On Punishment, Justice, Mercy, and Forgiveness in the Law

Punishment, Justice, Mercy, and Forgiveness

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

If this were a philosophical treatise, I’d probably have to deal with each of these topics separately in their own respective books. Anyway, what is the relationship that ties punishment, justice, mercy, and forgiveness together?

I think it is the first of these: punishment. Justice involves dealing out appropriate punishment for wrongdoing. Mercy involves a softening of said punishment. And forgives involves the wiping away of the guilt associated with the wrongdoing that justified the punishment in the first place.

But is that the end of the discussion? I don’t think so.

Punishment

When I speak of punishment, I am speaking in the legal sense. Although parents have the right and duty to discipline and punish their children, I am more concerned with the government’s role in punishing criminals.

Generally, an individual is punished when they are convicted for committing a crime. Politically speaking, we can grossly simplify a distinction here between Republicans and Democrats. Republicans support firm, even severe, punishment when a crime is committed. Democrats tend to favor leniency (at least, when the perpetrator is a Democrat—yes, politically, I lean right).

Who has the right of it? Should punishment be severe, firm, lenient, or nonexistent? To answer that, I think we need to look at Justice.

Justice

What is justice? The entirety of Plato’s “Republic” is dedicated to that topic. Although worth a read, I think that particular work falls short in certain areas. Regardless, I won’t be nearly as thorough.

If I were to define justice, I would start with something like “The enforcement of appropriate punishment for criminal wrongdoing.” I’m sure it’s probably incomplete, but it’s a start. Let’s go back to our punishment question. Should punishment be severe, firm, lenient, or nonexistent?

Many people would probably say that punishment should fit the crime. Severe crimes deserve severe punishment. Moderate crimes, moderate punishment. Trivial crimes, trivial punishments. That seems reasonable to me, but I want to point out a problem that develops when one considers mercy.

Mercy

What is mercy? If I were to offer a tentative definition, I think it would be something like “Mercy is the suspension or softening of the punishment that a criminal has earned for his crime.”

The problem I mentioned above arises when one notes that if “Justice is blind” (that is, justice applies equally to all people regardless of rank, station, or what-have-you), then, legally-speaking, mercy can never be offered. Because if it is offered, the recipient is showing undue favoritism to the criminal in question. Not all are being treated equally under the Law.

What, then, does that mean? Should we regard mercy as alien to our courts? How about forgiveness?

Forgiveness

What about forgiveness? Does forgiveness require that some form of punishment be inflicted upon a perpetrator before his victim can forgive him? That doesn’t seem quite right to me.

It doesn’t necessarily seem totally wrong, either. There is some truth to saying, “He has paid his debt to society. Wipe the slate clean and be done with it.” And yet, I think a greater forgiveness is that which is given without justification. That is, the forgiveness of a crime (maybe crime is too strong a term—misdeed, perhaps?) that has not been punished.

All crimes must be punished, you say. Otherwise, it is an affront to justice. I disagree. I think the victim has a choice. They can forgive even when punishment has not been meted out. What punishment did the executioners of Jesus of Nazareth deserve? And yet, Jesus asked for them to be forgiven.

Still, a legal system probably can’t be built if it embraces that level of forgiveness for all criminals. For one, the government isn’t the primary victim in many crimes. If a murderer kills Fred’s wife, how is it the government’s right to forgive the murderer for his crime and not Fred’s. Maybe Fred doesn’t want to forgive his wife’s murderer. Imposing that upon him would certainly be unjust.

Anyway, those are the thoughts percolating in my mind tonight. More can be said, I’m sure, but not tonight.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

To President Biden and the Tech Giants

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Yeah, I know … my HTML-ish mantra above and below will bump me from the Google searches so I likely won’t be read by much more than 5 people let alone Biden, Zuckerberg, and everyone else. Oh, well.

Anyway, where to begin?

Truth, Science, and Dissent

I’m a big advocate for truth. That does NOT mean I am an advocate for crushing dissent. You see, one of the truths I believe in is “Everyone has the right to freedom of speech.” This was once taken for granted, but currently seems to be under assault from the Left with the rising notion of “Authoritative Truth.”

The crux of the matter is whether science has the right to squelch opinions that differ from the mainstream scientific view or, rather, the view espoused by government scientists. I find it highly ironic that the “scientists” (many social scientists and even some of the hard sciences like even physics) who are claiming that “There is no absolute truth” are the one’s basically advocating an establishment of “truth police.”

