LewRockwell » Paul Green

The Right To Bear Arms

Paul Green — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 10:08:36 +0000

For many Christians, both on the left and the right, Romans 13 endorses the power and presence of a police state, a government court system and the right of governments to tax people to pay for it all.

According to the prevailing doctrine, it is the state which has the right to be armed in order to enforce obedience and it is Christians who have a duty to obey – not just for reasons of practicality or prudence, but as a moral obligation.

The term “powers that be” – a phrase first coined by early Bible publisher William Caxton, then used in the King James Version – is believed to mean government, which is “ordained” or set in place by God. Any official wielding this government power is understood to be a servant or “minister” of God and therefore, to resist would be to incur the wrath of God.

The primary and fearful means of meting out such wrath is believed to be the state bearing arms and using them not just against actual wrongdoers, but upon anyone who disobeys instructions, regulations, or state-created legislation. In this way, the state is ascribed a god-like authority to establish its own moral order.

Reference to ”taxes” (“tribute” KJV) and ”customs” in verses 6-7 is believed to tie this all together by underlining that the subject under discussion is the state – and that taxes, tribute and customs are endorsed by God, without limit.

Here is one translation of the passage, from the New King James Version:

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore [you] must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes [are due], customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”

However, although long overlooked or ignored, the prevailing interpretation of this passage presents a major problem for those who say they believe the Bible to be true…

Conflicting Scriptures?

In fact, if government courts, regulations and military/police state enforcement really were the “authorities” and “powers” referred to as God’s ministers and servants – then there would appear to be a direct conflict within the Bible:

Because the same Apostle Paul… in the same period of time… in the same Bible… specifically instructed Christians to stay away from government court systems at all costs, and described the whole system as “unrighteous”.

Here is a section of 1 Corinthians 6, from the NKJV:

“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather [let yourselves] be cheated?”

Although specifically addressing the early church in Corinth, at the very beginning of 1 Corinthians it is made clear that the whole letter is written to,”…all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord”. So Paul was writing to all believers, including those of today.

But perhaps he was referring only to relatively minor internal church matters?

Not so. Paul specifically referred to being “cheated” and then even informed believers that it would be better to take a loss than to go before a government system. His further instruction was to appoint trustworthy persons from among themselves and to judge even these serious matters in private court.

Why is this passage of scripture almost completely ignored by both today’s Christian conservatives and liberals alike?

Both stick like glue to the mantra that the state is the divinely ordained and only conceivable means of law enforcement. But notice how the Apostle Paul writes here that officials of the state judicial system should be considered those ”least esteemed by the church to judge.” He even goes on to say that Christians should be ashamed for making use of such a system at all – let alone believing it to be any kind of holy institution.

But there is little shame. Take as an example, modern Christian music and books: Almost all are written under the auspices of a state granted legal copyright monopoly. That means other Christians will attack any church through government courts, if the church does not pay royalties for singing “their” song of praise. If that is not the intent – then those posting copyright notices are bearing false witness. Even Bible translations are undertaken from the outset with the intention of attacking other believers in court for quoting “their” translation of God’s Word too much.

It certainly looks like there is a conflict between Romans 13 and 1 Corinthians 6 – and that Christians have come down hard on the Roman side. But that is not the only one:

Look first at Romans 13:3, which says, ”For rulers are not a terror to good works… he is God’s minister to you for good.”

Then contrast that with another passage, 1 Corinthians 2:5-6, where Paul says, ”…your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God… not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.”

The word for ”rulers” here is exactly the same in both passages – in the Greek, “archon”. Note how in the Corinthians passage Paul specifically refers to “men” (i.e. not just dark spiritual forces) who are “rulers of this age” as “coming to nothing” – i.e. worthless.

In plain words, and if the meaning is confined to the government overlords of this age, then Paul – writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit – is teaching anarchy, a word which simply means, “without rulers”.

But that is still not all, because concerning the end of the age, Paul also writes (1 Cor. 15:24-25):

“Then [comes] the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet.”

In this scripture, “rule” and “authority” are again exactly the same Greek words used in Romans 13. But here, far from being described as “ministers” of God, “all” kings, governments and rulers of this age are described as being the “enemies” of Christ (i.e. there are no good ones).

Romans 13 Revisited

If there is a conflict between Romans 13 and these scriptures; then it is a conflict in the minds of Christians, not in the holy written word of God. Because the real subject of the Romans 13 passage is not difficult to understand at all – simply by looking at the key subject word, “authorities” or in the KJV, “powers”. Here is the first verse again (NKJV):

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”

But does the word “authorities” here really mean “government” as modern translations and interpretations claim?

It is a simple matter to find out, just by looking up its usage elsewhere in the scriptures. This can be done in a few clicks at any online Bible site (e.g. bible.cc or blueletterbible.org). Here are some other uses of exactly the same Greek word (exousia -underlined):

“Has not the potter power over the clay…” (Romans 9:21)
“take heed lest this liberty of yours…” (1 Cor 8:9)
“I abuse not my power in the Gospel…” (1 Cor 9:18)
“they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle” (Heb 13:10)
“after it was sold, was it not in your own power” (Acts 5:4)
“a man… left his house and gave authority to his servants” (Mark 13:35)
“to turn from… the power of Satan to God” (Acts 26:18)

We can easily see that the word is a very general word for all kinds of authority, good or bad. The more specific Greek words for kings/emperors (basileus) and governors/officials (hegemon) of the state are not used at all in the passage.

Since one use of the term is for the ”power” of Satan, the meaning therefore is clearly concerned only with practical reality and not moral legitimacy. Obviously, as Paul would never endorse the ”power of Satan” he would want to limit his use of the term only to legitimate forms of authority. Look again at the second part of verse one:

“…For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”

The commonly held belief about this seems to be that, where any government exists and calls itself an authority, then it must be because God put it there. This is not only absurd but is never actually believed anyway – exceptions always being found for tyrants like Hitler and Stalin. Violent Christian nationalists also manage to find convenient exceptions whenever required in order to justify invading or bombing the “divinely ordained” governments and people of other countries.

In reality, there is a much clearer meaning and through making use of the same online Bible resources, here is a perfectly accurate translation/amplification – but which in this case, is also consistent with the rest of scripture:

“…For no authority is real (exists) unless it is from God, but those authorities that are real (do exist) are set in place by God”

The second half of verse one is simply restricting the meaning of ”authorities” to real, pre-existent God-given authority, not just rubber stamping any evil person or system that claims authority by force or threat. This places the rest of Romans 13 in an entirely new light.

What then are some of the real authorities that exist because they have been set in place by God? Here are some specific realms of authority – categorised by using the same Greek word from Romans 13:1 as found in other passages:

Personal liberty or self government: ”take heed lest this liberty of yours…” 1 Corinthians 8:9
Private property rights: ”Has not the potter power over the clay…” Romans 9:21
Financial rights: ”after it was sold, was it not in your own power” Acts 5:4
Household/employer rights: ”a man… left his house and gave authority to his servants” Mark 13:35
Church leadership: ”I abuse not my power in the Gospel…” 1 Corinthians 9:18

In summary, Romans 13 is about respecting the legitimate overseeing rights and jurisdiction of others and about honouring our obligations to them as we interact in daily life.

Taxes

However, some will doubtless notice that verses 6-7 refers specifically to taxes.

But in fact, they do not – my own understanding has recently changed on that very point. Here are those verses once more, from the translators of the New King James Version:

“For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes [are due], customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”

The word translated as ”taxes” (NKJV) or ”tribute” (KJV) is in reality, a much more general word for bearing a burden or liability of payment. Certainly a tax is both a burden and liability, but payment cannot rightly be translated as “tax” without specific additional information. There are in fact other more specific Greek words for taxes and tribute – ”kensos” for example.

The word translated ”taxes” here, is the Greek word ”phoros”. It only appears in two other passages of the Bible, so its meaning must also be derived from the ordinary use of the word.

One common public usage was during the Delian League of Greek city states, where it was not a tax, but a voluntary contribution of dues toward common defence. Later, when Athens became more powerful it was turned into a compulsory tribute, however the word ”phoros” stuck as it served political PR purposes. One historical article confirms this: “The change can be seen in the transmutation of the word phoros’ meaning. Originally it meant ‘contribution’, but as the Delian League changed into the Athenian Empire, it came to mean ‘tribute.’”

Governments dominate the public record, and have done so by force throughout much of history. However, the public record still shows that the word”phoros” was used for private rent. Even one proponent of the prevailing doctrine (see page 20) admits: ”The noun phoros… means literally ‘that which is brought in by way of payment’ (Liddell-Scott, page 1951). It has a broad sense of ‘payment’ which is owed for whatever reason. This sense is found in the papyri, which have examples of bill for the ‘payment’ of rent on property (Moulton-Milligan, page 674).” Another secular historian writes, ”Phoros and ekphorion were… the most common words in Greek for rents paid by tenants to their landlords, but the semantic range was hardly limited to this legal context.” (Morton, page 165)

The word phoros is used about tax in one Gospel account of the well known “render unto Caesar” teaching. But in the other two accounts of the same event; the word ”kensos” is used. Since Jesus actually spoke Aramaic, the translation of meaning into Greek is in the one case (Luke 20:22) rendered “liability/payment (phoros) to Caesar” and in the other two (Mark 12:14, Matt 22:17) “Caesar’s tax (kensos)”. Both are accurate, because where “phoros” is used, the meaning is clear as Caesar is also mentioned. (More on this particular passage can be found in the article, “Rights, Liberties and Romans 13“).

The word “phoros” then, is a general word for a liability or payment, whether private rent, voluntary membership dues, or a compulsory tribute. The word refers to the reality of a burden not to its moral legitimacy and so in these verses, Paul is instructing Christians to honour their liabilities to all,where properly due.

Likewise, the word ”customs” as translated in some versions of the Bible, is also inaccurate and easily confirmed to be so.

The Greek word here is ”telos“ (click for details) and means any kind of conclusion or settlement – of a bill, agreement or any other obligation. Of course, customs officers do demand a settlement and the word can be used for that. But it is even translated multiple times in the New Testament as simply, “the end”.

There are many obligations and settlements in life toward those in rightful charge of businesses or property. There is no reason to presume that Romans 13:6-7 refers to taxes and customs.

Much of the reasoning on this in Bible commentaries and dictionaries is circular, party due to tradition, and because the word phoros is little used elsewhere in the Bible. Romans 13 has long been presumed to be about government; phoros and telos are therefore presumed to mean payments and settlements only to the government; which is presumed to confirm the initial presumption that Romans 13 is about government…

In reality, God through Paul the Apostle is instructing Christians to settle their economic and moral obligations to all who render us a service, and to show regard for their rights – be it an agreement, lease, rent, debt, settlement of a bill, or invoice at the conclusion of a transaction.

Moreover, only this meaning makes any sense when the context of the verses which follow are taken into account, such as ”Owe no man anything, but to love one another.”

Bearing Arms

For some, it may take a while to reprogram the mind when reading the passage. But once these simple basics are known, Romans 13 proves to be one of the strongest scriptures upholding the right to armed defence of person or property. The key verse here being:

“But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil.”

Of course, government officials who try to lord it over us, seek to give themselves a veneer of legitimacy by staking a claim to words like “minister” or “public servant”. But the real subjects here are those who serve as leaders and proprietors in daily life. For example, the same Greek word for “ministers” is used in John 2:9 to refer to “…the servants which drew the water…”

Those who do business or perform other duties and responsibilities under their jurisdiction or proprietorship are supplying a service to others: A father is God’s minister to his family, a church leader is a minister to his congregation, a businessman or employee operates in service of others and “ministers” to their needs in the marketplace.

As we saw earlier, Paul condemned the governmental rulers and authorities of this age as “enemies” of Christ and “coming to nothing” – but it is also important to note that there are voluntary, legitimate, “non-kleptocratic”, non-governmental public authorities and rulers. In fact, many uses of the term “ruler” (Greek- archon) in the New Testament are in reference to these leaders. In a natural family based society these are the elders, heads of family groups, church leaders, employers, and especially the Judges who resolve disputes others cannot.

Judges of this kind have no governmental power of their own, and in both the Old and New Testaments they are upheld as representatives of the pre-existent natural laws already set in place by Heaven – not arbitrary lawmakers unto themselves and not tools of politics or the state.

Judges, owners, managers, and leaders of all kinds therefore, are in service to others for their good – but woe betide anyone who tries to do harm within their domain of service: Not only does Romans 13 directly ascribe to owners, proprietors, or leaders the right to bear a sword and use it against wrongdoers, but this right is confirmed by multiple other New and Old Testament examples and teachings:

Jesus own teaching includes the example of a householder who ”fully armed, guards his house and his goods are at peace”. (Luke 11:21)
Likewise, believers are admonished by illustration to ”put on the whole armour of God… that you may be able to stand in the evil day…”(Ephesians 6:13)
Jesus illustrated teaching shows that landowners are right to defend and recover their property by force from murderous thieves: ”Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those vinedressers” (Luke 20:15-16)
The disciples were specifically told, ”he who has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36). The word used wasmachaira – the short Roman close combat weapon.
Abraham led his armed household, and even defeated neighbouring kings.
Hebrews 11:27 commends Moses, who ”defended and avenged him who was oppressed, and struck down the Egyptian” (Acts 7:24) forcing him to flee Egypt.
Israel were always armed except under tyrants when, ”…there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, “Lest the Hebrews make swords or spears.” (1 Samuel 13:9)

Some of these examples certainly illustrate greater spiritual truth – but how could a false earthly principle illustrate a greater heavenly truth?

Trust in God – Not a Weapon

However, just before his crucifixion, Jesus did instruct the disciple Peter to put away his sword, and amongst other reasons, he said ”for all who take the sword will die by the sword”. Clearly, it would not be consistent with the above passages to interpret this as a condemnation of defending an innocent person under threat.

The Old Testament says, ”whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” In this regard, Jesus may have been referring not to Peter, but to the end of the Pharisees and soldiers of the Chief Priests to whom he had just said ”are you come against me as a robber with swords and clubs?” The prophesied destruction of Jerusalem came some 37 years later.

In any case, Peter’s action in taking to the sword was certainly inappropriate: A sword may be a tool of daily life preservation but Peter’s response was presumptive and foolish. He had been trained to have faith and should have turned to God, not to a practically useless sword – and he could have been killed for it.

The force against them was overwhelming and the need was for a miracle, not for a last stand of totally inadequate physical force. Jesus affirmed this by telling Peter that he could have called a host of angels if such force was required. Furthermore, Peter’s action – although well meaning – was not only foolhardy but also stood against the plan of God for the Christ to be crucified for us all. Peter was rebuked for this also.

Some Old Testament incidents relate how that when Israel went to battle against overwhelming force, if they did not turn to and seek God first, they were slaughtered. At other times, when they did look to and trust in God, their enemies even fought amongst and killed themselves. However, more usually, weapons were still needed – if only a sling, as in the case of David against Goliath.

Trust in God – Bear a Weapon

It is true that God can and will protect all who look to him in accordance with wonderful scriptures like Psalm 91. Yet, it was also God who in the beginning established human dominion on the earth.

God does not lightly undermine his own Word. The first chapters of the Bible reveal that we have been made sovereign individuals in the image and likeness of God to exercise that dominion on this earth. God as the ultimate Owner stands ready to help us – but will never undermine that which we have been assigned.

Following an earlier special mission, the instruction of Jesus to make provision for life’s risks by carrying a weapon is consistent with this:

“When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.” Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take [it], and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one… So they said, “Lord, look, here [are] two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

Note that Jesus also told believers to carry a purse and spare provisions. So the key point clearly is one of making proper preparation and not that it is necessarily an immediate sin to step outside without a wallet, extra provisions, or a weapon.

However, there will be a penalty both for ourselves, our families, our neighbours and our communities if we do not take heed. In particular, for those who bow the knee to the state and surrender their God-given sovereignty and dominion, in the vain idolatrous hope that the state will protect them from all evil. The hypocrisy of some who say we should disarm and just “trust God” is that few also advocate disarming the government. In reality, they are placing their trust not in God, but in the state.

But there is no true King but Christ, and no protector of our liberties and rights except the one from whom they came. His instruction is to obtain a sword and Romans 13 amplifies this, making clear what the sword is to be used for and when.

The summary therefore as underlined by Romans 13 is to trust in God and wherever prudent (the greater risk may be anti-weapon laws) to carry an appropriate close combat weapon.

“Good Gun Samaritans”

One common approach of gun-rights advocates today is to recite statistics, then offer a clenched fist, “my guns, my rights” self-interest argument. This can be very commendable: The truth must be highlighted, and self interest which is not at the expense of others is right, because we can only show love to others as we love ourselves.

However, some do take a purely selfish approach. Some sound like they would actually enjoy blowing a burglar away, straight to hell. Many of the same, while defending their own rights, also support the killing of innocents in overseas wars due to a perceived self-defence interest. Others have actually talked of killing the children of US Senators who vote to take away guns. Probably these were agent provocateurs – state sponsored forum trolls – but of greater concern is that this was openly admired as a show of strength by some in the broader “liberty movement”.

This is not the spirit of true liberty, it is selfishness. Selfishness inherently disregards the liberty of others and their lives. In fact, a selfish so-called “libertarian” may well decide they can receive maximum liberty for themselves by collaborating with the statist society around them. One former head of the Federal Reserve System springs to mind, but he is hardly the only example…

Another related point is that upholding the right and duty to bear arms is a battle for hearts as well as minds – but harsh and violent words send a negative message to the undecided, even when technically correct.

