American States to “fix” a couple of perceived flaws in the Articles that loosely connected them. But once convened, the conclave decided to scrap the constitution they were only to propose alterations of, and start from scratch. When they were done, had I been alive, I would have been an Antifederalist (Patrick Henry refused to be a delegate to the convention from the start, saying, quite presciently, “I smell a rat”).

The new government would have a city built for itself, carved out of Maryland and Virginia. Lest anyone wonder which “beginning” was now in charge, its streets were laid out all in Masonic symbolism, and all the buildings would harken back to pagan Greece and Rome. There would be not a hat-tip to the Judeo-Christian Mind of the Christians of Fischer’s four British folkways.

Today, it’s easy to see who won the contest between the visible and the secret founders of the new country, simply by examining the District of Columbia. Christians today, who frequently whine that they want to reclaim their country, are deluded. It hasn’t been theirs since 1787.

That delusion is understandable, though; it didn’t look that way for a long time. By the time of the Constitutional Convention most of the Northern states had gotten rid of most of their slaves, so most of America’s slaves were now in the South. If it were me at the Convention, representing a Southern state, I would have held out and demanded that every single person be counted in the census—and I would pressure every other delegate from the South to demand the same. But so desirous were they of replacing the constitution, they agreed to a compromise that would artificially elevate the population ratio of the states in favor of the North: when the census would be taken, 2/5 of the slave population would be discarded, giving rough parity between North and South in Congressional representation. A grave mistake, in my opinion.

Still, even having granted the North that handicap, the South, which alone by that point held to the little-to-no-government vision of freedom that prevailed in the 17th and 18th centuries, was able to stop at every turn the goal of building Bacon’s New Atlantis in this country. The South constituted an effective veto on that Plan, all the way up to 1860, when the ultimate agent of Bacon’s vision came to power. The Southern states exited the Union, almost immediately, knowing that if the old vision of freedom was to survive, they would have to do it on their own.


Well, the North won the War to Prevent Southern Independence. What resulted?

A consolidated Federal government no one could have imagined prior. Two new Departments, which would forever change America, were created as a result of the War: Justice and Agriculture. Justice gave the Federal government a law enforcement role in Americans’ lives, something no one could have imagined or tolerated before the War. And Agriculture created something entirely new: a way for private interests to crowd out competition by having an inside track with an increasingly powerful Federal government. Economists call it “rent-seeking,” which Wikipedia summarizes as “the manipulation of regulatory agencies to gain monopolistic advantages in the market while imposing disadvantages on competitors.” Lots and lots of Federal agencies followed over the coming decades. Freedom went the way of the dodo bird, as insider deals, made possible by the federal government, enabled cartels and monopolies to come into being, and vast oligarchic fortunes to be made.

This is in fact the “Wild West” Josh Hart bemoans. And quite rightly.

He uses the term “capitalism,” which in my opinion is also entirely appropriate, to describe this horrible state of affairs. It is a coinage of Marx, taken from the title of his most famous book, “Capital.” It describes a perversion, indeed a destruction, of the free marketplace, a place anyone can enter and challenge the established players on an even playing field. Without these federal “friends” protecting monopolists and cartels, such enterprises could never get overly large because when true competition prevails the potential size of the players is self-limiting.  By definition. New entrants, with different ideas, constantly hold back the potential excesses of their competitors—unless they are artificially protected.

A good example of this is in electrical utilities. If it were not for the sham “regulation” the Federal government uses to run interference for its favored entities in that field, Tesla technology would not have been absconded with (by the Federal government, incidentally), and Josh’s vision of safe, clean, decentralized electrical power would have out-competed the paradigm that enslaves us today. Probably, Tesla’s work being a century old by now, even better technologies would have been developed by free, happy, innovators, by now, young, creative, minds unfettered by the ongoing effects of the world that Lincoln’s War bequeathed us.