Truth and Omniscience

To be sure, there are some absolute truths. But there are many other truths as well—non-absolute truths. Anyway, as far as absolutes are concerned, I am 100% absolutely certain that “I am not omniscient.” Similarly, I am pretty sure “You are not omniscient either.”

Although you have the free speech right to claim that you are omniscient, I suspect no one will listen to you. I certainly won’t.

Relativism of Knowledge

One of the many problems of establishing government-backed “authoritative” scientific “truth” is, basically, what I call “relativism of knowledge.” There are 7+ billion people on this planet. We all know different things.

When push comes to shove, there is no “collective hive-mind” that holds all scientific knowledge obtained by the human race up to this point. We can record stuff in books or on a computer, but (barring AI stuff-which isn’t human) until a human commits that knowledge to memory, it remains simply dead and inert. A recording of past knowledge.

Because of that, the amount of knowledge any single government scientist might possess really doesn’t exceed (at least not by a meaningful amount) the amount of knowledge the common man on the street might possess. What differs is the type of knowledge possessed, or knowledge pertinent to the scientist’s specialty.

Medicine and D&D

For example, as an avid gamer (as in Dungeons and Dragons and the like) and game designer, I probably have more knowledge about developing RPG games like D&D than a given hypothetical CDC scientist–we’ll call him Sam. In contrast, Sam has more medical knowledge than I do.

So, if you want to talk about D&D and gaming systems … I’m your guy. If you want to talk about the coronavirus in detail … Sam’s a better choice.

Informed Consent

However, I’m not the only person with knowledge of D&D and gaming systems. Neither is Sam the only individual with medical knowledge of the coronavirus. Let’s add Bob to the discussion. Bob is a doctor working at a hospital nearby specializing in contagious diseases with knowledge about the coronavirus as well. His knowledge is roughly on par with Sam’s.

Suppose Sam and Bob disagree. Who’s opinion should win the day and dictate public policy? In my opinion, neither. It should be the patient’s opinion in each and every case. Sam should present his view to the patient at a level a laymen can understand. And Bob should do likewise. The ultimate choice as to whose advice should be followed should be made by the patient. Not the doctor. Not the government. The patient.

That is informed consent.

That’s the way it should be done.

Government, Big Tech, and Medicine

I have no problem with Biden and even the Tech Giants (none of whom specialize in medicine) promoting guidelines that are sourced back to the CDC or WHO or whatever other medical authority. I do take issue, though, with the squelching of other voices who might source back to other, different sources—even when they are unorthodox sources.

Not a single one of you is omniscient. No one promoting any viewpoint on this Earth is omniscient. You don’t have the right to squelch other opinions. Because, so far, our scientific knowledge is incomplete and there is always a chance that some patent clerk somewhere has an insight that you and your “elite” friends haven’t recognized yet.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Regarding Centralized Government

Why I Don’t Support Centralized Government

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

I am a citizen of the United States and I support, to the extent that I currently understand it, the ideals of this country’s founding. The U.S. tries to promote freedom (at least, theoretically). In light of that, I think it worthwhile to examine the best means of achieving that goal.

What is freedom? As far as the government is concerned, it is the lack of or the removal of as many restraints on the individual as possible. Obviously, you can’t remove all restraints. A government can’t be so pro-freedom that it won’t pass laws against murder. That would be ridiculous.

Thus, we come to the recognition of Human Rights and the balancing act legal doctrines must play when supporting such.

As they say, my right to swing my arm ends at the tip of your nose (or maybe 12 or so inches before). Likewise, my “right to murder someone” is legally and morally infringed upon and curtailed because murdering someone infringes upon the victim’s rights (life, freedom, etc…). And so on.

The Rule of Law

Before we get into the nitty-gritty on The Rule of Law, let’s briefly look at absolute truth.

There may be some confusion about absolute truth stemming from the nature of The Rule of Law. Many people claim that there is no absolute truth. This often is in response to a judge interpreting a law in a case in such a manner that it seems heartless and cruel and at odds with true justice itself.

The judge firmly follows The Rule of Law and imprisons a starving man who stole some bread. It seems cruel (and I agree), and people use such an example to attack the nature of truth and absolute truth.

However, absolute truth is a different animal from The Rule of Law entirely. For one thing, it has a much larger scope than law. Truth reigns over math, science, nature, law, and a whole litany of things I lack sufficient knowledge of to list.

If the point of the “no-truthers” is really “There is a limit to how rigidly one should adhere to the rule of law,” I cautiously agree. I’m not entirely convinced that we should go back to “The Rule of Man,” because that was tried and it didn’t work. But let’s leave that discussion to another day, shall we?

