Saturday, October 22, 2016

know thy enemy... Trans Activists

There are legitimate enemies to freedom. I have seen them and I have heard them. These are not the enemies you see featured in the news in far away desert lands. These are enemies closer to home. They do not dress in black and carry AK's. Instead, these enemies fight you in word, philosophy and in the voting booth. These enemies are seeking to take your freedom. If they cannot take your freedom they want your life. They may not own guns but they seek a monopoly on violence. They wield the mighty cudgel of government force and coercion. I seek to document these enemies so that their violence is exposed. Below is the enemy. Know them...

LINK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZP3mSamRbYA

The above video shows Jordan B. Peterson, a tenured research and clinical PhD psychologist who currently teaches at the University of Toronto. He is being confronted by some students on account of his fight against the cultural cancer of political correctness. (See his speech that angered these students here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4R0bWC41g4) He is alarmed at how quickly it is metastasizing into laws that seek to punish any and all self-expression. Such legislation—in his case, Canada’s bill C-16, which would amend the Canadian Human Rights Code and Criminal Code to add “gender identity and expression” as a special category for anti-discrimination—is tailor-made to program people into conformity of thought. As with all things politically correct, such legislation always comes disguised in the language of “equality.”

The main complaint these Trans Activists have is the fact that Peterson doesn't see the need to force others to use 'preferred pronouns'. Preferred pronouns would be whatever words an individual selects that others must use when speaking to them (or about them). The new Canadian law would make it illegal to 'misgender', or use standard pronouns for, any trans person.

As Peterson correctly points out, pronouns are a closed linguistic category. This means, pronouns rarely if ever change. Pronouns almost never get added to. The only recent change is the decline of the use of the accusative 'whom', a vestige of the case system we once had in English. (Historical Corpora show that the use of 'whom' is steadily on the decline, and most people who use 'whom' don't actually know when to use it (Once again English has lost its case system).)

The only other recent change in pronouns was the loss of thee/thou (the second person singular formal pronouns). Which most people are familiar with due to their heavy use in the bible. So as you can see, pronouns are rarely added. In the last 500 years or more, we have only lost pronouns. Adding new words to this category (like ze, zim, zer, xe, hum, etc...) goes against everything we know about language. Any government led language planning should be resisted by all free men.

While we're at it, I may as well address the idea of problematic 'gendered pronouns' and other words. Grammatical gender has very little, almost nothing, to do with physical gender/sex. It just so happens that English has two grammatical genders (though we used to have three). There are some African languages with dozens. Now this may seem to prove the trans-activists dream of unlimited number of genders, but sadly for them, these have nothing to do with physical gender. They are just arbitrary categories of words (and sometimes the words for males and females end up in separate categories).

Throughout the video, the trans-activists state multiple times that Peterson must use their preferred pronouns or else he is oppressing them or harming them in some way. Towards the end of the video, one activist asks, "Who gives you the authority to decide what our pronouns are?" Somehow suggesting that Peterson is exerting some sort of control over their lives with his refusal to placate their demands on his speech. The question is then restated in its proper terms by the professor “Are you asking, Who gives me the authority to think and say what I choose?”

This question is truly a dangerous one. It is dangerous because the most basic aspect of freedom, is freedom of thought. It is the first freedom. It is the hardest freedom to deny someone… even if you throw someone in prison they could still think their own thoughts.

This is why freedom of speech is so important, because it is the most closely related to thought. As a man thinketh so is he. A thought first forms in the mind and then is translated into an utterance which then becomes an action. A man should be free to think, speak, and act as he pleases. If we allow speech to be regulated, we are in turn allowing our thoughts to be regulated. If our thoughts can be governed we have no freedom at all.

The harmful potential these trans-activist have is immense. The idea that speech can harm and therefore must be limited , is the most dangerous idea in recent history. Made even more dangerous by the fact that these trans-activists think they are protecting people from harm. They will protect us into bondage. Their demands of safety will imprison us all.