The really sad part is, outside of the ill-effects of this horrible “capitalism” in squelching the widespread human happiness freedom would create, the fake “regulation” represented by these administrative agencies, inevitably, grows exponentially more corrupt, as the government functionaries supposedly doing the “regulating” discover that bending over for the interests they are supposed to oversee and limit the activities of guarantees them a fat job with those very interests once they retire from government “service.” The public be damned.

So by now, a century and a quarter after this new, horrible, system came into being, public utilities can do anything to the public, no matter how health-debilitating, and the Federal and state “regulators” run interference for them every step of the way.

This is where the “Wild West” of American lore becomes a perfectly apt metaphor.

In the aftermath of Lincoln’s War, his generals were dispatched to the lands beyond the Mississippi to eradicate the Plains Indians. These monsters had proven themselves up to the task when they effected a program of “total war” against the civilian populations of the American South. The Indians soon found out what that was like. But why?, you ask.  To make way for the railroads, silly. And then cattle interests (usually one and the same, come to think of it). And timber. And mines. Those years in Washington, under Grant, were called the “Great Barbecue.” A friend in Washington could make you rich beyond your wildest dreams, because the Union Army would be at your service.

It’s only gotten worse since the West was “opened.” We are all the Plains Indians, now.

23 thoughts on “Electric Pollution, the Regulatory State, and the Wild West

  1. A great article. I’m glad you posted it. Its common for bloggers to post and for the same article to be reposted on other blogs. I hope Dr. Tracy finds room for it soon. I hope my previous comment wasn’t too harsh on MHB. Its a great place concerning its focus, that being the “Memory Hole”. I hit you up for some content here because in your initial “what we are trying to do here” statement you said you would like to talk about the book and “other things”.

    You have a lot to say and a great way of saying it. The textbook history we were given in school, at least from my generation, was ok for giving me the timeline, and basically “correct”, but was in no way the truth. Take for instance the Great Compromise (or was it the compromise of 1850?). The south wanted full representation, but if I read it right, it was the north who pushed for slaves only counting as three fifths of a person, but the history books vilified the south for agreeing with it. Southerners should have been jumping up and down for emancipation right there and then.

    The mess we are in today as is so often discussed on MHB, is a result of these monumental turns in history like the scrapping of the Articles of Confederation, the compromises, the war, and the creation of the federal departments of this and that. The host, guest writers, and commenters at MHB find the connections that prove we are in an endless paradigm of deception, and that is necessary and applauded by myself, however your personal research into history helps with the why?, How did we get here?, and how could it be any other way given the course we have taken? I would bet there are others hoping to hear that perspective occasionally, and this article is a great start.

    • Thanks, Rich. I wrote it for James Tracy, unsolicited, so I gave him a couple of weeks to decide if it fit the bill. I got tired of waiting. I agree completely that it helps answer the “why” that most of the conversations at MHB generates, the “how did we get to this point” problem, and the active commenters would benefit from it–which is why I wrote it in the first place. The original interview that inspired the essay is fading into the past, so it’s a shame that James did not publish it quickly.

      The 3/5 provision in the Constitution provides an incredibly revealing insight into the degree to which the American Mind has been successfully poisoned when it comes to racial issues. All people hear when they are told about that provision is that the Framers of the Constitution thought that Africans were less than fully human. (They certainly don’t actually READ the Constitution, much less ponder the implications of the various provisions.) This is the result of two forms of relentless propaganda, one going back to the War itself, and the other of more recent vintage: first, people have been tricked into thinking the War was about slavery, and that the North was forwarding a noble quest to cleanse our great nation from the diabolical culture of the South; and second, they have since the 1960s been led to believe that the very origins of the country were evil–and that blacks are and always have been its victims.

      If these people would only stop and think. The provision is obviously about the decennial census, taken to determine representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. Anyone tempted to think this was somehow an expression of racism needs to ask who benefited from that provision? If it was a question of dehumanizing African slaves, who was on the side of the angels in that Convention?