The point of “The Rule of Law” was that we were supposed to treat everyone equally before the law. In essence, “The Rule of Law” provided universal solutions to problems of legal justice. And I think the takeaway from the “no-truthers” position is that universal solutions can often lead to intractable problems. Hence, the Rule of Law may ultimately be self-destructive.

Why?

Universal Solutions Usually Affect Someone Negatively

What is a universal solution? Well, a law (legal) that some government somewhere passes. Let’s take the United States, for example. Washington D.C. passes a law. It binds all citizens in the entire country.

Of course, we now have so many laws no one (except a super-computer) can keep track of them all. Ignorance of the law is no excuse? Really? Really? Then keep the number of laws to a manageable quantity. Clearly, there has to be some other way of dealing with justice other than paralysis through the creation of a legal tsunami.

Anyway, the point I’m making is that often, what is proposed as a universal solution may be really better if it is more limited in scope. If it is not so limited, it might positively impact the people it is meant to, but negatively impact a whole group of people miles away who not appreciate the interference.

A good hypothetical example of this for demonstration purposes is bicycle laws. It makes sense for bicyclists to use streets in N.Y. city as there is very little danger from car traffic; it is often jammed or traveling at reduced speeds. That is not true in smalltown U.S.A. In my view, bicyclists should be able to use sidewalks in small towns.

Passing a Federal Law (or even a State Law) mandating that bicyclists must use streets throughout the country (or state) negatively impacts the bicyclists in small towns. This isn’t a big issue, but it does demonstrate how universal solutions can sometimes fall shy of the mark.

The point is also clearly made within discussions of religion and religious freedom. In the United States we usually try to respect the religious beliefs of all religions to the best of our ability.

Too Many Variable Beliefs Which Can Be Infringed Upon

There are many religions represented in the United States. We have the various sects of Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and innumerable others—some less influential than others.

When the U.S. was primarily Christian, much of the legal structure, for better or worse, conformed to that belief system or, at least, was influenced by it. There may still have been injustices, but the society, more or less, “worked.”

These days we face a new challenge because of the influx of different belief systems. Basically, there are just too many belief systems to hope that very many universal solutions will work effectively without shortchanging someone somewhere.

Let’s just look at a few examples.

Cows

One of the noteworthy characteristics of Hinduism is that they hold cows to be sacred animals. In Hinduism you can’t eat a cow and … well, that exhausts my knowledge of Hinduism. Most other religions don’t have that same belief. Not a problem? I can eat my cow and the Hindus are free not to?

That’s easy. But, and this is entirely hypothetical, what if the beef industry needs subsidies? Are you going to use tax money collected from Hindus to subsidize the beef industry? In my opinion, that would be a bad idea.

The universal solution of supporting the beef industry conflicts with the religious rights/beliefs of Hindus.

Sex and Condoms

Okay. How about sex and condoms. Some sects of Christianity (I’m not sure about the other religions) are opposed to pre-marital sex and, in some cases, all forms of birth control. Should tax monies collected from them be used to provide “objectionable” sex education and free condoms to those in need either here or abroad? Again, my inclination is “no.”

Again, the universal solution here (sexual education and dispensing condoms) conflicts with the religious rights/beliefs of Christians.

Homosexuality and Transgenderism

Let’s look at homosexuality and transgenderism. Both are listed as abominations in the Bible (O.T. and N.T. for homosexuality, and O.T. for transgenderism), and yet we have legally embraced homosexuality as fine and are in the process of trying to do the same for transgenderism.

The problem revolves around the First Amendment of the Constitution and the nature of universal solutions. How do you balance religious liberty with the liberty of the homosexual or transgender individual?

If you apply a universal solution for the homosexual/transgender, the religious individual’s rights are infringed upon. If you apply a universal solution for the religious individual, the homosexual/transgender’s rights are infringed upon. It’s another no-win scenario.

Decentralization of Power as a Solution

I’m not sure I have a perfect answer. But I’m of the view that the inherent inability of universal solutions to solve satisfactorily many issues should lead one to try to decentralize power/solutions as much as possible. If universal solutions give you intractable problems, you should seek to rid yourself of universal solutions to the extent you can.

If the beef industry is in trouble, you, as an individual should try to help it in some fashion. Leave government out of it for the sake of the Hindus. Maybe try GoFundMe.

If you support sex education and dispensing birth control, you as an individual should try working toward those ends through your own efforts. Again, leave the government out of it for the sake of the Christians who disagree.

