Bets Against Biden – 480% Win

June 28, 2021 at 2:47 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

I was (am) confident in the defeat of Biden, but knew fraud issues would delay results, so I made my bets against Biden by betting against his expected cabinet picks by March 1st. This was a screenshot of just before bet settled on March 1st. Note the total gain/loss in green. I don’t know anyone else as successful in betting either for or against Biden.

The Q Truth Scale

May 20, 2021 at 9:44 am | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

This is currently incomplete. I need a few extra levels in the scale to get the proper scale. 🙂

1. There is no Q, just QAnon, which is racist, sexist,everything-phobic, and violent.

2. Q is a fake and joke with no predictions correct or connections to military intelligence.

3. Q is Austin Steinbart

4. Q is a fake and joke, but perhaps with prior MI experience.

5. Q is a scam created by foreign intelligence.

6. Q got some things correct in advance, but only like a broken clock.

7. Q had some inside intel, but the opposite of it’s claim. “Trust the plan” was a psyop so that Q believers would not resist a Marxist revolution and just assume Q would handle it.

8. Q had some White House intel, to get the Red Castle / Green Castle in advance, but still mostly a bluff.

9. Q is Ron Watkins / CodeMonkey

10. Q had some inside intel, but portrayed false confidence at a psyop level, and “We have everything” was just to scare corrupt politicians and build patriot confidence.

11. Q was well meaning military intelligence hoping to build a cultural movement that would lead to cultural change, but without the evidence and inevitability of success claimed.

12. Q was partial military intelligence, but people like Donald Trump and Mike Flynn played along later to build support.

…[add a few]

17. Q is a long-range plan by military intelligence, recruited Donald Trump to run for president, shares coded release of sometimes classified military intel and operations to deal with a globalist elite that used pedophile blackmail. Q brings populist attention to all of this and set a baited trap for their repeated use of fraud in elections. This will end with a mass arrest event with over 200,000 sealed indictments. Q has prepared the world to expect and understand it.

18. Q was directly inspired by God and will be the 28th book of the New Testament.

Common Property in Free Market Anarchism: A Missing Link

September 30, 2018 at 6:54 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment
[I can’t find the date that I originally published this article to the former website, but it was in the early 2000s.]

Free market anarchism has too often been described as “private property anarchism” where supposedly all property is privately owned. In some cases, that description is to imply no property is owned by a state. In this I agree with the implied meaning, but not the term private property anarchism. Two types of common property could exist in a free market anarchist society. The first is when individuals voluntarily and purposely form some group, party, marriage unit, or company where property is held in common. This is considered acceptable to those who use the term private property anarchism, and it could still be called a type of private property.

The second type is much more complicated. Could it be understood from a private property perspective? Possibly if one is open to the ideas of partial use leading to partial ownership. This is without any prior formal agreements incorporating a potentially imprecise owning group. It is simpler to call it stateless common property.

Attempting to understand this type of common ownership will go great lengths to finding a common ground to open-minded socialist anarchists. Perhaps it is best to begin with an example from Leo Tolstoy’s “The Kingdom of God is Within You.”

In Russia, at the end of the 19th Century, there was a village that owned a forest communally, and had so for generations. They had used it for hunting and it was a major source of food. The Czar had given this forest to a feudal lord who then outlawed hunting or trespassing on his now private property. When the villagers continued to hunt there as necessary to survive, the Lord had them beaten and flogged in public. At this point any free market anarchist should see the legitimacy of this common ownership over what some socialists would (improperly) call the private property of the Czar. Any form of ownership is illegitimate when created or thus tainted by the state.

An easy way to grasp the formation of legitimate common property is to think of the Crusoe economics of roads. Roads formed long before they could be thought of as owned private property. The fact that early roads needed little to no upkeep was an important factor, and is a common trait to most property that can be said to freely develop from unowned to common property of a group, tribe, village, etc.

An individual did not per se mix his labor with the earth to make many of these primitive roads for private property in the Lockean sense. Individuals qua individuals merely make a road by traveling to some other place. If a person travels once a month from a homestead to a lake twenty miles away on a dirt trail only identifiable as a beaten path, he would have no right to claim the whole path as his excludable private property on which no one may travel or perpendicularly cross.

However, although it would be ridiculous to claim exclusive property in a beaten path, it would be wrong for another person or group to create a homestead completely encircling our first homesteader and claim the first homesteader has no free right to travel as he previously did. Thus, there must exist a natural “right of passage.” This could be thought of as partial non-exclusive ownership of land. As others also have a similar partial non-exclusive ownership by use, it is then a common property.