      The supposedly noble Northern states wanted NO slaves counted. I suppose that’s because they didn’t even think blacks had any humanity at all, by the vapid thinking of our time. But to notice that obvious fact would rob Lincoln’s defenders all of their moral preening. Can’t have that–so the question is never asked.

      As you can tell, this is a topic that gets the annoyance meter pushing the red line. I hate stupidity. And I hate it that the real racists, the ones who politically wish to keep blacks endlessly on the Big Plantation Lincoln’s War Made, bet to call the rest of us racist and get away with it.

      And I particularly hate the Total State Lincoln’s War made inevitable. But since the Constitution made that clash of civilizations inevitable, I hate the Constitution, too. If only we could get the Articles back!

      • Whoa, my bad. I was thinking the 3/5th compromise was way later. I forgot it was actually written into the Constitution. I was thinking it was an amendment. Too bad the race issue is still alive and well as we see in Ferguson, MO. Regardless of whether we get the real story or not, someone’s purpose will be served by it. As a younger man I was under the impression that pre- Great Society the blacks of America were becoming more educated (black colleges), and some communities were on the rise, being that they had their own doctors, lawyers, and economy(grocery stores, etc). To me it was plain and simple; Someone didn’t want competition. Enter the Great Society, destroy their Family, their morality, and economy, and make a fortune off their welfare checks. Too bad White America didn’t care enough to see it, now they come for them too.

      • I will check it out. BTW, thanks for the tip on “The Giza Power Plant”. I read it and found it fascinating. Dunn pieces together the mystery brilliantly. I don’t know how anyone could read that and look at the world in the same way ever again. Given the fact that so little remains, if anything, regarding the tools used to create such a monster structure, I can’t help but think they have to be a lot older than estimated by the accepted priesthood. Sure, maybe the pyramids channeled a great power, but there must have been a great source of energy already in play to build such things. It makes me wonder if God has judged the earth many more times than we currently know of.

  2. I’m delighted you have read Dunn’s book, Rich. I hope you’re reading his other one now. These are truly windows into the genuine history of our world, and indeed raise the questions you mention. We are both adherents to the Bible, and we must wrestle with this mystery.

    On the Lincoln thing; Dublinsmick has got me hooked on Miles Mathis. I’ve read a lot of his articles, and totally love the guy. I just finished one that argues that Lincoln was not murdered: http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf

    I believe he’s right. Dave McGowan is working on a series currently on the same topic. Between Tom DiLorenzo’s books and these guys, the whole Lincoln cult has been exposed, in my opinion, for the shabby ridiculousness that it is. It’s like the era when bits of bone or hair from the bodies of saints, “relics,” were thought to confer special spiritual power upon garden variety sinners, and then the charade was exposed and the whole business was halted.

    I don’t think, however, that the Lincoln cult will halt. I just think we who look now have proof he was completely an agent of the monsters creating the NWO. They WILL create 1984, and the world John saw in Revelation. The Bible is coming true before our observing eyes.

    People ask me what we can do. Well, I say, take the Stairway seriously. But also take seriously the real history that has been covered up, and actively stop believing the lies our society is manufactured out of. Lincoln was an agent of evil men, and he actively participated in that job, enthusiastically. It’s why he was allowed to rise in society. Duh.

    The tragic thing is that hardly anyone has the gumption to face that reality. Perhaps it can be used as a touchstone.

    Even believers in most true things want to cling to the Lincoln Myth. It feels somehow shameful to acknowledge it is the same thing as clinging to anything the Rockefellers have tainted in our world. Well, it is exactly that.

    Thanks for all your insights and support, Rich.