If you support gay marriage, don’t try to cram your belief in such down the entire body of the Catholic Church. Instead, you can try to persuade them toward your position. It may take longer, but it will likely be much more peaceable. Like I said, leave government out of it as much as you can. The same holds for transgender issues, too.

We don’t need a law to cover every eventuality. We don’t need to be micromanaged by Washington D.C., San Francisco, or any other government. Someone famous once said, “The government that governs least governs best.” I agree wholeheartedly.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

The Emperor has No Clothes

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

In the Bible—somewhere—it says that in the End Times there will be a Strong Delusion upon the Earth. Naturally, as I am convinced that I am the antichrist, I am also convinced that we are in the End Times.

Of course, this particular antichrist doesn’t really want to rule the world (at least, not at the time of this writing), and really just wants to write a little, play D & D a little, and give treats to my dog, Cicero. But all that is a side note.

What is the Strong Delusion mentioned in the Bible?

I have said elsewhere that I think the strong delusion of the Bible is science. What other belief system has so thoroughly ensnared the population of the planet that virtually every religion, every society, indeed nearly every person regards science as the final arbiter of truth?

The Catholic Church goes to great pains to reconcile its dogma with scientific “knowledge.” As do the Muslims and pretty much everyone else.

What’s the harm in that? Science actually works. No other belief system has had as much success in manipulating reality to our benefit as science has. It’s great. It’s given us unparalleled power over the natural world. What’s the beef?

My beef, at the time of this writing, is threefold. First, science abuses the term “knowledge,” much to our detriment. Second, it cripples our free agency and the exercise thereof. And third, it has turned upon itself and denied the very existence of truth—and, by extension, morality.

Knowledge and Science

I’ve said it many times and I’ll keep saying it. Science, with the exception of mathematics, doesn’t produce “knowledge” in the purest sense of the word. I kind of think we need to invent another word for science. A word defined to mean “well justified rational belief.” It is stronger than mere opinion, but falls short of true knowledge.

Why do I think it falls short of knowledge? Because knowledge implies the impossibility of being wrong. If there is one thing certain about science, it is that the science is never certain. It is always correcting itself, collecting new data, and refining its theories. The process appears to be never ending. As a result, science is never 100% certain.  

This has ramifications in the political arena, particularly in the matter of free speech. The prevailing scientific theory should never enjoy such privilege that it has the right to persecute dissenters. If, for example, you don’t support the notion of “Climate Change,” you should still be free to argue for your position. Similar stuff can be said of the coronavirus.

Relativism of Knowledge

Although truth is not relative, at least not all the time, there is a certain sense in which knowledge is. The human species, I think, knows nothing. By that I mean that there is no communal consciousness or hive-mind like thing (at least as far as I am aware) called the “human species” that can pull all our “knowledge” out of our collected individual minds.

The “human species” as an object does not exist and therefore is not a living thing that knows, believes, or thinks.

Knowledge is an individual thing, known by an individual mind. And it is also limited by the capacity of said mind.

Generally speaking, a bricklayer will not “know” the same things that a carpenter “knows.” They are each specialists with different specialties. The “knowledge” of bricklaying is “knowledge” relative to the individual bricklayer. It is his possession, not the carpenter’s. And vice versa for the carpenter and carpentry.

This is relativism of knowledge. And it makes sense and I agree with it.

The Problem of Claiming to Know When You Do Not

Most people do this all the time. It used to bother me a lot. Nowadays, I’m more like, “Well, that’s how people are.”

Again, as far as science is concerned in this regard, there is a big problem with free speech. Dissenting opinions are squelched because the Authoritative Voice claims to KNOW. And if they know with certainty, everyone who disagrees is wrong and can be accused of lying and spreading disinformation.

There is also an issue of free agency. If someone claims to “know” something that affects you, and you disagree, but are wrong, does that other person have the right to compel you to cooperate with their “knowledge?” I’m inclined to think no, but that’s a little tricky. However, it is not tricky when the other person is NOT truly dealing with “knowledge.”

If they don’t know with certainty, they should either hear the other side (you) out, or, at least, let you live according to what you think is the truth of the matter.

Generally speaking, if someone doesn’t know with certainty, I have the right to disagree and live my life accordingly.

The Problem of Free Agency

This is something I am as guilty of as everyone else, I think. You go to the doctor for a check-up, and he tells you this and that and then gives you some medication to deal with your issues.

At a certain level, I feel like I am surrendering my free agency here, because the doctor knows so much more about medicine than I do. I take the medication without debate and do what the doctor says.