The story of the “Good Samaritan” is familiar to most people. But here is a question: What would the Good Samaritan have done, had he come to the scene perhaps a few minutes earlier, just before the victim was set about by robbers?

The answer to that presents another focus for the message of personal rights and self-defence:

First: a message of concern for the untold numbers of defenceless victims, who are made defenceless by gun control laws or choose to be so due to propaganda.

Second: a message of genuine compassion for others – that we will not just “pass by on the other side.” As armed “Good Samaritans” we can come to the assistance of others and in doing so have true faith in God – not just a weapon – for protection and victory.

Conclusion:

The message for Christians is that Romans 13 does not authorize the slaughter and violence of the state, but rather condemns the state as a chief violator of those rights Romans 13 upholds – including the right to bear arms.

This may mean difficult choices: It could mean persecution – no longer can subservience and fear be dressed up as holiness. Speaking out could mean losing a comfortable church leadership position or loss of esteem in a circle of fellowship. Criticism of the state or its activities may even result in imprisonment, like John the Baptist and some in the early church.

However, Jesus’ restraint of Peter’s haste with his sword demonstrates that the cause of the Gospel and of liberty is normally best served by those who are alive and outside of a jail cell. Tyranny, although against the will of God, can exist due to the free will of those around us. Sometimes people support that which enslaves them and believe those who flaunt unjust rules to be wrongdoers –and will not listen to their message. Even when some do listen, change takes time and so the wisdom of a choice to physically resist tyranny depends very much on the time, the place and the people.

This perceived public image is cited in 1 Peter 2:12-17 by the Apostle Peter as one reason for his later instruction that, in addition to proper morality and honesty, “for the Lord’s sake” it is prudent to comply with ”every ordinance of man…” Another reason mentioned, is so our opponents will have no way to ensnare us. It is also right to pray for earthly rulers, as our enemies, that evil plans may be thwarted and that instead we “may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness” (1Ti 2).

But at the same time, we are exhorted to live “as free” people, fearing only God, honouring the true King, and teaching the Kingdom of God – not propaganda for the governments of this age, which are “coming to nothing”.

Romans 13 and the Right To Bear Arms

Paul Green — Sat, 06 Apr 2013 05:00:00 +0000

According to the prevailing doctrine, it is the state which has the right to be armed in order to enforce obedience and it is Christians who have a duty to obey — not just for reasons of practicality or prudence, but as a moral obligation.

The term “powers that be” — a phrase first coined by early Bible publisher William Caxton, then used in the King James Version — is believed to mean government, which is “ordained” or set in place by God. Any official wielding this government power is understood to be a servant or "minister" of God and therefore, to resist would be to incur the wrath of God.

Reference to "taxes" ("tribute" KJV) and "customs" in verses 6-7 is believed to tie this all together by underlining that the subject under discussion is the state — and that taxes, tribute and customs are endorsed by God, without limit.

Here is one translation of the passage, from the New King James Version:

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil. Therefore [you] must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes [are due], customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”

However, although long overlooked or ignored, the prevailing interpretation of this passage presents a major problem for those who say they believe the Bible to be true…

Conflicting Scriptures?

In fact, if government courts, regulations and military/police state enforcement really were the “authorities” and "powers" referred to as God's ministers and servants — then there would appear to be a direct conflict within the Bible:

Here is a section of 1 Corinthians 6, from the NKJV:

“Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren? But brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers! Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong? Why do you not rather [let yourselves] be cheated?”

Although specifically addressing the early church in Corinth, at the very beginning of 1 Corinthians it is made clear that the whole letter is written to, "…all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord". So Paul was writing to all believers, including those of today.

But perhaps he was referring only to relatively minor internal church matters?

Why is this passage of scripture almost completely ignored by both today’s Christian conservatives and liberals alike?

Both stick like glue to the mantra that the state is the divinely ordained and only conceivable means of law enforcement. But notice how the Apostle Paul writes here that officials of the state judicial system should be considered those “least esteemed by the church to judge.” He even goes on to say that Christians should be ashamed for making use of such a system at all — let alone believing it to be any kind of holy institution.

It certainly looks like there is a conflict between Romans 13 and 1 Corinthians 6 — and that Christians have come down hard on the Roman side. But that is not the only one:

Look first at Romans 13:3, which says, “For rulers are not a terror to good works… he is God’s minister to you for good.”

Then contrast that with another passage, 1 Corinthians 2:5-6, where Paul says, “…your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God… not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.”

The word for “rulers” here is exactly the same in both passages — in the Greek, “archon”. Note how in the Corinthians passage Paul specifically refers to “men” (i.e. not just dark spiritual forces) who are “rulers of this age” as "coming to nothing" — i.e. worthless.

In plain words, and if the meaning is confined to the government overlords of this age, then Paul — writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit — is teaching anarchy, a word which simply means, "without rulers".

But that is still not all, because concerning the end of the age, Paul also writes (1 Cor. 15:24-25):

"Then [comes] the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet."

In this scripture, "rule" and "authority" are again exactly the same Greek words used in Romans 13. But here, far from being described as "ministers" of God, "all" kings, governments and rulers of this age are described as being the "enemies" of Christ (i.e. there are no good ones).

Romans 13 Revisited

If there is a conflict between Romans 13 and these scriptures; then it is a conflict in the minds of Christians, not in the holy written word of God. Because the real subject of the Romans 13 passage is not difficult to understand at all — simply by looking at the key subject word, “authorities” or in the KJV, “powers”. Here is the first verse again (NKJV):

“Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”

But does the word “authorities” here really mean “government” as modern translations and interpretations claim?

“Has not the potter power over the clay…” (Romans 9:21) “take heed lest this liberty of yours…” (1 Cor 8:9) “I abuse not my power in the Gospel…” (1 Cor 9:18) “they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle” (Heb 13:10) “after it was sold, was it not in your own power” (Acts 5:4) “a man… left his house and gave authority to his servants” (Mark 13:35) “to turn from… the power of Satan to God” (Acts 26:18)

Since one use of the term is for the “power” of Satan, the meaning therefore is clearly concerned only with practical reality and not moral legitimacy. Obviously, as Paul would never endorse the “power of Satan” he would want to limit his use of the term only to legitimate forms of authority. Look again at the second part of verse one:

“…For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.”

The commonly held belief about this seems to be that, where any government exists and calls itself an authority, then it must be because God put it there. This is not only absurd but is never actually believed anyway — exceptions always being found for tyrants like Hitler and Stalin. Violent Christian nationalists also manage to find convenient exceptions whenever required in order to justify invading or bombing the “divinely ordained” governments and people of other countries.

In reality, there is a much clearer meaning and through making use of the same online Bible resources, here is a perfectly accurate translation/amplification — but which in this case, is also consistent with the rest of scripture:

“…For no authority is real (exists) unless it is from God, but those authorities that are real (do exist) are set in place by God”

The second half of verse one is simply restricting the meaning of "authorities" to real, pre-existent God-given authority, not just rubber stamping any evil person or system that claims authority by force or threat. This places the rest of Romans 13 in an entirely new light.

What then are some of the real authorities that exist because they have been set in place by God? Here are some specific realms of authority — categorised by using the same Greek word from Romans 13:1 as found in other passages:

Personal liberty or self government: “take heed lest this liberty of yours…” 1 Corinthians 8:9 Private property rights: “Has not the potter power over the clay…” Romans 9:21 Financial rights: “after it was sold, was it not in your own power” Acts 5:4 Household/employer rights: “a man… left his house and gave authority to his servants” Mark 13:35 Church leadership: “I abuse not my power in the Gospel…” 1 Corinthians 9:18

In summary, Romans 13 is about respecting the legitimate overseeing rights and jurisdiction of others and about honouring our obligations to them as we interact in daily life.

Taxes

However, some will doubtless notice that verses 6-7 refers specifically to taxes.

But in fact, they do not — my own understanding has recently changed on that very point. Here are those verses once more, from the translators of the New King James Version:

“For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes [are due], customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.”

The word translated as “taxes” (NKJV) or “tribute” (KJV) is in reality, a much more general word for bearing a burden or liability of payment. Certainly a tax is both a burden and liability, but payment cannot rightly be translated as “tax” without specific additional information. There are in fact other more specific Greek words for taxes and tribute — “kensos” for example.

The word translated “taxes” here, is the Greek word “phoros”. It only appears in two other passages of the Bible, so its meaning must also be derived from the ordinary use of the word.

One common public usage was during the Delian League of Greek city states, where it was not a tax, but a voluntary contribution of dues toward common defence. Later, when Athens became more powerful it was turned into a compulsory tribute, however the word “phoros” stuck as it served political PR purposes. One historical article confirms this: "The change can be seen in the transmutation of the word phoros’ meaning. Originally it meant ‘contribution’, but as the Delian League changed into the Athenian Empire, it came to mean ‘tribute.’"

Governments dominate the public record, and have done so by force throughout much of history. However, the public record still shows that the word “phoros” was used for private rent. Even one proponent of the prevailing doctrine (see page 20) admits: "The noun phoros… means literally u2018that which is brought in by way of payment' (Liddell-Scott, page 1951). It has a broad sense of u2018payment' which is owed for whatever reason. This sense is found in the papyri, which have examples of bill for the u2018payment' of rent on property (Moulton-Milligan, page 674)." Another secular historian writes, "Phoros and ekphorion were… the most common words in Greek for rents paid by tenants to their landlords, but the semantic range was hardly limited to this legal context." (Morton, page 165)

The word phoros is used about tax in one Gospel account of the well known “render unto Caesar” teaching. But in the other two accounts of the same event; the word “kensos” is used. Since Jesus actually spoke Aramaic, the translation of meaning into Greek is in the one case (Luke 20:22) rendered “liability/payment (phoros) to Caesar” and in the other two (Mark 12:14, Matt 22:17) “Caesar’s tax (kensos)”. Both are accurate, because where “phoros” is used, the meaning is clear as Caesar is also mentioned. (More on this particular passage can be found in the article, "Rights, Liberties and Romans 13").

Likewise, the word “customs” as translated in some versions of the Bible, is also inaccurate and easily confirmed to be so.

The Greek word here is “telos” (click for details) and means any kind of conclusion or settlement — of a bill, agreement or any other obligation. Of course, customs officers do demand a settlement and the word can be used for that. But it is even translated multiple times in the New Testament as simply, “the end”.

There are many obligations and settlements in life toward those in rightful charge of businesses or property. There is no reason to presume that Romans 13:6-7 refers to taxes and customs.

In reality, God through Paul the Apostle is instructing Christians to settle their economic and moral obligations to all who render us a service, and to show regard for their rights — be it an agreement, lease, rent, debt, settlement of a bill, or invoice at the conclusion of a transaction.

Moreover, only this meaning makes any sense when the context of the verses which follow are taken into account, such as “Owe no man anything, but to love one another.”

Bearing Arms

“But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to [execute] wrath on him who practices evil.”

Of course, government officials who try to lord it over us, seek to give themselves a veneer of legitimacy by staking a claim to words like “minister” or “public servant”. But the real subjects here are those who serve as leaders and proprietors in daily life. For example, the same Greek word for "ministers" is used in John 2:9 to refer to "…the servants which drew the water…"

As we saw earlier, Paul condemned the governmental rulers and authorities of this age as "enemies" of Christ and "coming to nothing" — but it is also important to note that there are voluntary, legitimate, "non-kleptocratic", non-governmental public authorities and rulers. In fact, many uses of the term "ruler" (Greek- archon) in the New Testament are in reference to these leaders. In a natural family based society these are the elders, heads of family groups, church leaders, employers, and especially the Judges who resolve disputes others cannot.

Judges of this kind have no governmental power of their own, and in both the Old and New Testaments they are upheld as representatives of the pre-existent natural laws already set in place by Heaven — not arbitrary lawmakers unto themselves and not tools of politics or the state.

Judges, owners, managers, and leaders of all kinds therefore, are in service to others for their good — but woe betide anyone who tries to do harm within their domain of service: Not only does Romans 13 directly ascribe to owners, proprietors, or leaders the right to bear a sword and use it against wrongdoers, but this right is confirmed by multiple other New and Old Testament examples and teachings:

Jesus own teaching includes the example of a householder who “fully armed, guards his house and his goods are at peace”. (Luke 11:21)
Likewise, believers are admonished by illustration to “put on the whole armour of God… that you may be able to stand in the evil day…” (Ephesians 6:13)
Jesus illustrated teaching shows that landowners are right to defend and recover their property by force from murderous thieves: "Therefore what will the owner of the vineyard do to them? He will come and destroy those vinedressers" (Luke 20:15-16)
The disciples were specifically told, “he who has no sword let him sell his garment and buy one” (Luke 22:36). The word used was machaira — the short Roman close combat weapon.
Abraham led his armed household, and even defeated neighbouring kings.
Hebrews 11:27 commends Moses, who “defended and avenged him who was oppressed, and struck down the Egyptian” (Acts 7:24) forcing him to flee Egypt.
Israel were always armed except under tyrants when, “…there was no blacksmith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, “Lest the Hebrews make swords or spears.” (1 Samuel 13:9)

Some of these examples certainly illustrate greater spiritual truth — but how could a false earthly principle illustrate a greater heavenly truth?

Trust in God — Not a Weapon

However, just before his crucifixion, Jesus did instruct the disciple Peter to put away his sword, and amongst other reasons, he said “for all who take the sword will die by the sword”. Clearly, it would not be consistent with the above passages to interpret this as a condemnation of defending an innocent person under threat.

The Old Testament says, “whoever sheds man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.” In this regard, Jesus may have been referring not to Peter, but to the end of the Pharisees and soldiers of the Chief Priests to whom he had just said “are you come against me as a robber with swords and clubs?” The prophesied destruction of Jerusalem came some 37 years later.

In any case, Peter's action in taking to the sword was certainly inappropriate: A sword may be a tool of daily life preservation but Peter’s response was presumptive and foolish. He had been trained to have faith and should have turned to God, not to a practically useless sword — and he could have been killed for it.

The force against them was overwhelming and the need was for a miracle, not for a last stand of totally inadequate physical force. Jesus affirmed this by telling Peter that he could have called a host of angels if such force was required. Furthermore, Peter’s action — although well meaning — was not only foolhardy but also stood against the plan of God for the Christ to be crucified for us all. Peter was rebuked for this also.

Some Old Testament incidents relate how that when Israel went to battle against overwhelming force, if they did not turn to and seek God first, they were slaughtered. At other times, when they did look to and trust in God, their enemies even fought amongst and killed themselves. However, more usually, weapons were still needed — if only a sling, as in the case of David against Goliath.

Trust in God — Bear a Weapon

It is true that God can and will protect all who look to him in accordance with wonderful scriptures like Psalm 91. Yet, it was also God who in the beginning established human dominion on the earth.

God does not lightly undermine his own Word. The first chapters of the Bible reveal that we have been made sovereign individuals in the image and likeness of God to exercise that dominion on this earth. God as the ultimate Owner stands ready to help us — but will never undermine that which we have been assigned.

Following an earlier special mission, the instruction of Jesus to make provision for life’s risks by carrying a weapon is consistent with this:

“When I sent you without money bag, knapsack, and sandals, did you lack anything?” So they said, “Nothing.” Then He said to them, “But now, he who has a money bag, let him take [it], and likewise a knapsack; and he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one… So they said, “Lord, look, here [are] two swords.” And He said to them, “It is enough.”

The summary therefore as underlined by Romans 13 is to trust in God and wherever prudent (the greater risk may be anti-weapon laws) to carry an appropriate close combat weapon.

"Good Gun Samaritans"

However, some do take a purely selfish approach. Some sound like they would actually enjoy blowing a burglar away, straight to hell. Many of the same, while defending their own rights, also support the killing of innocents in overseas wars due to a perceived self-defence interest. Others have actually talked of killing the children of US Senators who vote to take away guns. Probably these were agent provocateurs — state sponsored forum trolls — but of greater concern is that this was openly admired as a show of strength by some in the broader "liberty movement".

Another related point is that upholding the right and duty to bear arms is a battle for hearts as well as minds — but harsh and violent words send a negative message to the undecided, even when technically correct.

The answer to that presents another focus for the message of personal rights and self-defence:

First: a message of concern for the untold numbers of defenceless victims, who are made defenceless by gun control laws or choose to be so due to propaganda.

Second: a message of genuine compassion for others — that we will not just "pass by on the other side." As armed “Good Samaritans” we can come to the assistance of others and in doing so have true faith in God — not just a weapon — for protection and victory.

Conclusion:

This may mean difficult choices: It could mean persecution — no longer can subservience and fear be dressed up as holiness. Speaking out could mean losing a comfortable church leadership position or loss of esteem in a circle of fellowship. Criticism of the state or its activities may even result in imprisonment, like John the Baptist and some in the early church.

However, Jesus' restraint of Peter's haste with his sword demonstrates that the cause of the Gospel and of liberty is normally best served by those who are alive and outside of a jail cell. Tyranny, although against the will of God, can exist due to the free will of those around us. Sometimes people support that which enslaves them and believe those who flaunt unjust rules to be wrongdoers –and will not listen to their message. Even when some do listen, change takes time and so the wisdom of a choice to physically resist tyranny depends very much on the time, the place and the people.

This perceived public image is cited in 1 Peter 2:12-17 by the Apostle Peter as one reason for his later instruction that, in addition to proper morality and honesty, "for the Lord's sake" it is prudent to comply with "every ordinance of man…" Another reason mentioned, is so our opponents will have no way to ensnare us. It is also right to pray for earthly rulers, as our enemies, that evil plans may be thwarted and that instead we "may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness" (1Ti 2).