Other cases of non-exclusive ownership share characteristics of common property. Though I may own my homestead, if I have no current or unabandoned prior use of a particular radio frequency (or am actively using their absence), then a radio broadcaster is free to generate them even if they pass through my home without compensating me. I would also have no right over censoring the content of the radio waves that pass through my house except by choosing to not tune into them. On the other hand, as microwaves would actively harm me and my property, there could be no right to pass microwaves through my property as I actively use my property to not be harmed.

It should then be seen that all property is also an ownership through, and limited by, degree of use. Private property is property that entails the right to forbid another’s presence. Common property entails the right to not have your presence forbidden for those in the common group. As with radio waves through a homestead, they can exist in the same location in different dimensions, so to speak.

Legitimate common property still has the problem identified by Aristotle as the Tragedy of the Commons. Primitive common property roads may sometimes find benefactors to pay the cost of their upkeep. When so, there is rarely a reason to assume altruistic reasons for this as large businesses may profit more individually from a well kept common road than their cost to maintain it. Nevertheless, it should be expected that private roads would be built where high maintenance costs are required like modern highways, etc. However, these would have no right to be built on top of the common roads and private and common would have to compete. If the demands of roads are expensive enough then the common roads would potentially become abandoned. If so, only then would they cease to be common property and become abandoned homesteadable property and if then made so others could be excluded from use or trespass.

Unanimous support of a community may allow a common property such as a road to be privatized. Yet to do so, it would likely require the private road to guarantee equal passage rights to all to prevent class and privilege rights that would not be a fear with common property roads. Some private roads, in order to compete, may give up the right of exclusion in order to allay fears of discrimination. In which case, a private road could not regain that right without unanimous consent of the community.

Common property can exist in a free market state of nature, ordered anarchy, etc. when: 1. The cost or knowledge for privatized ownership is, at least at the time, too great. 2. When scarcity is not a significant problem. 3. Pollution of the good is not yet a problem. 4. Any other Tragedy of the Common problems are not insurmountable. A watering hole or well used by a primitive village would be another case, as is the air supply before pollution problems.

With a river, the case could be thought of as private property rights in the class of flowing property. If a person is using a clean river area for fishing, others may homestead the river upstream, but they will not have the right to pollute or act as to harm the first user’s downstream fishing. But do individuals have identifiable, tradable shares of the air supply? Are they given at birth? So open atmospheric air is (at least in most cases) better thought of as common property. Polluters would be subject to class action torts of the community when harmed without agreed compensation.

So, common property and private property can coexist in the same anarchist society. However, return to Tolstoy’s village (A). Assume it had maintained its common ownership of the forest unhindered by any state. A new village B appeared beside it, and B’s common use of the forest would make scarcity a serious problem. Then A must prohibit or limit B’s use of the forest and the common-ness of the forest would only be for A. It would be both private property and common property in different respects.

There are other potential problems in the nature of non-state common property. Assume villager X decides to kill massive amounts of animals to sell and export food and skins outside the village, making scarcity a problem. In order for a common group to maintain its assets from abuse of its own members, it must have self-enforcing (with respect to the common group) social conventions to prevent abuse. It may make such abuses punishable and not just with ostracism, but with violence if necessary as well.
Villager X is acting to harm the common property of the village, and the rest of the village has the right to stop him. He would be taking more than a “common share.” (I recognize the imprecise nature of that term. It is outside the scope of this essay to address it.)

The only insight I have is that, just as in private property, the Principle of Equal Liberty, as described by Herbert Spencer should apply to common property. Perhaps property should be thought not as two categories of owned and unowned, but in three: unowned, non-excludable, and excludable.

Perhaps this essay will engage a more rigorous thinker than myself to complete the all-encompassing systems of Rothbard and Mises regarding this subject. This is one of very few areas to my knowledge of the nature and workings of a free society that our movement has not deconstructed and thoroughly analyzed.


This is not a bibliography, as this essay was thought out before reading the works below. However, in different respects, they grasp and use the idea presented here without fleshing it out. Perhaps it is no coincidence that they both recognize the critical rationalist methodology of Karl Popper in these books.

Anthony de Jasay’s Against Politics is addressed to the top academic audience and not directly to the libertarian/anarchist movement. He defends a deontological approach to ethics and politics, rejecting utilitarianism without relying on natural rights. This also addresses social conventions in ordered anarchy.