  3. The Mathis paper is good. Mary Todd Lincoln exclaiming “He has shot the President” is reminiscent of a 911 statement that still gnaws at me. That being Mark Bingham calling his mother and saying, “Hello mother, this is your son Mark Bingham”. Other than asking why there was no exit wound in Lincolns death mask(I doubt a derringer ball of the time could make it that far), I think he makes a pretty good case. The vote stealing, and Constitutional flaws regarding succession make his case even stronger. Interestingly, Lincoln was nominated in 1860 on the third vote, after coming in a distant second on the first vote(in all places, the sleaze pit that is Chicago). It makes sense that the Union needed to be saved to create the megastate that is America, Megastates being the natural stepping stone to the global government that is coming.
    Also, the second Dunn book is on the way. I’m no engineer, but I have turned a wrench or two in my life and still marvel at the site of an engine. Not for what it does, but that someone had to imagine it, draw it, and someone else had to create the machines that would create it. Dunn is to be applauded for knowing exactly what intrigued him from the start, and making a life, and a living from it. People who refuse to let the conditioning stick are a credit to the Creator.

  4. Ok, I’m kind of hacked off and didn’t know where else to go. I became intrigued by a link on MHB to a Mark Passio video on youtube, and I admit the first three or for hours was thought provoking, with some truth to it no doubt. But after hearing about the evils of religion, it turns out he is an ex Church of Satan follower, and is totally enamored with Kabbalah, and Tarot Cards? This stuff isn’t a religion? Come on! UFO’s, galactic federations that won’t let us in until we evolve our consciousness? He beats up the New Agers(which I have no problem with) but sounds like one himself half the time. Tarot Cards? Really, 4 hours of amazing commentary on natural law, and morality(which I thought was good by the way), and now I find out I’m listening to Miss Cleo. I wish these people would realize that a lot of Christians like me don’t want a religion, a building with pews, or doctrine. We just want to be closer to God, that’s all. They say don’t be fooled by religion. While at the same time they are building the basis for their own.
    By the way, that last comment from you on MHB regarding St. Longinus, and Gran1te’s comment belongs in the hall of fame. Really good work.

    • I feel your pain, Rich. I hate being hoodwinked that way. Sometimes the teaser parts at the beginning actually produce new information, sometimes it’s all stuff we already know but well enough presented to lend out hope that some new insight is just around the corner. Then, we find out it’s all been a waste of time. Hours we can never get back.

      I appreciate very much that this is a place for you to vent about stuff like that.

      I also appreciate your sentiment when you say “I wish these people would realize that a lot of Christians like me don’t want a religion, a building with pews, or doctrine. We just want to be closer to God, that’s all. ” Certainly, Christianity is a family, and its expression requires communal expression–but the so-called “churches” in our time are so overwhelmingly actually damaging to that principle. Finding a congregation expressing true worship and genuine Christian community is astonishingly rare.

      So I am really grateful for what you say about that comment of mine. I love the MHB for many reasons, foremost among which is that it’s a place where I can expect people to comprehend such things. When I was young, I often read the correspondence between people like Hemingway and Fitzgerald, and their editor Perkins. I longed to have such a world of my own, although I had no intellectual accomplishments yet to discuss and debate with smart people. Well, the internet is filled with places to chat, but until I found the MHB I rarely found it worth the trouble. Tracy has produced a rare opportunity to experience my life-long longing. How long it can continue, I don’t want to speculate.

      That’s not to say that I am not frustrated with MHB much of the time, and wonder if it’s worth my trouble. But very fine writers and thinkers devote time there, and further very important questions. And these good folk are able to chase away trolls pretty quickly. Fools who stick around for the long haul can be amusing, and actually instructive. So it’s definitely worth the trouble for me. Especially because I can write at length, when needed. I do my best to do my best over there, as I mentioned recently–as if Tracy is my professor. I have a feeling that a few others feel the same way.

      Fish mentioned yesterday that my comments are too long for him, so he just skims them, which is a real disappointment, because I welcome his camaraderie. I endeavor to craft my longer comments to flow beautifully, and be fun to spend that time thinking along with me. In fact, the first article Tracy published of mine was a very long comment–he emailed me and asked me to let him post it as an article. I love it that he does not mind length, so long as it is an idea worth developing.

      Thanks again, Rich.