I am not saying that everyone should argue with their doctors. It is just worth pointing out that the doctor really can’t make your medical decisions for you. The responsibility is yours and yours alone. However, I think more and more people are surrendering their will to the doctor’s expertise.

As a result, I suspect the average human’s decision-making muscles have atrophied. We rely on our scientific experts a bit too much, I think. I know I do.

Basically, I think an unintended consequence of the remarkable success of science is that it has a tendency to turn the bulk of the population into “sheep.” We unquestioningly follow the experts, because we (falsely) believe that they “know.”

The proper role of the scientist is to inform us, and then let us decide. It is not up to them to make all our decisions for us.

The Problem of Truth

I’ve ranted and raved about truth on this blog for a number of years now. I think part of the reason that more and more people are ascribing to the view that “There is no absolute truth” is because they are getting psychological support from certain elements in the scientific community.

And since science holds such a huge sway over our psychology, this maxim is accepted without a fight. And I don’t like that. Of course, I’ve beaten this particular issue to a pulp over the last several years, so I won’t delve too deeply here.

I just want to say my concern is less “absolute truth” and more “moral truth.” Half the time, I (an individual who has studied philosophy and truth) don’t know what people mean by the term “absolute truth,” while at the same time I think many of the people advocating that position are even more clueless on the matter.

For the record, absolute truth is defined as a truth that is self-sufficient and dependent on nothing else. I think (my philosophy brain is a little rusty).

Anyway, all the different shades of truth are being blurred by modern society and I fear that “no absolute truth” will eventually become “no moral truth,” and the same people who developed nuclear weapons, biological weapons, and psychological programming will authoritatively say there is no moral truth. Will the bulk of society believe them?

With the track record science has, they probably will. And I doubt that will end well.

Basically, I think the nature of truth is out of the purview of science. Truth is not green or square. It does not have mass, nor velocity or virtually any other empirical quality that I can think of. Why must it be an empirical object? Why can it not be something else? Something more.

What We Lose When We Lose Truth

When we lose truth (specifically “moral truth”), we lose many things. The Declaration of Independence (“We hold these truths to be self-evident…”), human rights in any form, and the value of the sacrifices of all our heroes past.

World War II was fought for nothing. Slavery was ended for nothing. Governments cannot be held accountable to any standard beyond themselves—there is no “true justice” against which they might find themselves lacking.

I’m sure the list goes on, but I already find the cost too brutal to bear. And I strongly suspect that most people agree with me on that point, even if they don’t admit it. Humanity believes in truth. Science is trying to kill it. And that is something for which I will not stand.

In any event, when sciences reaches this point and denies the existence of truth, it undermines itself (among other things). Science has become the epistemological emperor of the world. And when it comes to truth, the emperor has no clothes.

What You Should NOT Take from this Post

Now that I’ve said all that, I want to clear up a few possible misconceptions about this topic. I am NOT trying to suggest that we just suddenly ignore science. Rather, I think we should just take it with something of a grain of salt. Enough of a grain that we reclaim our right to free agency.

A doctor is supposed to advise you on your medical decisions. He or she is not supposed to make them for you. Even if multiple doctors agree, you still should have to give your informed consent.

That said, I wouldn’t recommend just throwing all your medications away because you read someone’s blogpost and it had a few negative things to say about science. That probably wouldn’t end well.

Lastly, I also want to point out that the point of this post is mostly a moral one. And I am an imperfect sinner. Probably the worst on the planet. Probably responsible for the Apocalypse. And so on. Judge the content of this post on the meaning of the words with which it was written, not on the many failures of the sinner who wrote it.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Regarding Plato

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

I wrote this a number of months ago, maybe even several years ago, but I never got around to publishing it. So, I’m going to publish it now.

My favorite philosopher is Plato. He’s kind of tied into my antichrist issues in ways I won’t discuss here. My favorite dialogue of his is “The Gorgias.” I was never particularly fond of his most famous work, “The Republic,” and I’ve never read his “The Laws.” I think one of the best descriptions of Plato’s work that I’ve come across is that he wrote foundational documents for both Christianity and Fascism. As an author he advocated non-violence (“Endure the ignominious slap in the face.”) several hundred years before Jesus was born. He also argued that in the “perfect state” a special lottery, supported by a “noble lie”, would dictate who could mate with whom in a society ruled by a Philosopher King. So, you got some good and some bad.