But at the same time, we are exhorted to live "as free" people, fearing only God, honouring the true King, and teaching the Kingdom of God — not propaganda for the governments of this age, which are "coming to nothing".

Paul Green [send him mail] provides internet and communications privacy services worldwide.

The Best of Paul Green

Britain – Land of the Defenceless Victim

Paul Green — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 06:00:00 +0000

My American cousins must at least concede that the natural right to keep and bear arms was recognized long before their forebears did — in the English Common Law and in the 1688 Bill of Rights. For what it is worth, that document is still part of British constitutional law and states: "subjects… may have arms for their defence…"

While Americans should concede that point, my fellow countrymen should also concede that King George's invading army deserved exactly what they got from the American citizen militia, leading up to that pivotal year of 1776.

Of course, Britain's Christian background meant that belief in the God-given right of arming oneself to defend person and property went back much further — and not just to the Old Testament: In the New, Jesus did emphasise mercy and restraint, but also instructed his disciples to sell their coats if necessary to buy a sword; his illustrated teachings included armed land owners and home owners (ref: here) resisting robbers; and he himself used a whip when driving out moneychangers from his "Father's house".

These and other ideas were consolidated into the precedent of Common Law, as expounded upon by Blackstone, and distilled into common speech through terms like: "An Englishman's home is his castle".

However, if the English did to some extent pass on to the early Americans a belief in the right to keep and bear arms, unfortunately it seems to have been because they were not intending to use it any more.

Especially since the early 1900's, many of the rights and liberties of Englishmen have gradually dwindled away. How the mighty have fallen: The income tax for example, early on was well below ten percent but rose to 90% or more in the 50s and 60s. Today, according to a recent mainstream media documentary, the overall total of government spending is bigger than the private economy.

Socialism was introduced under a facade of Christian compassion in the United Kingdom. But the only reason it could get any foothold at all was the existence of a landless underclass kept in its place by the residual presence of feudalism.

The underclass were promised not freedom but better masters, and sold the idea that they themselves would be in ultimate control of the new masters through “democracy”. Earlier and better men had grown tired of both this servility and of elite feudalism, and had set out for greener pastures in the colonies.

What had originally begun there as free trade ended up as an empire — subjugating the local populations by denying their right to bear arms. But there must still have been something right about the Common Law and minimal administrative framework of those colonies…

Some went on to be listed among the richest and freest countries in the world — at least, relatively speaking: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Singapore, the Bahamas and some of the Caribbean islands. Others have not done so well of course: Jamaica has had the unwelcome distinction of the highest murder rate in the world — since introducing total gun control in the 1970's.

For Britain, the big downside was that its best and brightest spread out around the world, most never to return. That left a greater concentration of fertile ground for ideas appealing to the something-for-nothing underclass and it also left the entrenched power-and-glory over-class. The freedom loving middle class have fought back at times and some in the working class have broken out of the mould. But the cry for liberty, rather than just more reasonable masters, has been muted and alliances with the feudal Tory Grandees have made it a losing battle ever since.

But socialism, feudalism, fascism or any other form of state control “ism” can never last without the firepower superiority of the state. The over-class must have the last word and the underclass must know it. Politics is never the same when it is known that the armed population can, as a last resort, get fed up with the masters and kick them out by force.

In a society like Britain, where the government has now exceeded the size of the productive economy, that level of fed up-ness can only increase. Economic failure and failed political promises can only be papered over with propaganda and money printing for so long.

Still, the power and glory bunch don’t need to have too much concern. All that really matters to them is that they keep the top military and secret police brass happy. These absolutely must be political insiders, as must the moral rubber stamp machine of last resort — the state sponsored church.

The main reason they feel they don’t need to be too concerned, is because the population is disarmed. Always a big concern of the socialists, feudalists and fascists, the only way that an authoritarian end could be maintained in a country with a tradition of private arms ownership was through gradualism. Gradually at each public crisis the right would be turned into permission and then whittled away with conditions until gone.

Today it is gone, and the only reason a farmer can have a shotgun (of no more than 3 shell capacity) is because royalty and the elites have always liked clay pigeon and pheasant shooting on their estates. Anyone who has any kind of firearm has to be inspected by police annually. They have to keep the weapon under lock and key in a safe and in a manner approved by the visiting inspector.

In the 1950's banks would require branches to keep a loaded pistol. Today, protection is no grounds for owning one. Government guidance on "self defence" has allowed for using nothing more than a few commonly available household objects and is beyond absurd.

There has been some minor adjustment in the last couple of years, but the situation is far from clear. Recent crackdowns have meant that even carrying a knife of more than two and a half inches in length can lead to imprisonment. British men have been legally turned into cowards and some have complied up to the point of looking the other way when a young woman was attacked on public transport.

The media is tightly locked down on the subject of self defence or firearms. Media ownership at the top of course, is only granted to insiders who toe the line. Rupert Murdoch was a Margaret Thatcher favourite at one stage and so gained a foothold in Britain and a launch pad for the world media empire. Recently he has fallen out of favour and we can only speculate on the insider forces at work. Yet still he openly tweets his support for gun control in the hopes of recovering some of the lost favour.

I have never seen any openly pro-gun editorial or article in any major British media outlet. There is no debate and there is no objectivity on the subject. There is not even pretence of it. Public opinion is mostly guided by the BBC and the media mogul or two who has access to their minds en masse. Over in the US the media agenda is generally the same. The indisputable facts, that shootings usually occur in gun-free control zones and that multiple instances of mass shootings have been stopped by armed citizens, are actively suppressed. But still, there is much more of a debate on the ground.

When a school shooting took place in Scotland in 1997, it was accomplished by a registered and licensed handgun owner. The Dunblane massacre was followed by all the media hysteria then Prime Minister Tony Blair needed to ban handguns completely. The UK Daily Mirror newspaper editor at the time was Piers Morgan and he was among those who supported it. So he openly lied on television recently when he claimed not to be against the right of home owners to protect themselves.

What then would a genuinely unbiased media say on the issue of firearms?

Bias is most evident when reporting on any one of the tens and hundreds of thousands of violent crime victims in the UK. The issue is not and has never been “gun crime”. For anyone who cares about people, the only matter of concern is violence — whether by knife, gun, baseball bat or physical strength. In Britain, all victims of violence are defenceless by law, thanks to politicians; a fact which goes unmentioned in the media, every time. Instead are calls for more police power, civil liberties violation and lower standards of evidence.

It is important to note that government, irrespective of party, maintains power by doing the vast majority of armed stealing in the UK. It pays off the something-for-nothing brigade of voters in welfare entitlements. It is true that many good people are also forced onto the welfare system due to a crippled economy borne down by taxation, regulation, state privileged big business and central banking. Nevertheless, many do support the principle of something for nothing by voting for it.

That expectation will not immediately change when the economy tanks and welfare is dramatically reduced. Then the gloves will really come off. In the meantime, there is still a lot of private violent crime in the UK. But that is not the concern of the politically motivated media control freaks. It does not really concern them that violent crime and even gun crime has shot up after the already few handguns were banned completely.

A genuinely free press would report with outrage on every single case of defenceless victims with headlines like: “Victim defenceless — politicians to blame” “Gun control kills again — no protection for murder victim” “How many more defenceless victims?” “When will the innocent be able to fight back?”

The only time I ever heard a concern of that nature expressed in the UK press was a few years ago when a farmer shot a burglar and killed him with a shotgun. The farmer went to jail, many sympathised, but few followed the sympathy to its obvious conclusion.

What could they do anyway? Governments in essence are organised special interest groups — headed up by pathological insiders, and assisted by self-righteous busybodies and sycophantic ladder climbers. They want power above all else and are convinced it is for the general good. They are also greedy for personal advancement and gain. They like things just the way they are.

When the population starts rising up in anger, they retreat into their modern secularised “divine right of governments” philosophy and demand “law and order” at all costs. Of course, they get to dream up the "law" and to enforce the “order”. As long as the military/police state brass is in on the plot, then the tools for dictatorship are in place — provided the people are disarmed.

I never rule out miracles — but it will certainly take one of Biblical Exodus proportions to free a people once they finally realize they have been enslaved, but have no weapons. Perhaps the fall of the Soviet Union — which was also due to the harsh reality of economic law, not Western belligerence — offers just a glimmer of hope. For similar reasons, freedom has increased in China.

Perhaps the British people will also come round, eventually. But gradualism has done its work and right now, many of them are happy being spoon fed from cradle to grave by government and bureaucrats. Natural social welfare institutions have been so shot to pieces that, landless and abandoned by family, neighbours and church many others have no alternative.

It will take a crisis to change that, along with the teaching of ideas that a state sponsored church, state franchised media and state owned education establishment are unlikely to celebrate. The crisis is certainly on the way — but which way it will go from there has yet to be decided.

Finally, what about the actual question of private crime? Are governments anywhere really capable, through police state measures, of keeping people safe?

Their own power-and-glory elite are certainly kept safe with armed personal bodyguards. That much goes without saying across both sides of the Atlantic, with Obama’s own children protected at their private school by no less than eleven armed security guards.

However, in less exalted circles, the last figures I heard from the London Metropolitan Police were that detection rates — even for serious crimes — were around 28%. That’s bad enough, but the fact is that even for serious crimes like rape, less than half are ever reported. Of course, more recent public figures will have been massaged and fudged by including great “victories” like picking on uninsured young drivers (insurance cost 2-4000+ — $4-6k), or turning young people's pockets out and finding cannabis, or a pocket knife for self defence.

But in the real world of real crime, that is about a 15% detection rate of perpetrators.

A 15% detection rate — after a crime has already happened — and the British people are supposed to place 100% reliance on police for protection from crimes before they even take place?

Gun control first enslaves; then it kills. That is just one more price the politicians and their allied beneficiaries of the state are happy for others to pay.

Paul Green [send him mail] provides internet and communications privacy services worldwide.

The Best of Paul Green

TV Worth Watching

Paul Green — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 06:00:00 +0000

I'm all for a bit of good cheer and seasonal entertainment. But call me out of tune with popular culture… and I’ll appreciate the compliment.

So when my ageing satellite box blew a fuse a year or two ago, I had to ask: What was actually worth watching?

Property shows celebrating another couple diving into massive debt…? Mainstream Media news…? Strife-torn soaps…? Sifting through a ton of stubble to find a needle in Hollywood’s haystack of sex/war/state worship…?

What we choose to think on over time, determines outlook, faith, mental and even physical wellbeing. Yet many people have a kind of funnel over their head, and without any kind of filter, they allow a stream of government approved thoughts to be poured in. Their parents start the flow by handing them over to a government school system and then as adults they allow a government regulated, insider owned, "mind-stream" media to carry on.

In the end, I never did get a new satellite box — and have never missed it.

At the same time, most of us still want to just sit back and enjoy some good entertainment once in a while — and especially with Christmas time coming up. So what's the answer?

A Wide World of Entertainment

Well, there is a world of good entertainment available on the internet — in fact some of the best and most worthwhile programmes I’ve seen.

Of course, most people are aware of and use YouTube. I'm just one of at least a million of them who have "lol'd" and "rofl'd" while watching the hilarious "Trolling Police" video from crazy young Frenchman, Remi Gaillard.

But more particularly, I am referring to file sharing, downloading and “torrents”.

The fact is, with the real risk being way lower than crossing a street, for millions of users there is little such concern. The latest shows are also available — once you have found the handful worth watching. If concerns do persist, you could always use one of the many torrent-friendly VPN services out there.

A downloading program like “utorrent.org” is the first requirement. Then, search engines like “torrentz (.eu)” or “btdigg dot org” at least claim to be 100% legal by linking only to other third party sites. Depending where you are and what you click on, downloading the results might not be. You will also need broadband with if not unlimited, at least a substantial download allowance — a show or movie can be anything from a couple of hundred megabytes to a few gigabytes in size. Note that some also throttle torrent traffic.

You will need to download the programmes as video files on to a computer. But rather than use its smaller screen, much better to copy the files onto a memory stick and then plug that into an inexpensive, tiny “Media Player” device. These devices connect to your high definition flat screen TV for quality far better than a standard DVD player. They are also great for playing home video and pictures from camera SD cards.

There's a wide selection of them on Amazon, I suggest looking here, here, here, or here. You might well need an extra HDMI cable too.

Another, maybe even easier, way to get some shows is via paid download from Amazon Video. Using the free Unbox player (Windows PCs only) the files can first be downloaded and saved, and then copied onto a memory stick for large screen playback on a Media Player device.

Of course, those who do have a TV subscription may be able to get some of the fine freedom friendly shows I have come across, in a more official manner. The History Channel and the Discovery Channel strike me as having improved lately and may be among those few worth subscribing to.

By using any of these methods, there are actually some wonderful shows available, and even a small handful of Hollywood films that are passable too. I’m going to focus on a few that have been both beneficial and fun for my family, with a few comments for lovers of liberty:

Gold Fever

One of our favourites and last year, the highest rated show on Discovery Channel was Series 2 of the reality show, “Gold Rush Alaska”.

A group of out of work friends with more guts than knowledge leave Oregon to mine gold. They are led and funded by Todd Hoffman with his father Jack, a quintessential western style “old timer”. His catchphrase is a squeaky, "no guts, no glory!” while his son sums it all up with: “I don’t believe in our economy… I believe in gold" and "So what are we sitting here for? Let’s get some freakin’ gold!”

The show is edited for effect, but pretty much unscripted. It is a rip roaring roller coaster ride, the ups and downs of a bunch of fellows and their families who have many failings but do really care about each other. The moderate but down to earth language is edited for family viewing, with terms like “frickin” or “freakin” favoured over the uglier version.

Even their church pastor joins them in the first series, and they are stepping out in faith in a way that reminded me of the early American pioneers. They pray together, forgive and forget, persevere through adversity, etc. etc. and heaven knows, they need to. In fact, they make so many mistakes, they need all the help heaven can offer — but though flawed, they are an admirable bunch.

So if you like gold, guns, guts, grizzled beards and grizzly bears, the third series of Gold Rush has started and airs on Friday evenings. It seems screen success has not changed the format too much. You might want to just buy Series 1 (Amazon video or HD Video) and/or Series 2 first, or download Episode 1 of the new series free from Amazon video (HD Video). The in between after-show specials are just as good, and the episode, "The Long Road" is a good series summary so far. There is also a recent special extended episode where Todd and the team go down to Guyana, South America looking for gold to mine — and find it.

Yet another gold mining adventure series has been running on Discovery called, “Jungle Gold“. You can watch the extended preview now for free. Two formerly successful Americans almost bankrupted by the property bust head off into Ghana, West Africa for gold.

A number of years ago I spent some time in Ghana and can confirm the incidents they face are typical and very familiar. Ghana is another country where government (funded mainly by international "aid") tries hard to interfere. Thankfully, it doesn’t work — if it did, everything would just grind to a halt. As it is, every step can be difficult and every official and unofficial obstructionist has to be paid off — I’m absolutely sure not even the half of it is shown on camera.

Ghana may be undeveloped, but once you know the score, have contacts and can find trustworthy local help, you can in many ways have more informal freedom than in the "first world" today. It is actually one of the better countries in which to live in Africa. Government has had its façade ripped off and few there have western style illusions about it. With some money from outside or a good business inside, life can be very good — especially on the more developed outskirts of the main cities, where land and property rights are better established.

Jungle Gold airs at weekends. The events in the show are definitely genuine, but apparently with partial or summarized re-enactment for the camera sometimes.

Living off the land

My household’s second favourite reality show this year and the First Lady's first choice was probably Series 3 of The History Channel's “Swamp People” (Amazon Video, HD Video — free preview). Set in Louisiana, it's about tough self reliant people with strong family and voluntary community ties, living off the swamps, and focusing around alligator season. A new series should be coming up next year for those who want more guts, guns and gators — or to be more precise, guns spilling gators’ guts. There are some great characters and having seen other lesser programs, it seems it is the producer’s choice of people that really makes a series.

Also up there with the very best of shows, are the Discovery reality series, “Yukon Men” (Amazon Video, HD Video) and similar, “Alaska — The Last Frontier” (Amazon Video, HD Video) — Season 2 is only available via torrent or on TV so far. Both are really excellent and you will soon settle on favourite characters. There’s probably not a bureaucrat within hundreds of miles of these hardy people. But still they manage to harass the Yukon Men from afar, with rules like an 18 hour window for fishing the salmon their very survival depends on. Another series along these lines is The History Channel's “Mountain Men“. All of these programs are sure to please "preppers" — and annoy bear huggers.

Minding their business

One of the hardest core shows ever on regular TV from a pro-liberty point of view is Series 1 of “Moonshiners“. You’ll have to exercise restraint not to throw something at the TV when useless bureaucrats with bullets constantly chase our heroes, who do nothing worse than make great liquor for those who want it. The legal defence for this show will be that there was no real alcohol and that it was merely a re-enactment — but it seemed mostly real to me. We really liked that show. A new series has recently started.

Moving over from adventure reality to just good business, there are quite a few great shows now. The name put me off initially, but actually “Pawn Stars” is terrific and the family run pawn business a good example of the (relatively) free market at work. The patriarchal Old Man could be kinder and more cheerful sometimes, but his quips, catchphrases, dressings down and digs are great entertainment too. There’s a copycat type show on the same History Channel called “Cajun Pawn Stars“. I actually liked that even more for the first two series.