      • Yes sir, I saw Fish’s comment, but at least he is skimming, and I’m sure a guy that smart will hang on to the bits he does read and they will help him when he needs it. Patrick, I bet you draw more reply’s and argument over there than any commenter, and the discourse is always deep, at least on your side, sometimes both. It got me right at a time when I was starting to look back to God mostly because the world around me was not working for me, and I believe it is because I see wrong becoming right, and right wrong, and the scriptures said it would be so. I think that is why your comments resonate with me, and of course your first book.
        How I wish I could have those five years of university/college/partying back to read and learn what I wish I had the time to read now instead of making a living. What a scam the education system is, wasting good brains that can still absorb, information that isn’t worth a damn, on people who don’t care as much as they think they do. Thank God it didn’t stick(forever), or I might have ended up a Mark. At least he is a constant, he is wrong all the time. However, he is not stupid, sometimes I have to decipher his comments using your reply’s, just to know what he was talking about. Those are the ones I don’t comment on. I usually only reply when he summons me in his own irritating way.
        Anyway, thanks for your blog, and shoot me an e-mail sometime, I ran into two British reporters in the middle of nowhere Colorado tonight and struck up a conversation, and you may be surprised at what I didn’t find.

  5. A very, very interesting piece, patrickchatsamiably. Whenever I read your writings I hear the words narrated within my mind in the most elegant voice!

    • You are most kind, Mary.

      I created this site when I published the Stairway book, and at first tried to attend to it by writing movie reviews and the like, but I have found the Memory Hole Blog to be such a vibrant place of the best sort of conversation that I apply my efforts there, and neglect my own place.

      I am always grateful to have people who are not active commenters tell me what you have just done.

      God bless James Tracy for creating the environment he has done.

  6. Hi Patrick,
    Agree with your comment on Memory Hole Blog, “We are, I suspect, kindred spirits.” I read your first book, “How the West was lost” months ago, and still mean to write you a detailed letter about it. There were so many times that I wanted to speak out to whoever was around, “Yes, see, someone gets it! So clearly and aptly put!” But alas, speaking to strangers about philosophical matters no matter how contemporary is not really the done thing any more, is it?

    In any case hope our paths continue to cross. If you wish to communicate in a less public format, reach out via the website and I can send you my email.

    With kind thoughts,

  7. Hi Patrick, I wanted to send you a message but I don’t find that option on your blog, so I am just commenting here on your most recent post. What I know of you is only from reading your posts on MHB for over the last 2 plus years. Weird how that can make you feel like you have a tiny idea of a person. Anyway, I’ve heard Dave McGowan on the Boston Bombing and looked at his site a tiny bit, but the recent posting of his battle with cancer encouraged me to look again and I got sucked into the Wagging the Moondoggie series. Interesting timing for me because two weeks ago I was listening to sermon with my sons about how the bible agrees with science and the pastor quoted the verse about the earth being a circle. My son piped up that that would be flat and a circle is not a sphere. I agreed but didn’t think much more of it. Then a week later I was listening to Doug Hamp and a guy I wasn’t familiar with (Rob Skiba) debate a section of Revelation. I googled the unknown to see what he was about and came to his recent blogging about flat earth. I was totally taken in by what he’s posted. He’s just in the initial stages of researching for himself and really putting it to the test of scripture:http://www.seedtheseries.com/blog/BibleEarth.html. Here is another site that has Christian perspective on flat earth:http://thelowdown0.blogspot.com/2015/04/the-earth-is-flat.html#.VWz1YlxViko
    I’m not saying that I’m totally won over, but when you examine scripture, there is more evidence for flat earth. I was curious whether you’ve ever looked at this material. I know you’re familiar with all the deception that is foisted upon us so you won’t think I’m totally crazy in considering this. If you get this message I would love to hear what you think. You have should have my personal email from my comment sign in.