J.C. Lester’s Escape From Leviathan begins with a critical rationalist approach to building anarchism from equal liberty, but concludes that this encompasses more than just private property. This is without the waffling as done by Hayek and Nozick, but with some surprising conclusions.

The Nonsense of Unconditional Love

October 26, 2017 at 9:35 am | Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

There is a pop-culture concept of “falling in love” and it is used to escape focus on love and marriage as based on commitment. A similar pop-culture concept is “unconditional love”, and it is worth understanding too.

The famous author of “His Needs, Her Needs” Willard F. Harley Jr. likewise discusses from every Biblical angle and rejects the “unconditional love” idea.

I’ve looked to find the origin of the term and think I’ve found it. It was coined by socialist* humanist psychoanalyst Erich Fromm in 1934, and then published in his bestselling book “The Art of Loving” in 1956. In his work, unconditional love is what you get from a mother, and conditional love is what you get from a father.

* Note that I’m not mistakenly altering the term “secular humanist”. Fromm was a founding subset of humanist promoting a strict socialism. Further, humanist is a term for a type of atheist that is strictly opposed to the entire concept of faith, not just particular aspects of faiths.

Now, we all may know examples of the potential negative impact of that stereotype of unconditional love from a mother. I knew a thirty year old career criminal who had never held a job for more than a couple weeks because his mother wouldn’t let his father discipline him, no matter how often he returned home unrepentant and unapologetic intending only to steal more, till he finally died of drug use. Unconditional love could save him from short term discipline to bring about a young death due to unlearned self-discipline. But Fromm’s concept is still just no better of a concept than any other stereotype that maybe true 50% of the time. Plenty of mothers know the importance of love as discipline.

The New Testament expands upon the conditional and disciplinary nature of love by commenting on Proverbs 3:11-12 in Hebrews 12:6-11:

6 “For whom the Lord loves He chastens,
And scourges every son whom He receives.”

7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

I’ve wondered how the concept of unconditional love gets mistakenly applied to the Bible, or to any faith when its origin is in anti-faith, but I have a good guess. Fromm’s concept of motherly unconditional love is close to the pop-Catholicism concept of “Pray to Mary because she will forgive you for anything.” I call that pop-Catholicisim because even sincere Catholicism isn’t that bad and recognizes that praying for forgiveness without conditions like repentance isn’t any good.

From Catholicism, I assume the concept probably spread through interfaith organizations like the National Council of Churches and universities, where Protestant Christendom was influenced by psychoanalysis.

St. Augustine’s negative view of sex in marriage even negatively affected the Churches of Christ, and he is the common most influential person and link between Catholicism and all “official” Protestants. (i.e. Calvinist, Lutheran, Anglican, and their heirs). It is possible to see how unconditional love as a concept was easy to tie to Augustinianism.

In 418 AD, a Council of Carthage, under the influence of Augustine and Emperor Honorius declares Pelagius and related beliefs as intolerable heresy. The attack on Pelagius was because he defended even partial free will in man’s response to God. (You might see why Pelagius should instead be viewed as persecuted hero.) Augustine’s rejection of free will is consistent with his justification of violence and persecution of those with peaceful but different beliefs, like Augustine’s violent rampage against the Donatists. But Augustine demanded and promoted the central importance of belief in literal eternal damnation of all unbaptized infants creates the concept parallel to unconditional love, namely, unconditional damnation. These aren’t opposing beliefs, unconditional love and unconditional damnation are a matching pair that justify each other in Augustinianism.

So Augustine laid a foundation concept of unconditional love and unconditional damnation, so that when the term unconditional love was first created by an anti-faith atheist, the term was nevertheless quickly adopted into the Augustinian faiths.

Recently, I saw a post about a “FAIL” example, where a Pentecostal church sign said “God’s Love is unconditional as long as you are obeying Christ.” Then I saw two sides of comments. One group was of the Fromm influenced Protestants who were annoyed by the “extra condition” being added of obedience. Another group of comments pointed out the silliness of trying to salvage the term unconditional while admitting conditions are obvious, natural, and unavoidable in real love. Remember Romans 6:16- sin unto death, or obedience unto righteousness, 17: we obey from the heart that doctrine to which we committed. Or take John 3:16, where the condition is belief, etc. The Bible gives lots of conditions repeatedly, so trying to fit a psychoanalystic humanist term into Christianity will just cause confusion.unnamed

Next time you hear someone try to push “unconditional love” as Christian, challenge them on it, and let me know if they have any evidence that it predates Erich Fromm. If they do, let me know as I don’t want to say anything incorrect in calling him its founder.