One of the most fun type shows in this category is “American Digger” from Spike TV. The reality star is a former pro wrestler along with his artefact recovery crew, so there is a strong element of showmanship. But it's not totally faked… as far as I know. Don't miss the confrontation with Chicago police in episode 10. Some say yet another Spike TV show — “Auction Hunters” — is faked. They are actors as well as genuine dealers and the mine may well be salted for effect on occasion. But it is at least fun entertainment about deal making with the contents of abandoned storage units.

Thrills and spills

I came across the fiction series “Leverage” a couple of years ago, long after it had begun. It started out as a twisty well plotted con show, halfway between the A-Team and Mission Impossible, and way above typical prime time trash. The first two series and even the third had perhaps a 75% episode hit rate for us. The stories usually reflected disdain for following petty rules and laws in the interest of seeing justice done.

Unfortunately, the network bosses were obviously visited by the liaison officers of various government bureaucracies, concerned that the audience might start getting ideas. So the other 25% are either just badly directed or contain left leaning statist drivel with a bit of right leaning military statist drivel to "balance" it out. So far, the latest Series 4 has gone down this path further and we’ve now stopped watching.

But the early series are unusually enjoyable entertainment, produced almost to movie standards. There is some respect for God and church, but remember to discount the overall left bias with little concept of family and, no matter how great the dangers, an absurd gun control theme at times.

The only other reasonable fiction show we have found is the Canadian, "Murdoch Mysteries". It is intelligent non-Hollywood entertainment set in the 1890's — a time when police had only just been invented and at least activity was more focused on actual crimes. There was still a high episode skip rate for us in the first series, which seems to have improved in the second half of the second series with some excellent mystery stories that continued into the third. Halfway through the fourth series and so far there are some real ripping yarns — don't miss the pro-confederate Episode 7, with talk of splitting the US into provinces and a plot worthy of a movie.

It's not much, but these are the only fiction programs I can suggest.

Needles in the haystack

Decent movies have been rather thin on the ground lately, and I would never have come across most of these but for the internet (mostly via “yify-torrents”). Here are some that at least on balance might be palatable to family-friendly freedom lovers:

"Man on a Ledge" (2012) — Pretty interesting thriller, with a theme of exposing police corruption.
"The Double" (2011) — A pretty good spy/mystery/conspiracy thriller with Richard Gere.
"The Adventures of Tintin" (2011) — Really great family entertainment set in the days when reporters actually rooted out corruption.
"Treasure Island" (2012) — The old story again, but with new twists and very well done.
"Fracture" (2007) — Older, but new to us — Anthony Hopkins in a first class mystery thriller.
"Safe House" (2012) — Denzel Washington in a Bourne style conspiracy with old western style shootouts, except more blood.
"Seeking Justice" (2011) Nicholas Cage is in New Orleans. Thriller about alternative systems of justice — benefits and pitfalls…
"I Am Legend — Alternate Ending" (2007) An older, "preppers" delight, but revitalized with a much happier ending.
"The Book of Eli" (2010) — Denzel Washington stars in a biblical flavoured apocalyptic action film.
"For Greater Glory…" (2012) — Catholic Christians in Mexico fought to overthrow a Marxist regime in the early 20th century: Inspiring, entertaining, and a true story.

Old Movies:

"Alias Nick Beal" (194*) — Ray Milland is old Nick in this excellent analysis of political corruption.
"The Black Book" (a.k.a. Reign of Terror) (1949) — Battling tyranny during the French revolution.
"The Verdict" (1946) — Top notch Greenstreet/Lorre locked room mystery about an overzealous prosecution, later rectified…
"The Hour of 13" — A great old British mystery film, with Peter Lawford.

Just for fun and laughs:

"The Three Stooges" (2012) — The first half hour had me in stitches, the rest is so-so and too suggestive, especially for children.
"Yogi Bear" (2010) — More laughs, some at the expense of politicians.
"Three Little Words" (1950) — Fred Astaire/Red Skelton in Fred’s favorite film.
"The Band Wagon" (1953) — Fred kicks again, and in glorious Technicolor.

Grand Final Thoughts

Are you kidding? …No final thoughts here, it is just the end of the list.

However, to conclude in a style in keeping with "Gold Rush Alaska":

“What are we sitting here for? Let’s get off our backsides" …and find that remote control.

PS: As a seasonal extra, I leave those with any latent or overt jazzy inclinations with the fabulous fiddlesticks of homeschooled family, the "Annie Moses Band" — "God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen" (older version).

Paul Green [send him mail] supplies security and privacy services to clients worldwide.

The Best of Paul Green

Social Conservative Pharisees

Paul Green — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 06:00:00 +0000

During the recent US presidential election campaign, former House Representative Ron Paul made a controversial statement: That the social conservative message was a "loser".

The comment alienated some that other less principled campaigners courted for votes. They courted in vain as the message in practice ended up a vote loser. But the point of principle is that he said it as a family man married for over 55 years; as a committed Christian; as a medical doctor having delivered over 4000 babies into the world; and as an uncompromising pro-life defender of the unborn.

Yet the statement was absolutely right, for one primary reason:

Looking to the state to clean up society is like giving it a bath in a sewer. Superficially, it looks like cleaning up, but in the end, the filth and stench are far worse.

Hitler was a social conservative. J. Edgar Hoover was a social conservative. The worst enemies of Jesus — the Pharisees — were hard core social conservatives. Yet many Christians have thought that to be a Christian meant to be a social conservative.

In reality, the philosophy is a moral masquerade and inevitably hypocritical — or in even plainer words, devilish and anti-Christian. Look at this from the Bible:

Then the devil, taking Him up on a high mountain, showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said to Him, “All this authority I will give You, and their glory; for [this] has been delivered to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. Therefore, if You will worship before me, all will be Yours.” And Jesus answered and said to him, “Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.’ “

According to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, that was the last great temptation of three that Jesus had to resist, before finally ordering the devil to go. But today and throughout much of history, the craving for government power is a temptation many Christians have yielded to with little or no resistance. Very often, it has been in ignorance and delusion rather than a wilful commitment to evil. But ignorance is not bliss:

Hitler was aggressively socially conservative to the point of imprisoning homosexuals. Yet, recent history books confirm that he himself was a homosexual — frequently sodomising his assistant in the trenches of World War 1. In order to gain power and to consolidate support, Hitler needed a bone to throw to religious conservatives. As a personal bonus, he and his fellows in the echelons of the Third Reich, benefited from a captive selection of as much fresh meat as they desired.

J. Edgar Hoover was the same. Collecting porn with all the secret police power of the state behind him made him look like a paragon to gullible conservatives. But in fact, he used the material both to entertain himself and his fellow elites, and as a tool of blackmail for even more power. Recently the story emerged of a 17 year old boy who was offered release and a plane ticket home in return for having his orifice/s sexually traumatized by J. Edgar and a henchman.

Then there were those Pharisees: The ones who were so quick to launch a public prosecution against an adulterous woman, were just as quick to slink off in the face of whatever secrets Jesus exposed by writing in the dust.

In fact, there are several characteristics exhibited by the Pharisees, which are also common to all hard-core social conservatives, including a number of Christians today.

Socially Conservative Pharisees

One characteristic is hypocrisy or, "play acting": The desire to look good and appear to be upright leaders, above others and with a greater wisdom to justify their urge for control.

To achieve this, they may sweep their own shortcomings under the rug completely. Or else, minimize their significance by focusing on other vices more obvious in others.

Or, shift the moral goal posts entirely in order to overshadow their own serious flaws in the "light" of a new moral code. Usually the code is a fad, a product of either invention or distortion. Invariably, they then try to attribute their code to God, to justify authoritarian measures — more on this in a moment.

Another characteristic is "making up" for secret vices by forcibly cleaning up others. This seems to give them the confidence that although slightly imperfect, they are doing God's work by attacking those whose particular shortcomings are somehow less understandable.

CS Lewis put it well:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

There is nothing more evil than an authoritarian with a lust for power and prestige, convinced with religious zeal that they are "right". Technically, at a secondary level, sometimes they may be. But such people then leverage this to then violate more primary principles with a "clear" conscience.

In line with this, we read of the Pharisees claiming to be defenders of the family while, in the words of Jesus, "consuming widow's houses" to enrich themselves. Also, of taking money that should go to needy parents by claiming themselves to be God's representatives. Jesus warned them sternly that this came under the then capital offence of dishonouring parents.

How is this any different from either today's right-wing "faith-based" tax-and-spend social conservatives or of left-wing "social justice" welfare statists? In either case, state bureaucracies or approved insider beneficiary groups receive money stolen by government force from ordinary families to impose their own grand moral plans.

Pet Moral Codes

Today, we have various new moral codes — usually disputable or fads found nowhere in scripture, and yet which unify social and religious conservatives politically:

Recently, attacking gambling has come back into vogue, especially on the internet. Not a word about this ancient entertainment can be found in the Old or New Testaments. Nevertheless, a few gamblers do not control themselves, become addicted, and so serve as a convenient excuse for moral busybodies whose interests coincide with those who want economic central control. The end result: Internet surveillance, financial surveillance, more taxation.

Prohibition of alcohol was once a big favourite, but as a miserable failure it was then abandoned in favour of drugs — with similar results. Parental discipline or personal responsibility is undermined while the state takes control, whether or not anyone has actually been harmed. The Rush Limbaughs of this world would use violence against other drug users even while taking drugs themselves. End result: Violations of property; militarization of police; massive prison populations; a controlled market for CIA-run trafficking profits; and state monitoring of financial transactions.

Pornography may be evidence of actual adultery or abuse, but that is not the concern of pornography politics. The end is only to legitimise government control over what we watch and read. Even actual child abusers are treated gently by the "therapeutic" state which is often itself infested with them. A continuous threat to children is also needed to maximise fear in order to help justify the kind of internet surveillance, government monitoring, registration and identification, Hitler and J. Edgar Hoover could only dream of.

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for claiming their ancestry from Abraham made them better men than others. True to form, racial "purity" doctrines were once quite widespread amongst social conservatives, but today the need for a purer and better "us" versus the despised "them" concept is fulfilled by "illegal" aliens:

Social conservatives would violently dispossess them all, holding them guilty by default, unless they too are numbered, registered, robbed of income, and fully submitted to "Caesar" like them. Rather than local resident property owners deciding who can come, go, and settle down, the state is considered the sole rightful arbiter. That is despite the fact that the same governments are responsible in the first place for disproportionately attracting undesirables through welfare handouts. In fact, "illegals" are far less likely to go on welfare than state approved "legals".

The most extreme example of the better "us" versus the despised "them" concept is in the complete dehumanising of the people of the Middle East. Their innocent men, women and children have been destroyed, maimed or tortured in untold numbers with a blind self-righteous and religious zeal, at the slightest real or imaginary risk to Western Christians or to Israel.

State Control

The one common factor among all these favoured moral causes is not any kind of judicial resolution or restitution of wrongs between parties. In that case, all that would be required is a simple hearing before a judge.

Instead, it is about the imposition of massive state control and the justification of internal or external violence and wars. Even where the superficial appeal is to some valid moral concern, such as marriage and the family, the implementation always focuses on this.

The Pharisees used the name of God and their rightful limited priestly and judicial function as a cover for state control. They had King Herod's backing and the backing of Caesar — and their real allegiance was to him not God. They were a murderous armed governmental force. No wonder they hated the Christ so much, who exposed their authoritarian hypocrisy with such devastating words.

Jesus was not an angry condemning enemy threatening to call Caesar down on the heads of ordinary sinners. Yet, his moral instruction was without compromise and has changed the world forever.

There are social "liberals" who want to call Caesar down on the heads of those who simply speak out in opposition to ungodly lifestyles. But in countering this, Christians have often reacted with the methods, or "leaven" as Jesus put it, of the Pharisees and the Herodians.

The fact is, in the civil, social and foreign policy realms, social conservatives consider the violence of the state as the supreme arm of God. This belief is an altogether unholy and illegitimate substitute for the transforming power of the gospel through the Christian church, which is the true arm and "body of Christ".

Listen to the words of the Pharisees and hear them echoing from the lips of today's hard line anti-immigrant, anti-drug, anti-gambling, anti-porn, pro-war, pro-police-state social conservatives:

"Crucify him! …We have no king but Caesar!"

Except today, instead of the call for crucifixion, the name of Christ is used in vain by the power hungry and his teaching distorted to glorify the modern Caesars.

Conclusion

The moral masquerade of the social conservatives has always been a bane to freedom. Its hypocrisy has provoked equally evil social countertrends and helped form the out of control social welfare state — to the point that family life is now under threat from social engineers.

At the same time, for churches and Christians, the message of the rightful authority of the family structure and of sexual self-control must not be compromised. Social contracts are real — not just quaint personal "religious sentiment" or the product of a self righteous busybody attitude:

The sexual act initiates new life, for which secure social and economic provision for years to come should already be in place. In addition, there can be enormous third party consequences. The result can be either highly beneficial, by multiplying the numbers of a free society, or highly destructive by violating multiple third party rights — and paving the way to an un-free society.

Human shortcomings in this area are inevitable, and should be discouraged primarily by moral re-education. But as long as the state retains a near monopoly on education of the young, the promotion of family life — a competing authority institution — is never going to happen.

In some cases and as a last resort, a judicial resolution for victims of broken social contracts is legitimate. But as long as the state retains control of the judicial system, it will never properly enforce social contracts. State power is maintained and resistance muted through mass dependency on the social welfare state — which exists and expands only through broken social contracts.

Government recognition of unnatural forms of marriage union is now a real concern. Legal endorsement will inevitably be used by the state to restrict free speech, to impose values upon the young in its clutches, and to actively sponsor alternative lifestyles.

But it is religious social conservatives who, with misplaced faith have glorified, empowered and bowed down to the state as a divine instrument for imposing morality.

In doing so, they have helped create a rod for their own backs. Now, the masquerade is being lifted to reveal the raw tyranny of the secular state. This was always the end result of the social conservative message and why it is and always has been a losing message.

It is high time for Christians to get back to their real task — offering the Good News, teaching and demonstrating the love of God, and offering the light of liberty to a world in tyranny.

Paul Green [send him mail] supplies security and privacy services to clients worldwide.

The Best of Paul Green

A Free Society Is a Welfare Society

Paul Green — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 06:00:00 +0000

Following progress of the Ron Paul campaign from across the “pond” in Europe has been interesting and inspiring. The world desperately needs a breather from the headlong race to totalitarianism and a Ron Paul victory would at the very least have a major decongestant effect everywhere. Even more importantly — his message continues to have a major effect in changing hearts and minds.

But there are many more minds to be changed. On this side of the Atlantic, while there are still plenty of right wing socialists — conservatives of the militaristic warmongering kind — the influence of left wing socialism is much more overt. So it was no surprise to watch that upper elite Brit, Piers Morgan continually and rudely interrupt Ron Paul on screen recently.

Caring for the poor was the main focus of attack. Morgan’s views are those of the typical “champagne socialist” — filled with a self righteousness that implies those who support state welfare are the ones who really care.

That sentiment matches a certain quotation… probably by someone famous… who knows? It goes something like this: “I give to the poor and they call me a saint. I ask why they are poor and they call me a communist.”

The inherent contradiction between the first and second sentences shows blindness to even the slightest difference between the virtue of giving themselves and the vice of stealing from others, then dividing the loot …and then having the nerve to claim sainthood for it.

It is worth remembering when dealing with people like this or like Piers Morgan, that their response is not rooted in logic but emotion. Their emotion is the product of cultural conditioning — largely fed by the mainstream, state franchised media — not from following any independent line of clear thinking.

Into the emotional mix, often there is an element of defensiveness. Usually those privileged rich people howling the loudest for government to help the poor are those who themselves do least. They might well toss the poor a few token scraps for PR, but invariably their primary focus is on the grand political “causes" their social and business networks profit from. …While conveniently assigning to government the distasteful and menial task of managing the little people.

Remember Ted Turner trumpeting that he was giving a billion dollars to the UN? Then there are the numerous foundations of the privileged rich, dedicated to advancing globalist agendas. Bill Gates is aboard too: Having taken control of desktops around the world through government IP enforcement, he is now looking to plant a little seed money to control the world's weather — in the hopes of a bumper harvest of government sponsorship.

All of this is a far cry from genuinely helping the poor, and highlighting that fact may be the most effective way of helping those who listen to them not to be fooled. By first attacking the false moral foundation at its root; it then becomes easier to fill in the economic detail as to why the free market offers a much better deal for the poor.

Otherwise, with their pseudo-moral high ground intact, the privileged socialists are just going to keep on celebrating their righteousness and twanging at the heart strings of the sincere but confused.

However, the plight of the poor remains a very important and real concern for those who are both sincere and informed.

Liberty v. Poverty

Part of the free market solution is that in a free society we can all make advance provision through various economic means like savings and insurance. This solution also rightfully cautions against “moral hazard” — that failure should not be rewarded, or you'll get more of it. It is certainly a just and ancient Biblical principle that the lazy should also be hungry and poor.

But what about those individuals who are trying but have failed to make provision? Or those who for some reason, possibly beyond their control — a crisis, theft, failed venture etc. — also do not have any savings or provision in place?

In many cases, those who are poor may indeed be responsible for it by having made bad decisions. But which of us cannot speak with the great authority of experience on the subject of mistakes? Also, what about those who are in difficulty through no fault of their own — perhaps through illness or disability?

“Unrestrained freedom means u2018devil take the hindmost'” cry the socialists of both left and right — and who differ only slightly in their preferred ratio of government social welfare v. corporate welfare.