  8. Hi Patrick,
    Responded to your comment over at MHB, but have been placed into moderation limbo there. There is something odd about the moderation at MHB. I haven’t written enough over there to be able to determine which posts get held, and why. It’s strange though.
    Anyway, what you wrote is worthy of repeating:
    June 13, 2015 at 1:54 PM

    Here is my response:
    Yes Patrick, more than makes sense.

    ‘…or else they must not be allowed to stay among “us.”…’

    Things like this – and so much else that we are all witnessing in our day-to-day interactions with people in America – make me wonder how long it will be until our neighbors get so irritated by us that they are glad to see us go. After all, it’s hard to celebrate how free and godlike our nation has become when those pesky Jews – excuse me, Christians – insist upon holding onto their corrupt ways and keeping America from entering fully into her brave new age.

    “yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. -John 16.2″

  9. Just joined the party so to speak but have enjoyed your writing immensely.
    Specifically on the topic of the founding (or re-founding) of America, it’s great to hear someone consolidate an enormous history in just a short few paragraphs… spot on!

    Personally, I think if you can zoom out enough one can see the entirety of history through the lens of spiritual warfare. There is a certain continuity to it all. Disparate events seem to link and flow. If there is an enemy who is Hell bent on human destruction and it’s main weapon is deception then first principles is to cloud the waters. I know that’s a bit simplistic, but seemingly very effective whether through ignorance or intention.

    Curious to know what your thoughts are on the whole idea of fighting the American revolution in relation to Paul’s commendation to be content in whatever state he was in? (Phil 4:11) or the general idea he presents that slave’s should serve well. I think you get the gist. Can you specifically relate this to your study of the Beatitudes?

    • I agree that we should not have rebelled against British rule. None of the other colonies needed to, and all are today in pretty fine shape; even though they retain the Queen as official head of state, they run their own affairs. There are dark reasons we broke away, and we are paying the price. But I think that was pre-ordained. Francis Bacon wrote the New Atlantis, after all.

      If we had, we’d been content in the state we found ourselves in, I think, our future history would have been a lot better.

      I don’t know how the corporate condition relates to the beatitudes. That is, the process of spiritual growth is a personal one. It is said that God has no grandchildren. Everyone must be saved directly, being adopted into God’s family as sons. Nations can declare Christianity to be the foundation they build their future upon, and be blessed because of it, but the path Jesus teaches in Matthew 5 is for individuals. Everyone has to choose; just being born in a country that’s Christian can’t substitute for the personal struggle to grow in faith, and fulfill the vision God created you to be.

      Sometimes, evil men can push a good thing into the wrong direction, and then write history to make themselves and their decision–and the path itself–look lovely. We, the people who inherit that world, then have a choice: do we believe the lie, and defend it, or do we face reality. It is not easy.

      You ask about Paul’s contentment. Well, the guys who convened the Constitutional Convention did not have it. But that’s two and a half centuries ago, so it’s not us. We live in the world the consequences of what this men did bequeathed to us.

      Is it sin to acquiesce to the nightmare evil decisions made in the distant past delivered to us? That’s a big question. I think there is a time to fight, to kill the oppressor. I don’t think that was the correct choice in the 1770s. America’s people had a good foundation, philosophically and spiritually, when the British were defeated, so we had a long run of pretty decent cultural legacy in the decades to come. But since it was wrong at its start, and because there was a dark force behind it, inevitably, we ended up a bad place. We’re not supposed to talk that way, of course, but it’s true.

      Still, there are times when revolutions need to be fought. The people, in those cases, must be philosophically mature, otherwise it will go to the bad.

      So Paul can be trusted. Slavery ended when Rome died. Slave revolts were savagely suppressed when Rome lived. There was no percentage in it for rebellious slaves. But a few centuries down the road, Christianity having persuaded all of Rome to abandon paganism, when the Empire stopped being a going concern, the slaves were slaves no more.

      In that sense, I think Paul–even if he didn’t know it–was advising we take the long view.

      Thanks for writing. I hope I answered your question.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s