How an Eye for an Eye Explains Jesus on Remarriage

August 22, 2017 at 11:57 am | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

One of the most misunderstood statements of Jesus is this. Matthew 5:38-39: “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, but I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.”

Occasionally you will hear people interpret “turn the other cheek” as a nullification of “an eye for an eye”. The gnostic (or semi-gnostic) position is that an eye for an eye is a cruel concept of a vengeful Hebrew God, that Jesus came to change.

However, this ignores that only a few verses prior, Jesus spelled out the hermeneutic or means to interpret his sermons and his life. In Matthew 5:17-18, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill. For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.” 2 Peter 3:10 would further clarify this refers to an end of the world at least as apocalyptic as a nuclear apocalypse where the whole earth is burned with fire.

There are multiple attempts to redefine this, but in context to his audience, the most central interpretation is that Jesus is not altering the law, he is giving additional insightful applications of the law that his disciples must follow.

An “eye for an eye” was neither vengeful, nor part of the application of revenge. The Pharisees of Jesus time already had the correct interpretation, and so he did not correct them on it. The Biblical concept of the lex talonis was understood not merely as a limit to stop vengeance, but as the value of an eye for the value of an eye. Therefore, monetary compensation for injury was already well accepted by the Pharisees. Instead of Jesus correcting them he lays a principle of an edge case.

When Jesus commands his followers to turn the other cheek, he is addressing something just beyond the edge of the eye for an eye principle and keeping them from extrapolating it too far and incorrectly. In an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth, those are cases of permanent physical injuries that will not grow back. A slap on the cheek, whether literal or metaphorical as a verbal insult does not cause permanent injury. Jesus commands his followers in this de minimis case not covered by an eye for an eye to err on tolerance and not attempt to demand compensation. Thus, Jesus fulfills and completes the law by explaining edge cases, not by replacing universal principles of restitutionary justice found in the Law.

Then within the same sermon, with the same explicit rule of interpretation already given note one of the most historically challenging to Christians, where Jesus takes the hard line on marriage against the School of Hillel and with the School of Shammai. But most confusing to many sincere Christians was Jesus statement, in Matthew 5:32, “whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.” As commonly understood by many Christians, this seems to be an actual change verses the Torah which specifically allowed most remarriage. So is this merely an edge case?

However, if we acknowledge Jesus’ prefatory rule of interpretation, then reread the relevant marriage, divorce and remarriage rules in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. In context of Jesus’ rule of interpretation, note that inappropriate remarriage becomes the biggest issue in Deuteronomy, with a particular case as the only one very specifically pointed out as a horrible abomination. This is the special case of remarriage to a former wife after she has become another man’s wife.

Given that as a central context of Jesus’ rules, and that Jesus isn’t changing the law, then a primary difficulty of understanding Jesus can be cleared up. Jesus is not referring to any conceivable “whoever” in Matt. 5:32, he is referring to the specific antecedent “whoever” in Deuteronomy 24:3-4. A man cannot remarry a wife whom he divorced after she had then married another man.

This also shows why Jesus is not just siding with Shammai, he is explaining why Shammai is right about divorce requiring a major (sexual) transgression to be justified. It is this: If divorce for a trivial reason was acceptable, then it would not be such a horrible abomination to remarry a wife after such a trivial transgression. Thus Hillel is proven wrong about trivial divorce because Hillel’s position cannot explain remarriage to the same wife as such an abomination if the justification of divorce were a trivial fault.

Christians who failed to acknowledge the hermeneutic of Jesus have fallen into two or three camps: Those who take a simple and straightforward but Torah-ignorant meaning here, to prohibit any remarriage like Catholics, or those who cite other passages in the New Testament to clarify a few additional cases of allowed remarriage, or finally those who give up and assume it as an intended ideal not always met.

Similarly, those without Jesus’ hermeneutic have misunderstood how far to extrapolate “turn the other cheek,” and so wrongly think they must refuse to pursue compensation for permanent injury contrary to the restitutionary justice of “an eye for an eye.” Neither error would exist for any well thought out exposition of Jesus’ stance on the Law of Moses.