To the champagne socialist, all of these cases can justify the organized theft of the state. To them, the point that it actually is organized theft need go unchallenged in the face of a greater “concern” for the vulnerable. Sound economic arguments and the long term view that everyone will be poorer in the end are trumped by this primary concern.

Still, nowadays those economic arguments are rarely abandoned completely, as all hell has broken loose when they have been — and they do make sense even to a brainwashed mind. So instead, the end result is support for a watered down, half and half, mixed state/private economy — but always moving toward an increased ratio of more state, less private and always blaming liberty for state failure. In other words: pretty much the status quo.

There can be only one answer to these false arguments: The truth — not only economic reality, but moral and spiritual truth. Only then can minds be freed up to think clearly or, in other and greater words: “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

A big part of the truth is that a system of organized theft can never be the hope that answers the need of the poor; because virtue can never be found in vice — and true compassion is impossible with impersonal bureaucracy.

But even more than this, support for such a system is support for dereliction of the most basic human duty to our fellow human beings.

Dereliction of Duty

In particular, for the professing Christian majorities in many welfare state countries, this doctrine violates our most primary directive — the new commandment instituted by Jesus upon which the old, written in stone, were based and which are also violated. That command is to love our neighbor as ourselves. “Love” in this context is not an emotion but an act of free will and, in accordance with the famous John 3:16, evidence of its reality is shown by the act of giving.

Even in the absence of active generosity, there is also an innate sense of duty to others in all people. But that natural sense of duty can also be eroded, along with the conscience, and such is the case when the state assumes those responsibilities as it has in the West. Duty and charity have been culturally undermined to the point that a “Good Samaritan” is perceived to be just another passerby — asking why “they” don’t do something about it, just a little more loudly than the others.

Upon this primary foundation of individual duty and of care toward others, are secondary natural welfare institutions. In particular: the family and the church.

Family

With the usurping nationalization of welfare, comes the dereliction of family duty. In most parts of the world where the welfare state has not been imposed, family duty goes without saying. Life without these ties — immediate and extended — is unthinkable. Family duty in the “Christian” West was once held in similar regard until those who actually wanted its demise were able to dissolve the bond of family, replacing it with the shackles of state bureaucracy and social engineering.

But in this matter also, the New Testament is absolutely intransigent, spelling out with zero theological uncertainty:

“If anyone does not provide for his own, especially those of his household, they have denied the faith and are worse than an unbeliever.”

Jesus even put duty to elderly parents above giving to the church/synagogue, upholding it as a capital offense under the Old Covenant and condemning neglect as dishonoring to both God and parents:

"Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, if a man says to his father or mother, u2018Whatever benefit you might have received from me is a gift to God ("Corban")' then you no longer let him do anything for his father or his mother."

If religious leaders who increase wealth and power by usurping the honor and support due to parents were warned so sternly — what of the tax and welfare state propagandists, who empower and enrich the governments they serve (invariably as net beneficiaries) at the expense of both family and church.

Church

This brings us to the church — as in local congregations, and Christianity as a whole:

In the beginning, the force of the state was an obvious and violent enemy. But then, by insidiously merging state interests with the church, it became an influence of corruption within. So in recent times, after the concept and funding of the welfare state was made feasible by economic progress (resulting from greater liberty) the church as a whole succumbed.

Today in Europe and significantly so elsewhere, leaders of the declining state-embedded churches in particular, frequently contribute more to the expansion of government welfare than the Gospel. Even their “charitable” organizations often amount to little more than a state funded window dressing exercise. The idea has spread far and wide, on both left and right — one of the first acts of George W. Bush, for example, was to consolidate the support of Christians with “faith based” state funding.

Here again, there are zero grounds for uncertainty. In 1 Timothy chapter 5, it is spelled out in detail that the local church has direct responsibility for administering charitable distribution from voluntary contributions — but only when the normal bonds of family are not intact.

This church role was first demonstrated in Acts 2:44. That funding was from the voluntary contribution of private property is highlighted in Acts 5:4 (public false promises to God being another matter…). In 2 Corinthians 8 and 9 we also see two whole chapters dedicated to the importance of voluntary charitable giving, even in temporarily difficult times; its administration by the church; and the promise of financial blessing that follows over time.

But the false prophets and “experts” of the state system only tolerate faith that glorifies themselves, and see personal virtue and voluntary charitable assistance as a competitive threat to be regulated, obstructed by state agencies, and/or absorbed into the state through funding.

The lure of the state, with its satanic glory, power and wealth was the last great temptation of Christ in the wilderness. What more will it take for Christians to see the anti-Christ nature of this entity?

But many today have been overcome and so Christians of all backgrounds will do well to remember that if even God the Son needed to speak the holy written Word of God to resist this evil, so do we. By God’s grace, change will start with those who will speak the truth. Even the smallest light can transform the darkest place. One of the Bible's greatest chapters on liberty, the free market and free trade — Isaiah 60 — begins like this:

"…darkness shall cover the earth and deep darkness the people; but the Lord will arise over you and His glory will be seen upon you. The nations shall come to your light- kings to the brightness of your dawn"

Social Security Safety Nets

In addition to neighbors, family and church or private charity, there are other natural welfare institutions that together constitute multi-layered safety nets of social security:

One top social safety net layer comes with owning a “piece of the rock”. This layer can prevent dependence on others altogether even in hard times, at least for the able-bodied. Recent events have confirmed the importance of a workable homestead, if only to fall back on. But Europe in particular is neo-feudal and the US is becoming more so — landless peasants on a high tax treadmill to keep a rented, government or bank owned/mortgaged roof over their heads — in tiny residential zones, at bubble prices. The bulk of the land being either government owned or locked up for increasingly centralized corporate agriculture.

Another layer, domestic service, was once much more common: A less well off individual, couple, or even a family could be provided with lodgings in return for service to the host household. Is this really so evil — especially when compared to non-productive welfare slums or enslavement into government workfare schemes? Even indentured or bond service — where a person in difficulty is given a place in a household for an agreed minimum period of time — is mentioned and even supported in most books of the New Testament.

The exodus from Egypt and then later, the hope of the Gospel do offer the promise of freedom and therefore stand in opposition to all that would hold people permanently in bondage. But coming from experience — having lived in the third world and kept several domestic servants — it is also true that temporary servitude can offer education, provision, and lead on to better things.

So a financial fall can be broken at numerous levels: New work or a new business; falling back on savings or insurance; a return to self reliance on the family homestead; assistance from immediate family; extended family or friends; service in another household; then church assistance or private charity, especially in the case of widows.

By all means, somewhere in those layers, a place of independence and financial value to others can be found — if there is any freedom.

False Doctrine

But instead of natural social security, majority Christian nations have been vulnerable to the false doctrine of state nationalized welfare, even when its main proponents were known to be militant atheists. But this is also in good part the result of teaching promulgated by Christian leaders.

Church leaders may be sincere — no one can be held responsible for light they do not have — and this is not to condemn the individuals concerned, but rather the ideas involved. Yet according to 1 Timothy 5, to teach that we are no longer responsible for our own families, immediate or extended, in part or in full, is to that degree a party to denial of the faith — in that area of life at least. The record of family breakdown amongst Christians shows this has not had a positive effect on the lives and families of those who listen to them.

When faced with such false ideas, the moral premise they are built upon must first be challenged. That includes exposing the hypocrisy of the champagne socialists when they claim to care (with other people’s money) or with token amounts and ulterior motives. It also includes counteracting with truth, the false teachers and evangelistic zealots of state welfare, of which there is no shortage amongst Christian churches.

Their message should be confronted not only as a personal dereliction of duty, but a dereliction of family duty and a dereliction by churches of their God-given duty.

It is a doctrine of social disaster: deadbeat fathers; welfare mothers — married to the state; negligent sons, daughters and relatives; declining churches and broken local communities; a doctrine unworthy of any human being, let alone a Christian.

Natural v. State Social Security

Besides the moral case, the fact is, natural social welfare institutions are also infinitely better in practice than state welfare — even in places where the people are generally poor. There are enormous and far reaching beneficial side effects of these natural institutions: They contribute to bringing people together, keeping them socially interactive and just plain happy.

By contrast:

The suicide rate, especially in the European welfare state countries, is through the roof. Catholic family based culture tends to mitigate this in some, but in others depression is rampant.
In Britain today for example, many old people die alone and abandoned — but this is rare in much of the third world, where they are cared for by family and any neglect is considered a disgrace.
Isolation and loneliness are another consequence of the impersonal welfare state tentacles which choke the social life out of society and culture.
Newcomers can often live a socially isolated life even in crowded towns — which also contributes to ethnic cliques and conflict instead of interaction and assimilation.
Family disputes that would normally be minor can more easily go on to be rifts when the economic and social need to reconcile is removed.
Decisions are made to move long distances that would not otherwise be made, when the “safety net” is a social security bureaucracy — artificially raising the anchor of family ties and of long standing local communities.
Moral hazard is created when the consequences of sexual misbehavior are a new apartment for the mother and child, with few responsibilities expected of the father.

In social terms, Britain and the other welfare states are now third world countries and it has all happened as the state has taken over the management of social life and provision for the needy. The list of social ills could go on, and then the list of economic consequences begins.

Some may argue that if the natural institutions were so good — how come they disappeared?

But being in need of help is not a desirable experience and often can and should involve correction and making lifestyle changes. On top of that, the social benefits offered by the state have been very generous and attractive — and have come without any accompanying discipline or accountability.

Going on the dole was once a disgrace, but gradually the beliefs, institutions and the freedoms required for natural welfare to function were eroded, taxed heavily, or even made illegal. Today some claimants may be lazy, but many others have little choice in lands which increasingly suffocate opportunity. They cannot all be blamed and many have to endure Nazi style interrogation and violations of privacy.

Today, just building an outhouse for family or servants is often impossible due to planning rules. Instead, property rights are abandoned and in the UK, if unoccupied for six months, a house can be seized and used for "social housing".

Then there is the level of taxation — with spending over 50% of the economy in the UK and even higher in France and some other places. For many people, after expenses, that leaves very little disposable income available to help others with.

Central Planning

The welfare state has been used by the central planners and elite establishment to purchase — with stolen middle class money — the dependency and therefore loyalty of the working class. Nobody is quick to bite the hand that feeds them.

One reason authoritarian government control has grown so quickly and to such an unprecedented degree, while still maintaining some semblance of democratic support, is that the graspers are so far still being fed and dare not bite that hand. Even when the government overtly steals from the poor to pay their elite banking or corporate allies, they react with outrage — but will not do much beyond calling for more "honor" amongst the thieves they elected.

That process is now at its limit and a temporary, volatile equilibrium is in place between tax graspers and tax payers, with both sides angry and dissatisfied. The exact pivot point varies from country to country but things are now at the point of destabilization everywhere.

Thieves rarely look to the long term — it takes a producer to have forward vision. The idea is always to avoid consequences and live large now. They never think: What if everyone else stole? What would life be like for me? Well, anyone who has lived in the third world can answer that question. Welfare state thievery cannot go on, if only because the laws of economics will not allow it.

Liberty and the Social Realm

Friends of economic freedom also need to consider freedom's connection to the social realm. Human action that is rational requires whole human beings. Social desolation, isolation and damaged emotional development do not foster the forward thinking, rational decision making and bonds of trust that a free economy thrives on.

There are certain given principles that govern life. There can for example, be no legitimate free market in theft — although "fence" operations do superficially function in that manner.

Here are two questions for those who seek a truly free society:

1) Is there any real proven alternative to the family as the unit of authority, provision and welfare?

2) When faced with a breach of contract, is it correct to exempt marriage and dismiss this as a matter of private liberty, despite the potentially enormous third party consequences?

There is more to lasting freedom than just fit, healthy men flitting around the world on multiple passports, trading their gold online. Especially when leaving behind them a trail of broken relationships, maybe even broken homes — or abandoned women left to fend for themselves with an unknown number of abandoned children, conceived in those few minutes of exercising "personal" freedom. In that "consent" process, other parties to social contracts were not consulted.

Conclusion

The oppressive straightjacket of state regulation and taxation is the single biggest contributor to poverty, choking the opportunity for even the able bodied to make progress. Nevertheless, even in a free society there will always be some poor amongst us — if only because of human nature.

Sadly, the sense of personal and family duty that by and large prevailed and mitigated earlier depression times has been seriously damaged. But it can never be extinguished completely and for many it is a case of genuine ignorance and not malice. In fact, despite human failings and selfishness, most people still really want to help others — it is instinctive and makes life meaningful to do so.

Attacks on the Ron Paul campaign are symptomatic of this battle for hearts and minds. It challenges the usual base and short sighted motivations of the ballot box, by awakening the instinctive human need for liberty — not only in taking care of oneself, but in taking care of others also.

Champagne socialists like Piers Morgan, whose future advancement is bound to the approval and fortunes of the upper elite power class, desperately need the welfare system to continue. There can be no over-class without an underclass; no pagan eye on the apex of the central banker's pyramid without a large base to support the burden.

They also desperately need a pseudo-moral, religious sounding veneer, both to massage their own consciences and for the esteem they need and crave in the eyes of others — not to mention a place to retreat when their economic arguments fail.

It has been said that appealing to patriotism to justify the warfare state is “the last refuge of scoundrels and tyrants.” If so, then appealing to "social justice" to justify the welfare state is another hiding-hole.

Only the fire of liberty can smoke them out — not only by obviating the need for so much welfare, but also by reawakening a true welfare society in which neighbors, families, churches and natural social institutions can function freely and rise to their rightful place.

Paul Green [send him mail] supplies security and privacy services to clients worldwide.

The Best of Paul Green

To Protect Your Assets

Paul Green — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 05:00:00 +0000

There is yet more stormy weather brewing in the Bermuda Triangle of Keynesian central banking, exploding government, and the corporate-state industrial complexes — and even more violent than before. So as we go into this final phase of the economic crack-up boom and on to bust, hold on to any assets very tightly, because a lot of people are going to be after them — and the biggest member of that group is Mr. Big himself, Big Brother.

Actually, Mr. Big doesn't really care whether people hold onto assets legally or otherwise. The job of ordinary people, from his point of view, is to just pony up anyway. If he finds out they are avoiding that in a perfectly legal way, then to him that is the most annoying of all. After all, why should they get away with it, while millions of other hard working taxpayers slave away night and day to pay their fair share? He never bothers to explain how there can be a "fair share" of far too much.

As you will no doubt have heard, recently the UK and a few other places have had a spate of riots. In one of the more laughable news items was the claim that in London, it was "anarchists" spoiling a nice quiet en masse demonstration of spongers, against any and all government cuts.

After these perpetrators had first smashed up a private building, one of them climbed up the front and for the benefit of the world's news cameras, spray painted the name of the boss on the wall, followed by, "…PAY YOUR TAXES".

The whole thing was so ridiculous because the boss doubtless pays more tax than all of them put together. But he was nonetheless, a suspected legal loophole jumper. In other words, politicians dreaming up all the laws they want is no longer enough — now we are told governments should expect donations.

The other point of amusement was that these "anarchists" wanted the boss to donate more tax to government which, according to their title they should oppose. But government PR machines like the BBC like to adjust and make such words incendiary to convey the idea that without Big Brother everything would be chaos i.e. even worse than this fine mess they have gotten us into.

In reality, these were just spoilt kids who would destroy anyone that requires responsibility or doesn't give them something for nothing: heads of business, household, church, property etc. They love the illegitimate and unnatural Big Brother state because it serves their purpose of destroying those legitimate natural authorities.

The main point to note is that there are a lot of confused people out there and whether labelled "socialist", "conservative", "liberal", or "anarcho-sponger" most of them are after your money for their grand ideas. They are all hoping a new improved Big Brother will see things their way and get it for them.

But this idea in different forms has been growing for the last 100 years. The results are in, and now it's reckoning time in the West. So if you want to get through this storm or even be able to help others caught in it, then it is up to you to do something about it.

Holding Tight

With countries, banks and currencies teetering on the brink of oblivion, every economic sage worth his salt has been advising anyone with anything worth saving, to put it into gold. The very best sages have been advising against trusting it all to the physical location of their home country.

But of course there is still the need to interact with the as yet unenlightened fiat currency world. Hopefully then, at least some readers will have taken steps to operate businesses and/or bank accounts outside their home country. Hopefully also, they have been skipping through every legal loophole they can find to protect those assets.

But relying entirely on those legal manoeuvres to save them? I hope they are not so naive.

The fact is, the moment Mr Big finds out that enough people avoid paying up, he will either change the law or just issue administrative "clarification" — often of dubious legality and sometimes even with retrospective effect.

Thus leaving the unwary like sitting ducks: all assets legally, officially and publicly registered according to the old regime — and ripe for picking off under the new. Or even if they do still comply, Mr. Big's dependants don't like it one bit and at the drop of a hat will call for creative regulatory scheming to freeze, seize, or otherwise keep the ducks and/or their nest eggs tied up in expensive bureaucratic legal wrangling for as long as possible.

Perhaps their worldly possessions are in a difficult part of the world to get hold of, but just as significantly, they themselves may not be. Case in point: the recent change in US gold storage foreign reporting regulations. Now, any significant gold overseas in any kind of "financial account" (very loosely defined) is supposed to be registered by US citizens. It's no coincidence of course that all this is happening at the same time as steps to require reporting of sales by US based gold dealers.

Who was it coined the term, "Registration leads to confiscation"? My guess is Big G himself, gleefully rubbing his hands in an unguarded moment; or it may have been a victim — after their lawyer had told them it led to, "peace of mind". The fact is, on any list of reasonable alternatives it doesn't take a lawyer to know that registration should be near the end — and there are reasonable alternatives.