Wednesday, March 23, 2016

...the official church stance on Bernie Sanders' democratic socialism


Some have suggested that the practice of the law of consecration and the system of the united order are only a religious kind of socialism or communism. Others assert that it was a development either from the economic philosophies of Joseph Smith’s day or from communal experiments within the new religion. Such assumptions are false. The Prophet Joseph Smith attended a presentation on socialism in September 1843 at Nauvoo. His response was to declare that he “did not believe the doctrine” (History of the Church, 6:33). In more recent times Elder Marion G. Romney outlined the differences between the revealed system of the united order and the socialistic programs:

“(1) The cornerstone of the United Order is belief in God and acceptance of him as Lord of the earth and the author of the United Order.

“Socialism, wholly materialistic, is founded in the wisdom of men and not of God. Although all socialists may not be atheists, none of them in theory or practice seek the Lord to establish his righteousness.

“(2) The United Order is implemented by the voluntary free-will actions of men, evidenced by a consecration of all their property to the Church of God.

“… Socialism is implemented by external force, the power of the state.

“(3) … The United Order is operated upon the principle of private ownership and individual management.

“Thus in both implementation and ownership and management of property, the United Order preserves to men their God-given agency, while socialism deprives them of it.

“(4) The United Order is non-political.

“Socialism is political, both in theory and practice. It is thus exposed to, and riddled by, the corruption that plagues and finally destroys all political governments that undertake to abridge man’s agency.

“(5) A righteous people is a prerequisite to the United Order.

“Socialism argues that it as a system will eliminate the evils of the profit motive.

“The United Order exalts the poor and humbles the rich. In the process both are sanctified. The poor, released from the bondage and humiliating limitations of poverty, are enabled as free men to rise to their full potential, both temporally and spiritually. The rich, by consecration and by imparting of their surplus for the benefit of the poor, not by constraint but willingly as an act of free will, evidence that charity for their fellowmen characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’ [Moroni 7:47.]” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1966, p. 97.)

President J. Reuben Clark Jr. said: “The United Order has not been generally understood. … [It] was not a communal system. … The United Order and communism are not synonymous. Communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the United Order. There is no mistake about this and those who go about telling us otherwise either do not know or have failed to understand or are wilfully misrepresenting.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1943, p. 11.)

President Marion G. Romney warned about the continuing imitations of the adversary: “In this modern world plagued with counterfeits for the Lord’s plan, we must not be misled into supposing that we can discharge our obligations to the poor and the needy by shifting the responsibility to some governmental or other public agency. Only by voluntarily giving out of an abundant love for our neighbors can we develop that charity characterized by Mormon as ‘the pure love of Christ.’ [Moroni 7:47.]” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1972, p. 115; or Ensign, Jan. 1973, p. 98.)

President Romney noted:

“I suggest we consider what has happened to our agency with respect to … government welfare services. …

“The difference between having the means with which to administer welfare assistance taken from us and voluntarily contributing it out of our love of God and fellowman is the difference between freedom and slavery. …

“When we love the Lord our God with all our hearts, might, mind, and strength, we will love our brothers as ourselves, and we will voluntarily, in the exercise of our free agency, impart of our substance for their support. …

http://acalltoarmz.blogspot.com/2015/03/is-united-order-christian-communism.html
https://www.lds.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/enrichments/enrichment-l-the-law-of-consecration-and-stewardship?lang=eng&query=communism

Thursday, March 3, 2016

Mitt Romney is not a conservative...

Trump is not a conservative. He is an entertainer. Mitt Romney took to denouncing the current GOP front runner today.

Trump may indeed merit many of the charges thrown at him by Romney, but, in politics, it is always smart to consider the motivations of anyone who goes after a successful candidate. While it is impossible to determine from Romney’s speech what his motivations may be, we must consider that Trump, despite his faults, has challenged the Republican Party’s establishment. We must ask if Romney’s condemnation of Trump was made of his own volition, or if he is serving the interests of the GOP establishment.

While he wisely avoided endorsing anyone else, and even included Cruz, another supposed anti-establishmentarian, among his suggestions as an acceptable alternative to Trump, might Romney’s real purpose be to weaken Trump just enough to produce a brokered convention that might turn to Romney as the GOP’s savior? It may be impossible to answer this question at the present time, but it must be considered.

But there is something Romney said in his speech that must be challenged. It is this:

Ronald Reagan used to quote a Scottish philosopher who predicted that democracies and civilizations couldn’t last more than about 200 years. John Adams wrote this: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.” I believe that America has proven these dire predictions wrong for two reasons.