The Christian Argument Against The Pledge Of Allegiance

February 13, 2017 at 9:56 pm | Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

As a Christian, one of the most important limitations for public school participation is for our children to refuse participation in the Pledge of Allegiance. I wrote this as a means for them to explain, or if too young, to give a written copy to their teachers to explain why they will not participate in the Pledge. If any other Christian children happen to attend public school, the paragraphs below maybe be openly reprinted and useful to start, not merely a dialog, but an observable recognition by those inside or outside of any religion that observant Christians do not say the Pledge.

Observant Christians do not participate in idolatry, but in the case of the Pledge of Allegiance, people who call themselves Christian, but participate in the Pledge, try to claim that such action is not idolatry. This is written to explain why those who participate are in ignorance and error, and why those who are observant participants in the Christian religion do not participate in the Pledge ritual.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written by Francis Bellamy in 1892. The ideas of it represent the movement he shared with his cousin, also a famous author of the socialist novel Looking Backwards, Edward Bellamy. The two of them were leaders of a movement in the United States called the nationalist movement, they also called it Christian socialism, industrial socialism, military socialism and organized into groups called Bellamy Clubs or Nationalist clubs. Their periodical was called Nationalism, and was one of the most influential in the nation and internationally at the turn of the century. As they represented nationalism and socialism, but presented a counterpoint to the international socialism of Karl Marx, their movement became the origin and foundation of the national socialism movement in the US and then many nations. The Bellamy’s created their pledge with a straight arm salute to the flag, one that is more recognized today due to association with the German national socialists. However, Germans only adopted it after the Bellamy’s created the straight armed national socialism salute to the US flag and spread it to other countries.

Some deceptive historians will directly associate the German straight arm salute as a supposed reference to an ancient Roman straight arm salute without acknowledging the Bellamy’s American national socialism movement as the direct and most immediate source in an attempt to obfuscate the direct ideological connection of German national socialism to the American Pledge of Allegiance. In 1942, the US Congress changed to straight arm salute to the flag to a hand over heart to obscure this history. The Bellamy’s likely adopted the straight arm salute to the flag based on a supposed Roman practice, but there is little doubt the Germans adopted it from the Bellamy’s national socialism, and not directly from ancient Romans.

Further, the Bellamy national socialism movement combined with other patriotic American movements including the equally Lincoln worshiping Birth of a Nation perspective on racism and the American Theosophy movement which included mysticism, Aryanism, and the swastika, all combined and accompanied American central planning progressive movement industrialism, and President Wilson’s social Darwinist eugenics as a package, imported into Germany both before and especially after World War I.

But the reason Christians refuse to say the pledge is not merely because those who say it are fairly termed, in the modern abbreviation, nazis, deserved of every negative connotation implied upon them and their philosophy, but because they are also idolators.

Idols are, in the Christian and Jewish Bible, primarily, if not exclusively, symbols of governments. The US Code Title 36, Chapter 10, paragraph 176(j) states, “The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing.” Therefore, the flag is an idol not just by common practice and tradition, but explicitly by law, and those who pledge to it are explicitly idolators. It has further been so, at the least, since the earlier of either the Bellamy pledge idolatry, or the US Flag Code, whichever was adopted first, or a common informal idolatry which likely proceeded the official, formal, and explicitly legal idolatry. Such is the historic nature of nation-states, always presenting patriotism/idolatry as a primary temptation to the people of God in the Bible as a means to reject their faith.

Even assuming the Pledge did not take the form of legally explicit idolatry, or represent the founding of national socialism, its actual content, of stating that a symbol of cloth, or a pagan Roman system called a republic, provides liberty or justice for all, is to obfuscate what it does not do with what it should at best allow by not stopping others from providing..To make such a deceptive obfuscation into an oath, expected of those below the age of accountability, should be rejected beyond the need for further erudition for those willing to study history, ethics, or religion.

2019 Addendum: One reason Christians refuse to give up nationalist idolatry is because they correctly see an even greater evil in internationalism. Internationalism is one of the central thematic opponents in the Bible as Babel/Babylon (the two are the same Hebrew word) from Genesis 10 to Revelation 19. Certainly beware those who oppose nationalism because they are stealth proponents of the even worse internationalist power centralization. But supporting the independence of nations from internationalist takeover does not require idolatrous defense of any nation.