I remember years ago, a Humanities professor I had blamed the Nazis on Plato. I thought that to be particularly unfair at the time (and I still do today) because Plato lived over two millenia before the Nazis came on the scene. I mean, yes, some of the ideas he promulgated would fit within a Nazi worldview, but not all. He was surely arrogant and thought some people (most notably philosophers) were better than other people, but I think the mass slaughter promulgated by the Nazis would have made him balk. I don’t think he’d be fond of killing like that (enter the aforementioned “foundational documents of Christianity”). Regardless, he lived 2400 years before the Nazi’s when they still wrote on scrolls; so, at best he might have had 100 years of recorded history to look back on, while we have a full 2400 or so. And with that vast expanse of years separating the two, I think it is problematic to draw a meaningful causal connection between the two. It’s almost like blaming the destruction of Hiroshima on Euclid or Archimedes.

Anyway, for myself, I was once too smitten with Plato to recognize the full scope of his arrogance, but, regardless, he embraced non-violence long before it was popular. He was just terrible at politics and thought just a little bit too much of himself (as I tend to think of myself). Although, if you live in a democracy and that democracy kills your best friend just because that friend is asking annoying questions, I think you might look for a better system of government, too. Of course, “The Republic” is hardly a “better” system. Like I said, his politics is pretty lame. 

Anyhoo. Those are my thoughts on Plato.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

A Warning to the United States and the World Regarding Satan

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

I’m inclined to think that no one (or very few) will take this post (or any other I’ve written) seriously as I claim to be the antichrist. Nevertheless, I fee obligated to post it.

With respect to the United States: the Left is not the Right’s enemy and the Right is not the Left’s enemy. Satan is everybody’s enemy. And he is pitting everybody against everybody else to the best of his considerable ability. I think he can change things in reality (as he is the universe) such that a document read by two different people will contain two different sets of words. The purpose is to elevate tensions. Changes will be subtle. One person might read in a document that 18 blacks were shot and killed by police in 2019 thus reinforcing his preconceived Right-leaning notions that police are NOT “hunting blacks down.” The next person, a Leftist, will read the same document and read that 1800 blacks were shot and killed by police in 2019 and come away with the impression that the police are indeed “hunting blacks down.” But the truth of the matter is that no one knows what the true number is and Satan will manipulate texts (and pictures and even perceptions) to convince people that everyone they disagree with is lying or has malevolent intent, thus stirring tensions up ever higher.

No one is safe. The only way to fight this is to stay calm and keep giving people the benefit of the doubt even when you don’t want to.

On the international scene, this warning goes out to Biden, Putin, and every other leader on the face of the globe (and even whatever aliens in space might be inclined to listen). This is the endgame. You start a war, it will be the last war we ever have and its ultimate end will be worse than a nuclear-pulverized dead and lifeless planet. Satan will win. God will lose (and be annihilated). And we will face a fate far worse than death and perhaps even worse than damnation. Imagine being so enraptured and enthralled by someone that they can murder and flay your best friend and your entire family in front of your very eyes, and you will still be enthralled by that person, unable to resist their will. That is the situation you will be in with Satan should he succeed. And as he is the universe, and God will be out of the picture, that will be the situation forever and ever. No one will have the power to dethrone Satan. Ever. This is not a joke. This is a warning. Warning seems like so insufficient of a word.

Yeah, I know. You don’t believe me. You think I’m insane. I kind of hope I am.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

UFO’s, the Illuminati, Jesus, Satan, and Conspiratorial Mayhem

UFO’s, the Illuminati, Jesus, Satan, and Conspiratorial Mayhem

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

No one is going to take this post seriously, but as I am constantly raving about being the antichrist, that’s really not a surprise. Anyway, first rule of being the antichrist: I am NOT omniscient. I could be wrong. I probably am. Not that anyone would believe me anyway….

Okay. UFO’s have been percolating through the news lately (lately being the last several years). Once upon a time, UFO’s were the crème-de-la-crème (probably spelled that wrong) of conspiracy theories. Let’s come back to that later.

The Illuminati Conspiracy on YouTube

A few years back, I was hopping about amongst various conspiracy theories on YouTube. I remember watching—more like listened to—a YouTube video about the Illuminati. I will try to relate the story to the best of my ability.

The narrator was a man (computerized voice) who we will just call “Tim.” Tim was at a camp at a lake and on the other side of the lake was a large group of men. Somehow, the group of men became aware of Tim and circled the lake to confront Tim. As they approached, Tim started hearing the voice of Jesus.