But the grasping is not limited only to Mr Big; the Big gang has also bought and paid for private collaborators. Meaning, in the "offshore" world, that the buyer needs to beware of private sharks — and not just the obvious fraudsters:

A couple of years ago, one insider (tittle-tattling to the socialist "Tax Justice Network") detailed how short-sighted lawyers and unprincipled private bankers actually welcome legal uncertainty and regulatory enforcement. Their reasoning is that it serves to scare smaller clients (wholly dependent on the legal protection now gone or in doubt) on to the next expensive strategy — and all the while, lucrative multi-layer elite client strategies remain unaffected.

The big and favoured banks — closest to the central bank money printing machine — also collude with "revolving door" regulators and wholly-owned politicians to craft regulations onerous to smaller competitors. Like a rigged sports game, owned politicians can even be bribed or blackmailed into taking a political "dive" to advance powerful interests. There is no doubt in my mind this has gone on in the recent Swiss bank secrecy compromises.

But the game is not over yet. Also, honourable mention should be given here to the bankers of the Swiss canton Ticino, who have so far stood firmly in favour of financial privacy for all — while expressing their disappointment at the lack of support from some others.

Privacy as a Strategy

I find just about anything politicians or civil servants scribble on paper obnoxious — just reading it develops a kind of perverse faith in their omnipotence, far beyond any prudence or caution. So I am very glad not to be in the legal advice business; but the upshot of it all is this: No matter what asset protection measures you take — even with the utmost legality — to prevent unjust seizure (public or private) it is very much in your interest to incorporate privacy measures into that strategy.

In particular, if it involves using offshore corporate legal vehicles, financial accounts, or a gold depository, then to retain any confidentiality it is essential to incorporate internet and communications privacy.

Anyone who has been through an official investigation, even when found completely "innocent", can confirm how so not fun it is. Usually, it will all have started with a suspicion or misinterpretation of something simple that attracted attention.

The moral of any such story is always this: Far, far better if the boot is on the other foot — by making sure no flags of interest are raised in the first place. In other words, privacy is the best policy — the only problem with even the best privacy policy, is keeping it that way.

Think about it: Even with the perfect strategy in place, just one home phone call to a bank or depository, and that record forever more advertises the location of those assets. It might not be enough to prove anything — but since when did Mr. Big's bureaucratic standards of evidence include having to prove anything? At the very least, it is a starting point for further enquiries.

But that is just phone communications; even postal mail is increasingly automated, reading without opening is possible, and digital snapshots are taken of the "from" and "to" addresses.

The internet offers such great potential, and yet can give even more away:

Privacy Threats Online

There are three primary threats on the internet (unfortunately, plus a bunch of secondary ones):

Internet numbering or "IP addresses" — just like phone numbers and "Caller Line ID".
Internet Providers — itemising and recording everything, like a phone company bill.
Wiretaps of internet traffic — feeding massive spook data centres, in real-time.

With all these and other data sources converging rapidly; in theory at least, all Mr Big needs to do is put out a sort of "All Points Bulletin" to get a list of everyone say, logging in to a certain bank. Or, he could generate a report listing all internet subscribers accessing the secure login page of a number of banks or gold depositories — to be flagged for further enquiries.

Remember: a secure login page might keep the details secret, but it is also a very public record that a financial relationship exists.

I am sure that such perfectly coordinated, highly efficient surveillance systems are not fully in place, simply because they are the offspring of bloated bureaucracies. But things are certainly heading that way and especially with a known target, it is not very difficult to track activity. In the UK, for example, even local education officials can monitor phone calls and internet traffic.

Mobile broadband is not only just as vulnerable, but introduces the additional concerns that both activity and unique internal handset IDs are continuously located — often to within a few feet — by either cell mast "triangulation" or GPS. That's on top of the recent concerns about Smartphones secretly storing and sooner or later uploading a location tracking history file.

Here is something else to bear in mind:

Even if the recording and reporting of internet activity is not being acted upon right now, with the vast majority of US internet providers and with all in the EU, the activity history (inc. websites visited and email/call/chat/Skype contacts) is continuously accumulating at the provider and/or spook data centres, and in many cases will still be there for years to come.

So — what can be done?

Emergency Privacy

Anyone even briefly or accidentally logging in without any privacy measures will leave a trail straight to their mother lode. This is like mistakenly dialling a phone number and then hanging up — a unique entry will still be on the itemised bill, and just as obvious as any other call. But there is at least one thing they could do:

Pick a number of secure bank/depository/financial websites located in the same or a similar jurisdiction. Then head to the account login pages, one by one, and just leave them open for a few minutes. It doesn't matter whether they have a username or password (that is not visible from outside) the point is they are visiting a secure login page and thereby creating a smokescreen. It is perfectly plausible and also true that they were just making a number of enquiries.

But what if they have been "securely" accessing their lode for some time, but without any thought for internet privacy?

In that case, all I can think of is to change internet provider as soon as possible (or disconnect and re-subscribe under a new name) and start thinking about internet privacy from then on. Hopefully the trail will be lost in the shuffle.

Privacy Solutions

There are a number of free and low cost solutions online — generally called "proxy servers". These do have many valid uses, but are also fraught with pitfalls and often leak information around the proxy.

Note especially that a proxy server normally only conceals identity from the online destination address, but conceals nothing from the Internet Provider — almost all of whom, at some stage, will have links to BB's snoops.

The best solution, in brief, is to use a "VPN" privacy service, which basically moves your entire internet activity to the third party service's computer and away from your own. It is important to know though, that this must be set up correctly to avoid identity or activity leaks. Then there are a number of secondary pitfalls for the unwary, and on top of that are usability factors like speed, response and also jurisdictional risk at the server location.

But you can certainly go a long way towards improving things yourself, and for the practical implementation of these and other solutions, you could look at some of my other internet privacy articles. Maybe start with "Defeating the New Internet Privacy Threat" which also links to most of the others at the end. If it is all too "tech" for you, just try "Easy Internet Privacy" to get started. Some third party service and software suggestions may need updating, but if I wrote a privacy article every week, I would still say the same basics as detailed in those articles.

However, if your needs are demanding (e.g. online trading) or if there are amounts involved that matter, you could definitely use some help. In particular: if you have spent significant amounts on offshore financial or precious metals strategies, then spending on assistance to lock down the last few percentage points of internet privacy risk is just good sense.

One other thing: In finding solutions, it always helps when you understand the problem a bit better — and so that's one reason I recently put together an internet privacy tutorial in video form.

The Internet Privacy Tutorial

You will find this video tutorial easily understandable — and it is educational rather than promotional. I've been careful to use little or no jargon, but there is still something for everyone in the three main parts: "Privacy Threats"; "Privacy Solutions" and "Pitfalls for the Unwary" — the total being around 50 minutes. There are helpful notes throughout, as well as graphics where useful.

To watch, you will need the passphrase — the name of the only US presidential candidate worth listening to. As long as bandwidth holds up, you can view it free right here:

Some, who will have watched the main tutorial, will be seriously considering tech help. They can email me about the additional 30 minute "Special Services" video, which is both educational and promotional. Primarily, this details "The Internet Privacy Package" — a complete customised privacy solution, which includes some unique hardware and software as well as consultancy time, technical expertise, extensive video tutorials, updates, anonymous third party accounts and more.

It also includes a summary of the unique "Swiss Gold Storage Solution." This is in several ways the best facility I know of for smaller scale storage (<$250k say) or as a privacy conduit to and from a main depository. It is absolutely non-reportable (even under new US rules); very inexpensive; high security, etc. etc. This is a reasonable alternative to registration, wherever you live.

Obviously, the Privacy Package is not for everyone and while I never accept personal info or ID (please use first or nickname only) there has to be an approval process to avoid crooks and the fake personas of junior snoops with nothing better to do.

In Closing…

This is a time of crisis and therefore I believe, opportunity. But it is certainly the worst possible time to place total reliance on the shifting quicksand of political legislation or administrative fiat — even "offshore".

Governments everywhere are getting desperate, and with it more and more overtly abusive, violent and arbitrary. They will take what they can most easily see and will not let their own legalities get in the way. If it is low hanging fruit, they will pick it, eat it up and argue about the pips afterwards and at the victim's cost.

Yet, for myself and for others who are prepared, I am hopeful. Partly this is from having lived through dictatorship and hyperinflation before — in another part of the world. In a hyperinflationary environment at least governments are weakened, scorned and ineffective. While still dangerous and while "formal" freedom will be lacking and some certainly will suffer, informal freedom can also be maximized and new opportunities abound. Especially for those who still have something to invest when the dust finally settles.

One final thought: So what have you got to hide if you haven't done anything wrong? I would say, more to the point — Why would anyone want to know, if they didn't intend to take it from you?

Whatever asset protection strategy you choose, to reduce vulnerability: have a policy of privacy.

Paul Green [send him mail] supplies computer security and privacy services to clients worldwide: remotely from the UK or Switzerland, and on-site within Switzerland.

The Best of Paul Green

The Barren Tree

Paul Green — Thu, 03 Mar 2011 06:00:00 +0000

In the New Testament is recorded the story of Jesus who, while walking with His disciples, came across the sight of a fig tree with leaves. With fig trees, leaves normally indicate that there is ripe fruit also. This promise of fruit caused Jesus to approach the tree for refreshment and nourishment while travelling.

But the tree had no fruit, despite the promising leaves, and this served as an opportunity for Jesus to teach his disciples something many Christians today might think to be un-Christian: He pronounced a curse, and moreover instructed his disciples how to do the same. Beginning right then it died at the roots, and by the next day the fig tree had visibly withered.

Of course, this was not a curse on a human being — even the strong rebukes and warnings Jesus at times issued (mostly to elites and officials) were for the good of the hearers.

But Jesus did use the fig tree, which was on public/common land, to illustrate by example how we should react to the fruitless and useless things in life that promise great things and yet fail to provide any benefit.

A similar example elsewhere in the New Testament, is Jesus' teaching concerning those who spread false ideas that ensnare, enslave and, rather than producing promised beneficial results, produce only destruction and loss.

"Beware of false teachers…. By their fruits you will know them."

In times past, ideas and instruction — both practical and spiritual — were mostly disseminated at a local level: Local schools, local churches, local public houses… and local governments through local officials. Centralised institutions, though present, were more distant.

Today with the rise of the regulated mass media, the misuse of communications technology, and with government-controlled education, we have the homogeneous propagation of ideas across whole nations and the world, to an unprecedented degree.

The pervasive force behind the ideas that guide and set the framework for much of the conversation, the outlook, the hopes and aspirations of peoples around the world is the State. Most of the "big ideas" that filter down into the everyday actions of people in these State dominated cultures are from sources approved and/or funded, directly or indirectly, by government.

So let us take a look at this entity, along with its prophets and experts, who promise hope and who terrify people into the idea that without them we are doomed to chaos.

If it is "by their fruits you will know them," then let us examine their "fruits" and whether their promises of hope have really been fulfilled — in order to determine a right response to the experts, their plans and the entity of the State itself. In just a few areas, we'll consider the "leaves" of promise, and then we'll consider the "fruit" produced.

In order to determine the existence of any real "fruit," we will use the words of Jesus as a reference:

"The thief comes only to kill, steal and destroy but I am come that you might have life and have it more abundantly"

Leaf #1

Promise: "The State promises you peace and security from external enemies. By pre-emptively attacking other countries and regrettably but necessarily killing as many innocent people as needed, security is assured."

Fruit: Murder on a mass scale, around the world. Current estimates exceed one million dead in Iraq, with one half million even officially acknowledged by the UK government in recent years. Only a few of these were combatants and even of those, some were only defending their own land from invasion.

Theft on a mass scale, that is, unless the State is to be deified and made exempt from moral law. For example, military incursions abroad cost the people of the US at least one trillion dollars per year.

Destruction on a mass scale — both of the economic well being of the militaristic countries (now on the verge of disaster) and of the infrastructure and societies of those attacked.

But is there any benefit for the security of the aggressors? None; except in the speculative fantasy of the aggressors.

Is there any evidence, other than speculation, that angering and provoking populations abroad with monstrous atrocities ensures future safety? It requires more blind faith to believe so, than it does to have a little faith in God and just refuse to murder innocent people for any reason.

Leaf #2

Promise: "The State offers you security from danger by enforcement of legislated laws and regulations, above and beyond moral law. To do this it is necessary to create a special class of State agents, who are authorised to use violence and to commit acts that would otherwise be considered crimes."

Fruit: Violence or the threat of violence — including killing if regulations and/or enforcement officers are resisted. Every rule or regulation is ultimately a threat of death and/or destruction if resisted sufficiently. For example, even a morally upright person resisting the most unjust law will be first threatened and then, if they as an innocent person resist the enforcers or use legitimate self defence, they will be killed.

Leaf #3

Promise: "The State offers security and plenty for those in need. To do this it is necessary to introduce a high level of taxation, which those who truly care should feel morally obliged to pay, even at the expense of their own families or charitable causes."

Fruit: This is nothing more than organised theft which, in proportion to the degree of taxation, destroys the ability of families not only to provide for their own but also to fulfil the command of Jesus to personally give to the poor. Voluntary charity, a product of compassion, is redefined and undermined by bureaucracy and force. The money is no longer given, but taken by an army of officials backed with the power to destroy businesses, seize property and ultimately use force to kill should a victim attempt to defend their own property.

Despite this known behaviour, supporters claim the poor are helped. But with the same moral authority it can be argued that a poor bank robber will be better off. This is not "social justice" — because covetousness and theft are not social "justice." The plight of the poor is not that they are denied a "right" to someone else's money.

In fact, governments create or massively contribute to poverty by obstructing productivity and liberty; only to then present themselves as saviours with false promises appealing to covetousness, and by claiming false credit for what productivity that they have not yet stifled.

A morally bankrupt and dependant underclass is the result, along with destruction of the primary natural social welfare institution, the family, immediate and extended. Secondary welfare institutions, such as domestic service and church/charitable activity are also taxed, regulated and morally undermined in order to give the State primacy.

Leaf #4

Promise: "The government will save you when you are sick; a universal bureaucracy is the best way to see that everyone is offered a high standard of healthcare. Others richer than you will pay."

Fruit: First the government destroys person to person healthcare — the direct and free relationship between a patient and a doctor who competes for patients against other doctors, and who is regulated by the spread of his reputation to all prospective customers. Naturally there are problems, because doctors are human beings, because they try to create guilds and cartels, and the system is never free from the State. Let us say efficiency in a fairly competitive market is 70%.

So, the government attempts to destroy this by legislation, regulation and subsidy. Its paid experts point to the 30% rate of inefficiency and magnify it. The government steps in with regulations which push up prices, and create forced relationships with approved third party corporations and insurance companies. Problems and inefficiencies increase, although the remaining market freedom still produces improvements. So the State claims credit for these improvements and blames the expense and inefficiencies on insufficiently regulated and greedy (but approved) corporations.

Finally the government (secretly backed by a few most favoured mega-corporate suppliers) takes over. The UK healthcare system, for example, is now the biggest bureaucracy in the world outside the communist Chinese State. I do not remember a time when people have been happy with it, or a time when the current government has not promised to fix it (with more government).

Particularly in healthcare, inefficiencies caused by non-competitive, distant and unaccountable bureaucracy mean unnecessary deaths. Over time, that means tens and hundreds of thousands of deaths — on top of terrible medical errors also fostered by inefficiency and unaccountability.

Final Thoughts

It is clear that on that "tree" we call government or the State — there are many leaves but no fruit. The State can only exist by making false promises — and can only grow by killing, stealing and destroying in order to make room for itself and its allies.

But God has invested His very likeness not in systems of bureaucracy or powerful elites, but in each one of us, as individual human beings. We are therefore to have dominion over our own lives, and not be stifled by hierarchy and bureaucracy or made into the serfs of "wiser" State overlords.

The response of Christians to the many false prophets of the State should be a clear rebuke of their words — yet, not a cursing of their person. But the response to the State apparatus itself — to the evil schemes and oppressive initiatives obscured by deceptive promises — should be even stronger: Curse it. Damn it. Doom it.

Believe me, I can well understand swearing at the TV when you hear another official lie, but that is not what I mean. In fact, I recommend you avoid that — depending how it is said, it can actually be negativity, grumbling, unconscious faith in the power of evil to harm you.

But, for example, recently the British government planned to register, monitor and control homeschoolers — just like paedophiles. My wife and I heard about it well in advance. We agreed in prayer, and cursed it. I hope others did too. Now, I'm not saying our prayer can completely overrule the free will of the British people overall. But as long as we are to spend time in the UK, I believe God will make provision for us.

It looked inevitable, many a "final" official pronouncement was made — yet the scheme was recently dumped. The same went for ID cards — we had doomed that for nearly five years. I can also testify to similar victories in a number of personal "run-ins" with officialdom over the years.

Even the first recorded public prayer meeting of the Christian church in the Book of Acts was along these lines. Read it in Acts 4:24-31:

Local government leaders were exhibiting their usual rotten "fruit," so the church prayed specifically to frustrate the plans of the scheming politicians and rulers — and went on to disobey them openly. I particularly like Psalms 2, the chapter they quoted, because it goes on to say that God Himself actually laughs at and holds these "rulers" in derision. It is an example we should all follow.

So instead of despairing at these dark days, why don't you join those of us who are doing something about it — including spiritually? We can restrain governments because there is only one true Kingdom — the others are all illegitimate and not supposed to be there. As I mentioned in my last article, it's even right there in the Lord's Prayer:

"… deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen."