Polygamy in Nature and Religion

January 16, 2017 at 3:58 pm | Posted in Religion | 1 Comment

If you look at the animal kingdom, there is an observable pattern to recognize some animals are polygynous, the male having multiple mates, and some that are polyandrous, the female has multiple mates. Note the general pattern: When the female is larger like in bees, ants, and humpback whales, then the female has multiple mates. When the male is larger, as in chickens, lions, and lionfish, males mate with multiple females.

If you create a monogamous pairing of chickens with only one rooster and one hen, then the rooster will mount the hen too frequently, causing stress to the hen, often creating a bald spot of plucked back feathers, and it will reduce her egg production. For chickens, the rooster to hen ratio is generally best at one to five or one to ten. With human males being about 15% larger than human females, you would biologically expect humans to be slightly polygamous, and when monogamous, for females to be stressed with too much sex, or males to be frustrated with too little.

Many people see Christianity as the primary source of strict monogamy in world history. However, this is due to a lack of knowledge of history, and a lack of defense of polygamy, as a taboo too dangerous to consider.

It was the Greek utopian reformer Solon who instituted strict marital monogamy in Greek culture in 600 B.C., the first prohibition of polygamy in world history. Economists like David D. Friedman, (Price Theory, Ch. 21) can show mathematically that polygamy by itself benefits females, assuming voluntary marriages to benefit from increased choice. But there is no evidence that Solon created strict monogamy to reduce women’s choices, instead it was for the opposite side, to reduce competition among men. In order to facilitate the change, several cultural conditions were created or solidified, such as state sponsored prostitution, support for homosexuality, belief that marriage was only for procreation, as well as a cultural belief that romantic love was only between men.

By the time of Christ, pagan Greek culture had practiced centuries of strict marital monogamy, as well as did the pagan Roman culture they influenced. The first six Roman emperors had 25 wives between them, but all by serial monogamy of divorcing one to marry the next. So even the Roman emperors were bound by the power of their pagan cultural taboos. Even Napoleon divorced his wife Josephine and married another, despite continued mutual affection, only because she could not bare him a child. The Solonic taboo continued from pagan Greece, to pagan Rome, to Catholic Rome, to atheist France, where even leaders dared not break it.

So what of Jews under the rule of Greeks and then Romans? I’ll let George Joyce provide the answer in his “Christian Marriage: An Historical and Doctrinal Study”  (1933):

“When the Christian Church came into being, polygamy was still practiced by the Jews. It is true that we find no references to it in the New Testament; and from this some have inferred that it must have fallen into disuse, and that at the time of our Lord the Jewish people had become monogamous. But the conclusion appears to be unwarranted. Josephus in two places speaks of polygamy as a recognized institution: and Justin Martyr makes it a matter of reproach to Trypho that the Jewish teachers permitted a man to have several wives. Indeed when in 212 A.D. the lex Antoniana de civitate gave the rights of Roman Citizenship to great numbers of Jews, it was found necessary to tolerate polygamy among them, even when though it was against Roman law for a citizen to have more than one wife. In 285 A.D. a constitution of Diocletian and Maximian interdicted polygamy to all subjects of the empire without exception. But with the Jews, at least, the enactment failed of its effect; and in 393 A.D. a special law was issued by Theodosius to compel the Jews to relinquish this national custom. Even so they were not induced to conform.”

Here we see the interesting case that pagan Rome restricted and persecuted polygamy and the Jews for practicing it, including Diocletian, an equally infamous persecutor of Christians. And then this pattern even continued with the Christian emperor Theodosius. After this period, Christian Roman Emperors would continue the pagan Roman pattern of increasing the punishment for polygamy so that Emperor Justinian outlawed polygamy to the degree that only a few of the wealthiest Jews were able to avoid coerced divorce and keep their wives by paying a fine of ten pounds of gold in 535 A.D. By the ninth century, polygamy brought the death penalty. In order to end over eight centuries of persecution, Judaism in Europe under Rabbi Gershom decided to self-monitor among European Judaism and prohibit it among their own in the 11th Century.

[Note that Sephardic Jews, those who were not under the governments influenced by pagan Greco-Roman taboos never gave up polygamy and still practice polygamy to this day.]

This is similar to what happened to Mormons in America. The persecution of them became so great they would become the first religion to claim to receive a message from God suspending polygamy. They likewise began rigorous self-policing and persecution of their own fundamentalist sub-sects who refused to give up polygamy and divorce their wives.