Jesus Against the Alien Gods

Jesus told Tim to not be afraid, to take off his shoes, and affirm his Christian faith if he were challenged by the men.

The men were not alone.

The men parted and a figure walked toward Tim. It was one of the ancient Egyptian gods—Horace or something—it had a humanoid body, but with the head of a hawk or something. It was also very large, over 10 feet tall, I think, and somewhat translucent like some kind of apparition.

Horace approached, surrounded by grinning men, convinced they had the upper hand. Horace said something like, “All these men have given me their souls. Will you do likewise?” to Tim.

Tim simply said, “No. I belong to Jesus.” Whereupon Horace disappeared. All the men started in surprise and Tim left unmolested.

Jesus and the Aliens

That’s the YouTube story. I also want to throw in that somewhere on the Internet I read that aliens were terrified when they heard Jesus’ name. Don’t know if that is true, but it struck me as strange at the time.

Satan and the Alien Gods

So, I have developed my theory on the Illuminati (the men in the video above—worshipers of Horace), aliens, alien gods (like Horace), UFO’s, and Jesus. Threaded throughout this theory is my other theory regarding Satan—which I won’t repeat here because I’ve discussed it elsewhere on this blog.

Satan is the universe, and, as a result, he has a habit of taking the form of any particular deity he likes (except Christ—because Christ defeated him, etc…). So, in the above video, Horace was either Satan (unbeknownst to the men) or an underling of Satan (a fact also likely unbeknownst to the men).

Jesus being the messiah and the only being in the universe to know the truth about Satan and to defeat him in their confrontation 2000 years ago, has been given sufficient power by God (the real one) to send Satan/Horace/Whatever-it-was away. He (Jesus) waited until the last possible moment because He wanted to give all those involved time to really decide what they were going to do before He intervened.

The Illuminati and the Aliens

Tim sided with Jesus. The Illuminati sided with Horace. Why? I think the Illuminati are convinced Horace is some kind of deity of some alien race because they have had contact with aliens. The aliens introduced their deities to the Illuminati at some point in time, and they, in the pursuit of power and influence, converted to the alien religion worshiping Horace.

Once the initial Illuminati starting worshiping Horace and the others, it kind of became a requirement for joining the club. I don’t know if they have any twisted blood-drinking rituals or anything else like that—don’t care much. Well, actually I do: I would condemn that, if they do.

So, the Illuminati are spread across the globe occupying the highest levels of every government on Earth (or, at least, the powerful ones—U.S., Russia, China, England, etc…). They worship alien deities and are in cahoots with alien races.

Us and the Aliens

They (the Illuminati) are setting the stage for alien contact by releasing UFO info to the public. This contact may or may not be a benevolent/positive event. The alien Powers that Be may have intentions towards our planet.

UFO’s are very interested in U.S. military installations. The U.S. seems to be on the brink of collapse thanks to the “idiocy” of the political class. Some people think the collapse is being deliberately arranged. By the Illuminati, maybe? With alien help?

Why?

I kind of think the aliens favor the Chinese model of government over the American. They are working to bring the American system down through the efforts of the Illuminati so they don’t have to get their hands dirty.

Conclusion

Jesus is probably concerned with how a person lives their life rather than the particulars of one’s political ideology. His beef is probably more with the alien “gods” rather than the aliens themselves. But I really don’t know.

And, since we’re spinning conspiracy theories here, the coronavirus and the vaccines are probably involved in this as well. If the government wanted to put something undetectable in the vaccines, we have the technology to do so, I am sure. If not them, I’m sure the aliens do.

Of course, all of this is largely guesswork. Like I said, I’m probably wrong. But if aliens come down and demand the allegiance of Earth to the Galactic Federation, or whatever it may be, I say we ask to just have trade relations for 1000 years and then revisit the question after we’ve had more time to assess their intentions. “We,” in this case, being the population of the planet, not our leaders.

Of course, remember that I accused Donald Trump of being Satan. I still kind of think he is, but I could be wrong. Like I said, I am NOT omniscient.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Regarding Black Lives Matter and The Left

Regarding Black Lives Matter and The Left

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

I wrote this piece several months ago and never got around to publishing it. Figured I should do so now. I don’t mention the latest incidents involving black men and police that got to the news but that’s because, like I said, I wrote it several months ago.