Paul Green [send him mail] is of British background and supplies computer security and privacy services in the UK and Switzerland – while his wife home-schools their children.

The Best of Paul Green

The State and the Saviour

Paul Green — Mon, 03 Jan 2011 06:00:00 +0000

It came as
a breath of fresh air to me to hear the Pope's Christmas message
to the English speaking countries:

"The
child that was born in Bethlehem did indeed bring liberation, but
not only for the people of that time and place – he was to be the
Saviour of all people throughout the world and throughout history.
And it was not a political liberation that he brought, achieved
through military means; rather, Christ destroyed death forever and
restored life by means of his shameful death on the Cross. … let
us give thanks to God for his goodness to us and let us joyfully
proclaim to those around us the good news that God offers us freedom
from whatever weighs us down…"

Though I'm
not a Catholic, I haven't called myself a "Protestant"
since I escaped the cult I was brought up in as a child. In escaping,
I made up my mind never to let another person think for me. I didn't
reject God because of them, but from then on I purposed to have
no other point of reference than the Bible — of course, with the
internal help of the One who wrote it. Until today, I remain open
to all – but dependent on none, a denominational "independent."

If there was
once a case for the Catholic Church as being embedded in the governments
of this world, the boot seems to be on the other foot today. It
has now come full circle and if I do find myself protesting, it
is more likely to be against "Protestant" churches.

The Church
of England is a case I point. It exists by state privilege, its
bishops are given seats in the House of Lords, and it says by and
large what the state wants it to say. Of course there are good individuals
in there, just as there are good teachers in the state school system.
It's the state itself that is the problem, together with the many
sycophants, career opportunists, ideologues and outright worshippers
its bureaucracies attract.

The Archbishop
of Canterbury is a Blair appointee, which doesn't mean he's not
a sincere man, but does mean his views are broadly government approved.
So, what did he talk about over Christmas?

He said the
"rich" are not carrying a fair share of the load. That
some developed nations “appear deeply indifferent” to the United
Nations’ development goals. That world poverty through these development
goals should be halved by 2015. He expressed concern for the military
and reiterated that the war on terror was necessary, but that these
development goals should be added.

I suppose this
is only to be expected from a government appointed head of a state
approved church in a country where the size of the government has
now exceeded the size of the private economy.

Because to
him and many other misled Christians, the State and the Saviour
are one, provided the proclaimed views and direction of each is
regularly tweaked so as not to stray too far from popular opinion.
The trend of course in popular opinion is that the State should
increase, and the Saviour should decrease except when useful to
morally rubber-stamp the State.

But where does
this faith in the State come from?

More to the
point, where does any faith come from?

The answer
lies in what is seen and heard on a daily, even moment by moment
basis. A thought considered and accepted becomes a belief, and if
consistently reinforced along with others, it becomes a worldview.

Government
is a cult. It propagates its beliefs through a regulated mainstream
media, and especially a State owned media. In Britain, this is very
extensive. The BBC audience is as big as and sometimes bigger than
all private media put together. The private media is basically Rupert
Murdoch and a few other chosen ones who have agreed to toe the line.

Not that the
people themselves are not at fault. Many sit down for many hours
in front of the BBC or other television each day. This is truly
behind the decline of Western civilisation.

The subjects
of the soaps consistently glorify and encourage dependency on the
state: police, social workers, nationalised healthcare, spooks,
etc. etc. Serving the government as an official is portrayed as
admirable and beneficial; life as a free individual is portrayed
as hopeless and impossible.

When the daily
life of individuals is portrayed, it conveys a norm consisting of
vice ridden helplessness crying out for government intervention.
The subjects of popular soaps, like the top rated BBC "Eastenders"
consist of continuous crises and strife, screaming, despair, hate,
depression….

The effect
of this cannot be overstated; it is the continuous meditation of
the hearts of millions of British people on a daily basis. No wonder
last year, in the UK, a country of 50 million, there were around
40 million medical prescriptions for depression.

Let me encourage
you to choose your own thoughts this year. I for one refuse to meditate
on depressing subjects. Sure, I can take negative facts as they
appear — but I always seriously doubt their effect on me and mine.

"Surely
goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and
I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever"

The reason
is I choose to believe the extremely Good News known as the "Gospel."
Not just as a religious sentiment, but I actually expect God to
help me in life: To direct me inside, to give me a break, to help
me succeed, to fix me up if I get sick or get in trouble…

But the State
is not the Saviour — do your soul some good and stop thinking the
thoughts its agents dish up for you. There is only one King and
one true Kingdom. The kingdoms and governments of this world produce
nothing and only know how "to kill, steal and destroy";
but the Kingdom of God is the truly benevolent rule of the great
Protector and Giver of all life, liberty and property.

"Thy
Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"

Whether verbatim
or as a pattern/template, realize whenever you pray the Lord's Prayer
that by inviting the Kingdom of God on earth, you are expelling
its usurpers and – in concert with your words and actions — in doing
so are making the world a better place for it.

January
3, 2011

Paul
Green [send him mail] is
of British background and supplies computer security and privacy
services in the UK and Switzerland – while his wife home-schools
their children. Over the years he has also traded the financial
markets and worked in sound production.

The
Best of Paul Green

The New Internet Privacy Threat

Paul Green — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 05:00:00 +0000

It seems some
of us have been thinking thoughts not approved by the Prowlers That
Be and that something is to be done
about it.

It's no wonder
they are concerned: Thoughts can quickly turn into beliefs, and
when you put enough sound ones together, consider them for a while
and let it all sink in – you end up with something dangerous
that is inevitably going to spread. Things are now starting to heat
up, because people with all kinds of ideas are beginning to see
that they have been hoodwinked.

All this is
bad news for the Powers That Used-To-Be. But am I really being fair
to them? Can't we give them any benefit of the doubt?

Alright then;
just for a moment, let's try and see it purely from the other person's
point of view. Let's delve — ever so briefly, if that's okay –
into the benevolent and paternal minds of officials, politicians,
and elites; they are People too, you know:

After all,
they have put a lot of time and effort into moulding and shaping
the media, who have helped us know quite clearly what the correct
and responsible thoughts are.

As if that
wasn't enough, they went to the trouble of taking society's
children at an early age and helped them to know the proper thoughts
that they should think, in school.

At great expense,
they have paid the properly qualified Experts handsomely and rewarded
compliant corporations richly, when they helped us to know what
to think.

Why, for our
own good, they even invested society's money for it in churches
and charities, helping us to understand how little difference there
is between charity and bureaucracy, giving and properly organised
theft, peace and war, faith in God and honouring and obeying them.

Surely it can't
have been easy for the Appointed Ones, having to make the tough
decisions with society's money to make all these things happen.
They felt our pain. Yes, and what thanks do they get? None whatsoever;
theirs is a thankless task – and what's worse, recently some
ingrates have even had the nerve to complain.

So, should
we not feel sorry for them, extend mercy and grace, give them one
more chance? Doesn't it seem unfair that all they have worked for
can be jeopardized in just a few years by… the internet?

….. You think
not?

I thought not.
Of course, you're right.

That's just
what they are afraid of — because if they are shown no more mercy
than they have shown to their innocent war victims or their enslaved
taxpayers, they are in deep trouble.

The Internet
To The Rescue

So thank God
for the internet! Just when it seemed the grid of State power was
maxing out; along came the internet to short circuit everything.

It's too late
now, the cat's out of the bag and I doubt there is a way the internet
can be completely turned off — or if they try, it will be a last
dying act of desperation, because governments themselves and their
big corporate friends depend so much on it.

Instead, the
game plan is to regulate and to filter — to choose and approve the
thoughts we have access to – partly by creating dependencies
and alliances with mega-business gatekeepers like ISPs and search
engines, and partly by legislation.

That's why
in the US, legislation is now being crafted that is pretty much
in line with China and other totalitarian regimes:

Sites that
are not approved simply would not be served up to the user.

Popular encrypted
services such as Skype, based in privacy conscious places like Luxembourg,
would have to either close down or poison their software with back
doors and set up local surveillance offices for easy bullying. Skype's
local Chinese partner did just that some time ago and now US intelligence
agencies have painted a target on Skype almost by name in this legislation.

However, even
if it passes, a new Skype username on a mobile or unofficial
portable version of the software, from a random public Wi-Fi
or VPN connection is just one unknown and encrypted caller among
tens of millions. In that case, the chances of any effective eavesdropping
would still be slim to none.

In mysterious
harmony, new internet crackdowns are also being announced in the
UK and worldwide, supported by the most desperate and ridiculous
scaremongering: Why on earth would a power station want critical
systems to be on the internet anyway? As it turns out, most are
not, the recent scare was mostly exaggeration — and those that are
online should just pull the plug out.

They are getting
so desperate, I expect we are all going to be treated to a number
of new and exciting false-flag/molehill-mountain shows — anyone
remember golden oldie episodes like "Patsies on Parade,"
"The Poison Powder in the Post Mystery," "Great Balls
of Fire — the Underwear Bomber Reveals All," "Best Ever
Comedy Hotfoot" "Meet The World's Worst Osama Bin Ladin
Impersonator" etc? National security propaganda has become
almost as obvious to me as the spook-mail I got after writing the
article, "Practical Internet Privacy."

The Domain
Name System

There are several
ways of censoring the Net, but one of the easiest, most prevalent,
and a key method in the proposed legislation is to censor the internet
"Domain Name System," commonly known as "DNS."
Here's how it works:

Imagine there
is someone you want to call on the phone. So, you call directory
enquiries to get the number, only to be told the number is unlisted.
DNS internet censorship is basically the same idea.

When you put
a website name in your browser, it goes behind the scenes to a kind
of directory service, usually supplied by your internet provider
or its bandwidth provider, called a "DNS server." This
serves up the website number ("IP Address") and gets you
to the site.

Yes, all websites
are actually numbers — and quite often if you have the number, you
can still get through, even under censorship. Another simple way
round censorship could be to stop using your internet provider's
DNS and manually set another — it's not difficult and there are
many on the Net, in many countries.

There is one
more important matter about DNS enquiries.

In making a
regular phone call to directory enquiries for a number, you are
also telling them three things:

Who you
are
Who you
are contacting, and
The time
of your conversation.

They may not
be able to actually listen in, but that's still a lot of useful
information for snoopers — and a starting point for more.

DNS internet
surveillance works in basically the same way, and this is one area
where most internet privacy services fall down.

Internet
Privacy Services

To help get
round surveillance and censorship, there are many free and paid
"proxy" services, but beware, some are owned by password-harvesting
hackers. Proxies can be made to work, but normally do not encapsulate
the whole of your internet activity. You can easily specify a proxy
in your browser or use proxy software, but there will be many possible
leaks. Of course, a good proxy is better than nothing and may be
perfectly adequate for some purposes and budgets. Also Tor
is a notable exception, with good anonymity for browsing –
but also slow.

The real route
to privacy is to completely wrap up all your internet activity in
an impenetrable tunnel and route it so that everything comes out
somewhere else. These services are generally called VPN (Virtual
Private Network) services. They advertise themselves as completely
encrypting your internet, using better-than-military grade technology,
and invite you to trust them completely.

If your privacy
is important, here is where you need to be careful.

Everything
they say may be true, about the content of your internet
activity – but remember the directory enquiries example and
the three things it exposes? You would think surely a VPN service
would wrap up the DNS enquiry too, but very often they do not.

Instead, the
internet provider's DNS server may still be used, informing them
and anyone watching, of every site you visit, including internet
calls made, to whom, and when. The VPN service will argue that it
is your computer and not their service that leaks this info, but
to be true to their privacy promises, they should at least have
an immediate solution ready for their customers. Very few do.

Tech Note:
In fact, I had to develop a full solution (also resolving e.g. browser
uniqueness) purely for myself and private clients – but
did, a year or two ago post a basic solution for Windows users over
at the perfect-privacy.com forum. It can easily be modified for
any VPN service. Mac users need to use "Viscosity" with
certain settings to connect. iPhone/iTouch basic VPN users seem
to be OK.

How To Choose
A VPN Provider

Happily, one
effect of recent aggressive intellectual "property" enforcement
has been to spawn a large number of new VPN services. Here
is one list of more than a hundred.

First, I want
to assure you that I have no financial or other interest in any
provider. I have even been offered several free accounts and declined
them all. This information is only to help enlighten users and to
inspire more VPN services to compete harder for their business.

Because, depending
on your privacy objectives and uses, a VPN service can be as critical
as a bank. In order to be safe, you must seriously consider whether
a VPN service could be run by informants, crooks or spooks.

Bear in mind
– if sharing business secrets, organizing protests, orchestrating
WikiLeaks-type whistle-blowing, accessing trading or financial accounts
— that the owners of a VPN service or its technicians could be tempted,
blackmailed or threatened into betraying or robbing you.

Of course,
I can identify with VPN operators who may justifiably want to remain
hidden themselves and users should not want to be served by the
easily targeted, who do not practice what they preach.

So, here's
what we have to go on:

Reputation
– over a period of time (discount obvious spam or slurs by
competitors on forums).
Terms of
Service – (spooks want a semi-legal front; sharks offer weasel
terms in small print).
Location
– legal and physical.
Technical
factors and specifications.

In choosing
a VPN service then, here are some things to look for:

An unequivocal
no-logs policy. Not easily found, but there are some. The bottom
line: logs that do not exist cannot be used. If logs exist, however
obscured, they exist only to be read and present a target and
temptation. Blind trust is not enough for critical privacy. Could
a no-logs claim be false? Yes, but outright liars will soon manifest
themselves.
VPN server
locations and route: For anything like internet calls, timely
financial trading or offshore banking, you need to be able to
choose the country and location of your VPN connection. Check
your desired locations and routes are available.
An extra
"hop" means chaining one VPN server after another, which
is good for privacy but, if fixed by the VPN provider, can make
internet telephony etc. unusable. Tech Note: Also, if traffic
is decrypted then re-encrypted for the second hop – that
is an added vulnerability, especially if logs are kept. A less
instant but better method will work with many VPN services: first
a simple VPN connection of the user’s choosing, and then another
unbroken "hop" straight through that, to a second VPN/proxy
location, again of the user’s choosing.
No bandwidth
rationing: Rationing makes a service unsuitable for file sharing,
downloading, or making the internet available to a whole home
or office.
File-sharing-friendly
Terms Of Service – at least for countries where legally possible.
Anonymous
payment; or payment where personal details are not supplied directly.
The VPN service will get your IP address anyway — but all the
more reason for a no-logs policy.
Multiple
logins. At least for computers at the same address and to enable
"hops."
A business
base well outside your home country, preferably in a privacy conscious
one.
Big enough
to serve you… A big crowd is easier to get lost in. A small, little
used service could mean you are the only one connecting in and
going out of a VPN server at times. Normally this is OK, but it
does make identification easy if the VPN server itself is under
surveillance.
True believers:
Hard-core principled privacy advocates will fight hardest for
you. Over time, this will be evident in many ways, not just a
pro-privacy advertising slogan.

Final Thoughts

Despite the
fact that most internet crime is committed with all identification
fully in place – i.e. identity theft – authoritarians
just hate the idea that they are not watching everyone all the time.

Unfortunately,
some VPN abuse is inevitable and this is used as an excuse to violate
everyone. VPN services have to deal with spammers and fraudsters
quite often, so it is important to have a service that will fight
rather than take the easy road. One VPN service I can fully recommend,
Perfect-Privacy, had a VPN server seized recently in Germany. As
promised, there were no logs so there were no problems, and they
have many alternate servers across the globe.

How much should
you pay for a VPN? If you pay annually, you can have a good service
for around $15 a month, or if paying monthly expect $30. Lower cost
may actually mean more petty abuse problems, but competition is
bringing prices down and new, unproven services may be a lot cheaper.

You can find
more specific VPN suggestions, warnings, and other privacy related
matters in three earlier articles: "Easy
Internet Privacy" (Low/No-Tech), "Practical
Internet Privacy" (Low-Tech), and "Practical
Internet Privacy — Postscript" (Low/Mid-Tech).

From time to
time, I'll alert readers to significant changes or updates, and
focus articles on specific areas of internet privacy. Hopefully,
this article and the others will help you defend your privacy, get
round censorship, and select the best options to do it.

November
3, 2010

The
Best of Paul Green

Does ‘Romans 13′ Oppose Liberty?

Paul Green — Tue, 28 Sep 2010 05:00:00 +0000

For centuries the book of Romans, chapter 13, has been used to extinguish the flames of liberty. It has been misused to such an extent in fact, that it has become the favourite passage of dictators.

When the State couldn’t beat early Christianity it decided to join in. Soon the floors of Roman tax collection offices had Romans 13 inscribed, and slaughter in the name of Christ began. Hitler also used the passage, claiming that churches should take care of heavenly matters, leaving earthly matters to him. More recently, Mugabe’s totalitarian government shamelessly played the Romans 13 card.

The Christian Right are using it right now, to exempt the State from basic laws like "Though shalt not kill" — making it fine to slaughter the innocent in wars around the world. (See "If God is Pro-War — He Lied")

At the same time, the Christian Left continue using it to exempt the State from basic laws like "Though shalt not steal" — making it alright for the State to take all it wants and pretend tax avoiders and evaders are the thieves and cheats.

God Plus Country, King, Queen, Government?

Whenever, in the minds of Christians, kingdoms of this earth are merged into the Kingdom of God (see "The Exclusive Kingdom of God"); inevitably their faith is compromised in favour of the earthly government’s will and doctrine:

Faith in God’s provision is minimised, faith in the State’s provision maximised.