But this does not address the New Testament for Christians, and how Christians came to generally oppose polygamy. Many centrally influential Christian writers admitted that the New Testament did not prohibit polygamy, including Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin Luther, who wrote:

“I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.” De Wette II, 459, ibid., pp. 329–330.

But still others made and still make a claim that it is prohibited by a few different Biblical arguments. First is a claim already disproven by the history above, that polygamy was already not practiced by Jews of the first century, and so didn’t require specific opposition. Next is an argument based on the parallels in Paul’s phrase, “Let each man have his own wife and each woman her own husband.” However, the English of this phrase hides a detail from the Greek that proves and defends polygamy was assumed and allowed.The phrase uses two different words for “own”: heautou and idios. The difference is to clarify that a husband has a wife exclusively that he cannot share. The wife has a husband using a collective “own”, such as in the phrase “Every one return to his own city”. (Luke 2:3)  In this case, a man does not exclusively own the city in opposition to other citizens as co-owners, just as a wife’s ownership of her husband does not prohibit other wives co-owning him as husband.

The argument that Adam had only one wife, as if prohibitive of polygamy, was not a true in Biblical times, or Biblical examples, or Biblical interpretation, and so to try to reinterpret it so now requires intellectual dishonesty. At the least, intellectual negligent ignorance, but the more intelligent the person is, the more dishonest the argument becomes. Further, this type of “judicial activist” reinterpretation is what put Germany on the course of theological liberalism, allowed them to argue that Jesus was an Aryan, and all the Nazi evils that naturally followed from the theologically liberal authority to change hermeneutical methods of interpretation.

The final argument is the phrase used for a qualification for elders, “husband of one wife” in most English translations. However, the Greek is mias gunaikos andra. The word mias can mean either “one” or “first”. Context should decide, but in church history, a cultural bias colored the interpretation from the beginning. Gentile converts to Christianity, coming from Greco-Roman opposition to polygamy would assume it mean “one”. But Jewish converts to Christianity would assume this is requiring a man who would keep and not divorce his first wife. Indeed, even though John Calvin opposed polygamy, he acknowledged that the early Jewish Christians continued in polygamy.

Consider Abimelech. “When God reproved Abimelech, king of Gerar, for his intended adultery with, Sarah, wife of Abraham, he did, at the time, approve of his polygamy; for Abimelech said, “In the integrity of my heart and innocency of my hands have I done this.” “Said he not unto me, She is my sister? and she, even she herself, said, He is my brother.” And God said, “I know that thou didst this in the integrity of thy heart:” “now, therefore, restore the man his wife.” “And God healed Abimelech and his wife and his maid-servants.” God could allow him to live in open polygamy, without reproof, and “in the integrity of his heart,” but could not allow him to commit adultery, even ignorantly.” (The History And Philosophy of Marriage; James Campbell, 1869).

Whether one accepts the Jewish or pagan Greek method of interpretation of mias gunaikos andra depends on if one contemplates Jesus statement, “Until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law.” In other words, the Old Testament’s concepts and definitions of marriage are used with Jesus correcting misinterpretation. Jesus is not creating replacement definitions.. In contrast to this is the gnostic approach which tries to argue that the Law was evil and materialistic, as was God in the Old Testament, and Jesus was trying to oppose the Old Testament God. In this, official Gentile Christianity orthodoxy, at least through Imperial decrees and laws, chose, perhaps partly by accident, partly by excessive anti-Jewish bias, to follow the gnostic approach to argue against polygamy, even if it was generally critical of gnosticism.

Another issue is an attempt to reinterpret Old Testament texts claiming support for monogamy, such as Adam having only one wife, or Abraham’s second wife causing conflict. But yet, if these did not imply a strict monogamy then, then they can’t be correctly interpreted later to do so. Take the example of Abraham, the example of faith, lived with at least a third wife and unnamed concubines without any implied wrongness.

Further, God used a metaphor of Himself as a polygamist with two wives in Ezekiel 23. To claim that God would use the example of something unethical as an attribute of Himself is dangerously close to blasphemy.

Christians have also had a hidden bias in Bible translations that identify the Parable of Ten Virgins as “Ten Bridesmaids” in Matthew 25. However, nowhere in Scripture or Biblical culture would women who attend a marriage be identified specifically as virgins unless to point out their purity to be a bride. There is no justification whatsoever to interpret as “bridesmaids”. To do so further damages the lesson Jesus taught and the intentional parallel to Ezekiel 23. Just as YHWH had married both sisters, the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, so Jesus offers to marry the 10 lost tribes of Israel, who are scattered into and among the whole world. That message and parallel is lost to those with the “bridesmaid” wool over their eyes.