For the record, I do not think a government’s laws should differentiate between people on the basis of skin color. It’s not only immoral, it’s just stupid. That said, I think I have to take issue with the activist group Black Lives Matter. I am not a statistician, and my exposure to the stats on the matter is filtered through various conservative media outlets. From such, it is my understanding that the stats do not support the central tenet of BLM; namely, that police are shooting black men at a disproportionately higher rate than white men. According to the right, that is a false narrative perpetuated by the Left including Leftist media organizations. And that narrative, not only complicates an already difficult issue, it exacerbates whatever real problem is there to begin with. An individual who thinks the police are out to get him, will be less likely to behave “safely” during any encounter with the police. The individual will likely be more nervous, more distracted, more jumpy, and generally more likely to cause a serious incident to evolve out of a simple encounter. That is not good. And the media and the leftists who have been drilling this narrative that the U.S. police are out to “get” the black man are not helping. Because if you believe someone is out to get you, you will react to the person very differently than if you do not have that belief. The media and the Left are stirring a pot of raw emotion, and our country is threatening to burst at the seams.

Further, I would like to post a warning to BLM and the people who support it: Do NOT become the people you so desperately despise. Despite your protestations to the contrary, there is such a thing as reverse racism, or rather, the racism of some blacks against whites based on their skin color. Racism is not just a white thing. If you are forcing people to kneel because they are white, you are engaging in racist behavior. If you are destroying statues because you don’t like the people they depict, you are trying to erase history and all her lessons–and that helps no one. If you are forming raging mobs that take over parts of a city, or destroy businesses, that hurts everyone: the store owners lose revenue and will likely be forced to close, the economy suffers, and no one will ever want to invest in your section of town, ever … because it is just plain too risky.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Being Against Christianity Is So Cool

Being Against Christianity Is So Cool

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Once, many years ago, I was in a philosophy class in which the professor was talking about Christianity. It was so long ago, I’ve forgotten the point he was making. I just remember him concluding by saying something like, “And that is the modern challenge to the Christian today.”

Like I said, I don’t remember the point. I do, however, remember the emotional read I had of the professor. He came off to me a little like he was being all intellectual and cool because he was coming down against Christianity. Like he was in the in-crowd. And he was so cool.

I remember thinking that that was a negative against him, that siding against Christianity to be in the in-crowd was a sign of weakness. I suppose it could be worse. He could have been a member of the Church of Satan.

I mean, if you don’t want to be a Christian, fine. Just don’t make a big production of it in the name of “being cool” and belittle those who wish to remain members of the religion that helped shape and build Western Civilization over the last 2000 years.

I mean, really, it takes so much courage to hurl invectives and insults at members of a religion whose founder said, “Turn the other cheek.” Let’s get ’em!

So, the question is … how should the antichrist respond to invectives and insults hurled at him? Unfortunately, I waffle between Christianity and Platonism. One tells me to “Turn the other cheek,” and the other tells me to “Endure the ignominious slap in the face.” Maybe I’ll ignore them both and make use of my black belt one of these days. But I probably won’t.

Well, I thought I had more to say on this topic, but alas, I don’t. The Apocalypse will continue after these messages from our sponsors.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

The Problem with Environmental Regulations and Poverty

The Problem with Environmental Regulations and Poverty

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?

Generally speaking, I think the environment is a legitimate concern. However, I want to point something out to the Leftists that think the solution to all our environmental woes can be solved by regulations and mandates.

I have a friend who, like me, is on the lower end of the income scale. This past autumn, while he was driving his car around, one of the “idiot lights” came on—I think it was the “check engine” light.

He brought it in to get fixed. They “fixed” it. A week later, it came on again. He brought it back. And so on, back and forth several times. As it turned out, the cause of the problem was—now I’ve forgotten the specifics—an entirely environmental one. It was like the emissions from the gas pipe were a trifle too high, or something like that.

The cost to fix it would have been several thousand dollars. Enough that he might as well get a new (used) car.

The thing is, the car was still perfectly safe to drive. Minus a trivial environmental concern, there was nothing wrong with it. But, legally, it couldn’t be on the road.

And, personally, I think that’s stupid. Trying to force someone close to the poverty level to pay heaps of money to save a few parts per million of CO2 emissions or whatever it was, just seems blatantly unfair and unnecessary to me.

Let the friggin’ car on the road. As a means of transportation, it worked perfectly fine. If we’re going to have this horde of endless regulations, can we, at least, leave them at the factory door?

I mean, really. Why can’t we regulate personal vehicles a little more loosely than vehicles being produced in the factory. Like allow triple emissions, or something.

Just a thought.

Satan is a Liar. And Jesus Christ is the Lord. Repent and be saved. Yeah, I know you’ve heard it before. But have you ever heard it from the antichrist before?