Faith in God’s created authority is limited, faith in State authority extended.

Christian activity becomes influencing and expanding State activity, rather than supplanting it.

Reverence in church services is shared with the agents of the government and the flags and symbolism of the State. Governments have even created their own national churches.

But the Gospel of the Kingdom of God — as Jesus taught it — completely excludes the State, undermining it not temporarily, through superficial force of arms, but at its foundation in the hearts of men. That is why the enemies of Jesus and the early church were primarily the agents, allies or beneficiaries of the State — local, national, and later empire-wide.

The early Christians were well aware that ancient Israel was established by God without any earthly government and continued that way for 450 years afterwards — not in chaos, but under the civil Law, judges and natural family elders.

In line with this, the attitude of Jesus toward government and officialdom was made absolutely clear:

"The rulers of the ungodly lord it over them, and their officials are called u2018benefactors’…. but it shall not be so among you."

Obviously, words like this are not going to go down well with any government and so their allies have preferred to focus upon those scriptures that deal with practical instruction for living under pagan governments. Inevitably, practical instruction is reinterpreted to mean total submission and obedience — the only limit on government authority being the imagination of officials. Other scriptures like Romans 13, upholding proper authority, have been redefined to glorify State supremacy.

Added to the rise of undisguised secular politics worship, the modern state apparatus in Christian countries is built upon the acceptance of approved interpretations of two main scriptures: "Render unto Caesar" (Matt 22, Mark 12, Luke 20) and Romans 13.

I think rendering to Caesar is very well taken care of with precision and detail by Jeffrey F. Barr’s recent article — but to sum up my own understanding here:

The objective was to turn Jesus over to the governor — who would hardly object if Jesus taught a moral obligation to pay any and all taxes. Jesus taught no such thing. Instead, He showed them a denarius, inscribed and deifying Caesar as "theou huios" — "son of the god." The answer as to how much is Caesar’s and how much is God’s therefore depends entirely on the faith of the hearer. Jesus’ words were an invitation to choose allegiance.

In private, Jesus’ instruction to His disciples on tax was plain and direct:

"the sons are free… nevertheless, lest we offend them… give it to them."

The message of this article is the same — children of the only true King are free from any moral obligation to the State. Nevertheless (and thankfully) the Gospel does not mandate open physical resistance in the face of a tax demand — just pay up and live to fight another day.

Romans 13 — The Totalitarian Version

But first, my own paraphrase of the authoritarian mindset:

"Totally submit to the government and all its officials, for there is no official that is not preordained by God to rule you. Therefore, any sign of resistance to any official is defying God and you will be destroyed. But do whatever they decide — that is being good and God through His officials will reward you. But disobeying anything they say or decide, any rule they make, is bad and you should be afraid because the government’s agents have swords and guns with good reason — and they are specially ordained by God to violently punish those who disobey them in any way, because to do so is evil. But don’t just obey them because they are threatening you, you should actually feel guilty if you disobey in any way. You should pay them whatever amount they ask without question because they are serving God by taking it from you and doing their very special work. So give without question everything they ask: taxes are theirs, all your money is theirs, your respect is their right, your complete obedience is their right."

I think that is a pretty fair summary of prevailing ideas about Romans 13. If reading it does not cause a revolt inside you, then it should. That it is a distortion of God’s Holy Word is confirmed by its fruit — contributing to the murder and enslavement of millions.

How many Christians has it influenced — as soldiers, serving despots from Hitler to the Pentagon — in concluding that, right or wrong, they are not responsible for innocent deaths but just following orders?

The same understanding has kept much of the Christian world in servitude to parasitical governments, when it should be spreading liberty in accordance with the enormous price paid for our freedom by Christ our Lord: "To proclaim liberty to the captives… To set at liberty those who are oppressed."

The door to liberty is wide open — but the inmates are too scared to go outside.

Romans 13 — Private Property Protected

Remember, the context of the book of Romans is a hostile Roman Empire with the likes of Nero and Caligula, while at the local and national level there were armed religious power elites.

"(1) Everyone should be subject to presiding authority — for it is not authority unless under God and only exists as ordered by God. (2) In which case, resisting such authority defies the order of God — and resisting that invites enforcement action. (3) For a person in charge is no threat to good conduct but bad. Just behave well and you will be appreciated, (4) for he is your servant from God. But do evil and be afraid, for he does not bear a weapon without reason — and in rage will exact a penalty on the wrongdoer. (5) It is therefore necessary to comply, and not only because of his anger, but for conscience sake. (6) For this particular reason (the punishing of wrongdoers) settle the annual levy for public officers when they are acting as God’s servants in this regard. (7) Yield to everyone that which is actually owed: a levy where a levy is due, a settlement where due, respect where due, at the correct price and amount that is due. Never withhold payment but rather love one another, for whoever loves his neighbour fulfils the law."

I believe that is a whole lot better and more accurate than most translations. I am not saying all other translations are completely wrong — but their choice of words is generally guided by an underlying assumption that the State is exclusively the subject.

That is not the case.

Centres of Authority

In fact, the word often translated "authorities" or "powers" in verse 1 is not the equivalent of the State. The meaning, according to Thayer’s and Vine’s, is firstly the "liberty, the power to do as one pleases," which a person has over their person, property or domain. It might even be translated "Everyone respect primary rights and liberties…" In 1 Cor 8:9 it is translated "this liberty of yours."

Also, the word often translated "rulers" in verse 3 is not the direct equivalent of State officials. It is used elsewhere in the Bible to denote "rulers" of a synagogue, judges, elders — anyone in charge of a social function. The Bible even refers to a "ruler of the feast" and a "governor of the feast."

In fact, there are multiple legitimate centres of authority described in the Bible and which are ordained and set in place by God. Each one is violated by the lawless State when it claims authority it does not have over these domains. For example:

A father is to "rule his own house" and bear arms in its defence:

"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace"

A father has the duty to serve for the good of his household, guests and visitors. This authority is clearly limited, yet in the case of trespassers and armed robbers, a head of household has every right to use force and violators should be very afraid of incurring his wrath.

A landlord or landowner has every right to control and protect his property by force —

Jesus taught the parable of the landowner, who leased his vineyard to tenants, who killed first the landowner’s employees and then his son. Jesus asked the disciples what the landowner should do. The answer, fully accepted by Jesus, was that the owner should destroy the tenants.

A church leader is ordained to serve the congregation, but also to direct church affairs and should have security measures in place. But limitations are clear — when a leader starts assuming authority over the life, household and money of members, it becomes a cult.

A business proprietor exists to serve his customers, but also to direct the business and guard against thieves. Customers will be valued and served; but thieves and troublemakers should be ejected — by force if necessary.

To uphold all of these rights, liberties and centres of authority, there is a legitimate place for third-party public judicial resolution of grievances and enforced punishment for those who are violators. This is included specifically in verse 6 of the passage.

But this function does not extend to making up new laws or creating new centres of authority; only respecting those already given by God. Assumed authority just does not exist — no one has the right to institute a new authority or domain in order to dominate others.

The Divine Right of Kings?

As worded by many translations, the second part of Romans 13:1 is ambiguous. The typical rendering is "There is no authority but from God and those that exist are appointed by Him."

In addition to assuming that the State is the exclusive and all pervasive authority referred to, the prevailing interpretation is that any and all officials named by the State as an authority are ordained by God.

Many Christians today actually believe an official can write a number by the side of a road and more or less create a new sin — exceeding the speed limit — whether anyone was actually endangered, let alone hurt, or not.

Many believe that God required 10% but that governments have a divine blank cheque. They might protest at the current 50—60% of GDP that is being spent in places like the UK and the US, but still believe that not paying it would be robbery in the eyes of God.

We might at least expect a consistent misinterpretation, but many of the same people support invading and deposing other "divinely appointed" governments. When faith is in "God and Country" — and where "Country" means "Government" — it seems that their Country must prevail.

The conclusion: The only possible meaning consistent with other scripture is that authority of any kind — home, business, church, judicial — only exists to the extent that it is from God and as ordered by Him in creation. All other falsely assumed authority should be opposed:

"Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge"

"We ought to obey God rather than men."

"By faith Moses.. parents.. were not afraid of the king’s command"

"…who through faith subdued kingdoms"

Authority and Force

Romans 13 verse 4 underlines that proper authority is rightfully backed by force.

God’s people were always armed. This is evident on countless occasions from Abraham’s household slaying marauders to David killing Goliath. In fact, the only time they were unarmed was when disarmed by the Philistines.

Jesus himself affirmed this in Luke 22, when he commanded his disciples to make proper provision, their having undergone earlier special training to rely exclusively on supernatural provision:

"But now… he who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one."

As mentioned earlier, He had already said, "a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace" and affirmed the authority of a landowner to use force against violent thieves.

But on top of this, Jesus personally, as rightful Head over the temple in Jerusalem — made a whip of cords and used it to drive out the moneychangers.

At the same time, revenge and getting our own back is not right. Jesus did teach turning the other cheek to insult and provocation, even to suffer non-critical loss or hurt, in order to exercise mercy and to avoid trouble.

Judicial Authority

The apprehension of wrongdoers is also a legitimate use of force. The judicial system is introduced in Romans 13:6, but with the clear proviso that it is there for one purpose — respecting, enforcing and protecting rights, liberties and proper centres of authority.

Paul was pointing out — in the context of a violent Roman dictatorship — that where there is a local judicial system and insofar as it operates to punish actual wrongdoers (thieves, murderers etc.) Christians should go along with it and even be willing to pay for it.

That does not make the Roman government system or any other right or necessary:

In Anglo-Saxon countries until the mid 1800′s with the introduction of police, the administration of justice worked well, largely without government. The Common Law was (and still is in some places) administered by unpaid local Justices of the Peace and Constables who were independent and often opposed the State. "Citizen’s arrest" was the primary means of enforcement. Enforcement of law under ancient Israel was similar, with Judges and volunteer officers of the court.

Note that Romans 13:6 refers to a moderate annual levy (or tribute) — it is not a blanket endorsement of all tax for all reasons.

Honour all people

Finally, verse seven returns to showing due respect for "everyone" in general:

A landlord has the right to be paid for rent — on time. A passenger should pay his fare. Bills should be settled when due. A "keep off the grass" sign posted by the owner should be respected. A teacher should respect the Principal. A CEO should respect the company founder or board Chairman.

The message of Romans 13 is to respect others rights, financial or otherwise, wherever rightly due. But the lines and limits of authority in each of these cases is clear to most people. It is an anomaly when Romans 13 is read as if there were no limits to the authority of government, that it can make up its own laws and enforce them violently with divine backing.

Prudence and Practicality

It is one thing to realize the illegitimate nature of the State (read 1 Samuel Chapter 8 if you have any lingering doubts); it is another to defy it openly.

Sometimes open defiance is right — where a government drafts soldiers to kill innocent people; where a government switches from insidious corruption to open confrontation of Christianity; where a government comes to seize or indoctrinate children; or where backed by public support.

Then again, an otherwise illegitimate government’s actions can be supported where it confines itself to proper judicial enforcement against actual wrongdoers — as defined by the laws of God, and without violating the innocent. Some scriptures cover this:

1 Peter 2 makes clear that it is important "for the Lord’s sake" that we comply with human institutions, where it will help spread the Gospel. Our objective is transformation from within, not just superficial defiance. But only "the punishment of evildoers" is legitimized, not any arbitrary right to redefine good and evil.

Much is made of "Fear God. Honour the king." But why should this not be reminding us of the true King, Jesus? Even if it is ambiguous, why should the other possible meaning be any more than an instruction to be courteous, and to love even our enemies — the same Greek word is used in the same verse: "Honour all people."

Titus 3:1 uses exactly the same Greek word for "authorities" or "powers" as Romans 13, defined by Vine’s first and foremost, as "power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases," which may indeed include judicial authority, if and when it operates within its remit.

Most of the time however, dealing with the improperly assumed authority of government is simply a matter of practicality and prudence in the face of violent force.

Final Thoughts

Understanding proper God-given centres of authority is the key to understanding Romans 13. That’s why I appreciate Romans 13 — it upholds our own rights and domain along with the rights of others.

Think about the 95% of daily life that the government cannot control. Why is it not chaos? Life is ordered by natural spheres of authority, ideally revolving around the family household for social provision, and free enterprise for material provision.

Above this, there is only one true King, the Giver and Protector of all liberty.

It is time for Christians to retake their proper authority, stop yielding themselves as "slaves to men," and speak out for the exclusive, supreme Kingdom of God and against the usurping kingdoms and governments of this world.

Paul Green [send him mail] is of British background and supplies computer security and privacy services in the UK and Switzerland — while his wife home-schools their children. Over the years he has also traded the financial markets and worked in sound production.

The Best of Paul Green

Internet Privacy

Paul Green — Thu, 09 Sep 2010 05:00:00 +0000

Privacy on the internet is certainly one of the hot topics of today. The article "Practical Internet Privacy" is now a year old, but I still get email from it.

So, I thought readers might benefit from a question and answer email session I did for publication by a young student at a private Christian high school, on internet privacy-related matters. Here it is, almost word for word, just tidied up a little:

Q: Would you consider Internet Privacy to be a problem in our government and daily life? And why?

A: The biggest problem (of no privacy) is that it means the government can target dissenters. It also means private enemies can track, trace and therefore attack you.

Q: What are some ways that you would describe internet privacy?

A: Free speech is only possible if anonymity is possible. Internet privacy means internet anonymity or "pseudonymity." But this would be natural, were it not for government intervention. It is normal for customers to expect at least confidentiality from those who they are paying for a service — it is not natural to have someone in your paid service breathing down your neck and monitoring you all the time.

Q: What are the main causes of the internet privacy problem?

A: The lack of privacy is a government created problem — they are the ones doing the surveillance or mandating that ISP’s log everything you do. They are the ones who are forming alliances with big businesses and who, through non-free-market privileges, monopolies, and a central bank money-lending system, create the atmosphere for unusually large mega corporations to exist.

Q: What are some tools that make it easy for privacy to be invaded?

A: Black boxes at internet providers, logging or forwarding without proper standards of evidence. The ISP’s themselves have servers that are supposed to just forward your data, but now record it or transfer it to others, without your permission. The secret police agencies now have fibre optic wire taps at key internet traffic exchanges that go to huge surveillance computer centres.

Q: What laws are used to regulate ISP’s? What specific ones can you say are being broken here?

A: Rather than saying that law being broken is the problem (although spook agencies do it all the time) my point is that laws are the problem:

Various laws specifically mandate surveillance and identification of users both in the US, the EU and around the world. Data retention and Patriot Act type laws for example. Also card payments and banking (therefore many internet purchases and subscriptions) require personal ID to be disclosed all the time — by law not because it is necessary. Laws also create monstrous bureaucracies like the NSA/DHS, etc., and take money by force to enable them to monitor the internet and all communications in real time — e.g. through fibre optic wire taps at key locations. In the UK, even local education officials can tap your internet or phone line.

Q: How exactly does the government form alliances with other companies and such?

We have unusually large corporations that facilitate easy, centralized surveillance, not because of the free market but because of privileges from the State. The US Bell and cable internet providers for example have a geographic monopoly. There was some news recently about Microsoft and privacy — a leaked manual about the info it keeps on users. I made the moral point in my article “Christianity and IP” that intellectual “property” laws help create monster monopoly corporations (like Microsoft, Apple and the RIAA mega media corps).

Then there is the Federal Reserve itself, the private controller and ally of government that has a monopoly on creating huge amounts of money. That money goes first to commercial banks and from there elites get to decide which of their corporate friends get the massive loans. Thomas Jefferson said that if ever the US had a central bank, the corporations that would grow up around it would make the people homeless. This process has happened in most areas of business: government-media, government-military, government-medical, government-auto industry, government-telecoms, government-energy etc.

Q: If you are religious, does your religion have an effect on how you feel about this topic? And why?

A: I am a Christian. You can read my specific beliefs in this area by Googling “The Exclusive Kingdom of God." Also, an article I actually wrote some years ago is called “Christianity and IP." Other articles are at LewRockwell.com

In short, I believe governments are false deities, trying to play God and trying to make themselves omnipotent. I believe that God has made each human being in His image as a sovereign being with dominion over their own affairs. Governments do not have moral exemption from God’s law, they do not have the right to kill or steal or violate that God-given jurisdiction. Privacy violations are just gearing up to treat us like animals in their pen and to enable attacks on their opponents. Jesus said: “The rulers of the ungodly lord it over them…. but it shall not be so among you.”

Q: How would you solve this problem and what would be the best way to carry it out?

A: Christians are ignorant in this area and often lead the charge to violate others because they believe the State is the arm of God. The answer is enlightenment and teaching at grassroots level and repentance from Christians who see earthly salvation in an all-powerful State, if only it is their kind of State.

There is not much hope in politics itself, but we should nevertheless pray for a “quiet and peaceable life in all godliness” and God will restrain things. I think if Ron Paul ever got elected, he would have some restraining influence. But the main benefit Ron Paul offers is in educating people in the ideas of liberty.

Most advances in liberty however, come through disturbances. It is then that people rethink their misplaced trust in government.

Q: One more question, could you give me a little background on your job — how you came to know so much about this topic?

A: I do help people (including the world of offshore finance) with computer security and privacy problems on a daily basis.

Paul Green [send him mail] is of British background and supplies computer security and privacy services in the UK and Switzerland -while his wife home-schools their children. Over the years he has also traded the financial markets and worked in sound production.

The Best of Paul Green

Internet Privacy – Q&A

Paul Green — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 05:00:00 +0000