First, we have been blessed with great presidents, with giants among us. Men of character, integrity and selflessness have led our nation from its very beginning. None were perfect: each surely made mistakes. But in every case, they acted out of the desire to do what was right for America and for freedom.

The second reason is because we are blessed with a great people, people who at every critical moment of choosing have put the interests of the country above their own.

The Adams quote has long been a favorite among constitutionalists. However, Adams was not expressing pessimism concerning an American “democracy,” because, as a Founding Father, he was well aware that he and his contemporaries had not established a democracy, but a constitutional republic.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, when asked as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation, “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a Republic or a Monarchy?” Benjamin Franklin replied, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

The word “democracy” never appears in the Constitution — however, Article IV, Section 4 of the document reads: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.”

Therefore, Romney’s explanations for why our nation has not “committed suicide” are wrong. Although we have had great presidents, we have also had some who were not only not great, but bad presidents. Likewise, we have had many great people among our populace who have chosen the interests of the country above their own, but we have also had majorities of voters on many occasions who — whether by being misinformed or through self interest — have elected demagogues and socialists who would feed them from the public trough.

It has only been the restraints imposed by our Constitution that have prevented our nation from “committing suicide,” and by definition, a country governed by constitutional laws is not a democracy, but a republic. If Romney were a true constitutional conservative, he would know that.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Tyranny Violates Agency: An LDS Perspective on the US. Constitution

     A choice land and a free nation, the United States America is deeply intrinsic to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Many leaders of the LDS Church have been very clear on the correlation between the founding of the United States and the restoration of the Gospel some decades later. This correlation is even evidenced LDS scripture including the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 13) and the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C 101:77, 80). Many leaders of the church see that the grand implementation and protection of liberty contained within the U.S. Constitution coincide with God’s will, and that ideas that run in contrary to those freedoms protected by constitution are not only legally unconscionable but contrary to divine law. “The Constitution is divinely inspired… [T]he great fundamentals must not be changed.” (J. Rueben Clark)

     Agency, the freedom of choice, is in my opinion the most important power that exists in the universe. I also believe that free exercise of agency is synonymous with liberty and freedom. Agency is the power that allows a human being to act freely from their own conscience, meaning that inanimate objects may not act but can only be acted upon, and animate objects other than human beings, such as animals, may act, but not of their own free choice. Animals act on instinct alone. A dog does not decide to act like a dog. A dog is a dog by instinct. Whereas human beings may at any point decide to act in any way at any moment, even if it is contrary to their natural instinct. Thus we see that agency that is the power that separates God’s children from his other creations. Agency is the precious gift that is only shared with God. Individual liberty is not just a political luxury, but part of God’s plan for his children.

     According to LDS belief, before this life two plans were proposed. “Shall the children of God have… agency to choose… or shall they be coerced and forced to be obedient? Christ and all who followed him stood for… freedom of choice; Satan stood for… coercion and force.” (Ezra Taft Benson) It is evident that Satan lost his proposition. Since that time, one of his major strategies has been to restrict the agency or liberty of men with the powers of earthly governments. For thousands of years Satan has used tyrants, despots, and monarchs to infringe on humanity’s sacred liberty. Totalitarianism reigned with only flickers of liberty arising only to be trampled once again by despotic regimes. It wasn’t until the 18th century that an enlightenment of thought prevailed over tyranny, and liberty was secured by the framers of the Constitution. The inspired portion of the Constitution consists of: The separation of powers in the three branches of government; the Bill of Rights; the division of powers between the states and the federal government; and the application of popular sovereignty, the rule of law and not of men. Some modern political philosophies consider these divinely inspired principles, “outmoded”. They are not. In fact they originate from the divine, and protect divine rights. Modern totalitarian forms of government (Communism, Fascism, and Socialism) that attempt to usurp the agency of man are in violation of constitution law and the sacred power of agency.
Agency, a key tenet of LDS religion is tantamount to freedom. Any force, party, or political system that attempts to infringe on the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution is not only violating the laws of the United States of America, but also acting in contrary to the will of God and the gospel of Jesus Christ. “No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction. These evil philosophies are incompatible with Mormonism, the true gospel of Jesus Christ.” (Ezra Taft Benson)