Given that I argue for the legitimacy of polygamy, the question arises, how do you stop the abuse of it? The New Testament did not have to provide an answer as the Old Testament, along with the Jewish understanding of marriage was sufficient. In Exodus 21:10 a man cannot take an additional wife unless he can do so without diminishing his financial support of his existing wife, or her sexual needs. Even a very wealthy man can only satiate a limited number of women unless they all enter the marriage with low sex needs. Further, a wife with sexual desire greater than her husband effectively prohibits him from ever taking a second wife. This limitation makes each additional wife beyond one gets exponentially more difficult. This in effect provides a give and take balancing that reduces the problem of the excessively mounted and stressed hen, or the under-satiated rooster.

LibreOffice vs. OpenOffice Part 2: All Bugs Are Shallow When Blogged to a Linux News Feed

October 10, 2012 at 9:10 am | Posted in Operating Systems, Technology | 4 Comments

In my prior blog post, my intended lessons for OpenOffice vs. LibreOffice were  1. Try both. 2. Use both. 3. Use what works best for particular cases. 4. Where there is no problems with either, prefer LibreOffice for its community support.  5. I had a specific important case for my usage where I had to use OpenOffice. Now it appears my options will expand in a month.

The comments represented the general community preference for LibreOffice.  Not only that, they were enough for Michael Meeks, a well-known open source developer to comment, find the outstanding bug report for it, which was miscategorized but had already been fixed in the 3.7 branch, and backport it to next month’s 3.6.3 LibreOffice release.  Thanks LibreOffice team, community, and Mr. Meeks!

So now, the opposite of the last post,  I am blogging a longstanding OpenOffice bug that is fixed and “just works” in LibreOffice.  So will the OpenOffice community respond as quickly to fix the problem as the LibreOffice community did to my last blog post?

When I go to “print preview” in Apache OpenOffice Calc 3.4.1, (and all older releases I recall) and then hit the print button from there, it defaults to printing every single worksheet instead of just the active one, even though I carefully selected the print range on the active worksheet to print a precise area and only one sheet.  In my case, OpenOffice prints 22 pages instead of just one.  There is a workaround, that as long as I close out of print preview first before hitting the print button, OpenOffice will print only my selected worksheet.

LibreOffice inherited this long standing OpenOffice bug (I would dread this waste of paper and ink being called a feature.) However, LibreOffice fixed it, I think around their 3.5.0 cycle.

So a final tangent about being for below average in technical skills relative to the Linux community.  Everyone recommends bug reporting, and I occasionally do that.  However, I have had little success in my six years of using Linux in bug reporting.  If there is a proper existing bug report already out there, I have little to add. Certainly not any programming skills to fix it.  If I’m creating a new one, assuming it does not get marked as a duplicate by my failure to find the existing one, I usually don’t have enough precise details to aid in a solution or convince anyone it is important.  I also say this without a solution.  Maybe I need a class on bug reporting for dummies.  Getting bugs fixed by getting a blog linked on a Linux news feed (Thanks!) is surely cheating.

Maybe if this blog post is especially lucky in drawing the right readers, someone will have an idea on fixing this 3 year old Wine bug on 15 year old software.  I can at least say that I reported a bug that has stayed outstanding that long without being either fixed or closed for other reasons.  That almost counts as an accomplishment, right?

Last thought: The particular usage of LibreOffice and OpenOffice on .xlsx files was not just because of desire to use open source, but because Excel 2003 to Excel 2010 have a bug that does not let me hide the full 130 columns I need hidden.  Notice, despite the helpful comments for LibreOffice and OpenOffice, no one had advice on making Excel work.  That, I believe, would truly be a lost cause in attempting to report a bug to Microsoft.

LibreOffice vs. OpenOffice, Not Always Simple

October 1, 2012 at 4:02 pm | Posted in Operating Systems, Technology | 43 Comments

[Final Update: This post got a lot of notice, but I also had a follow up post that received less notice here that should be read for full perspective before commenting on this one now.]

If you are like me, you prefer LibreOffice over (Apache) OpenOffice because (1) It has a better open source license. (2) It has more community support. (3) It is more rapidly developing and releasing updates.

But at the same time, when I try to use them in a hard-core power user work environment, ideals go out the window and I use what works to keep my job.  My employer briefly flirted with OpenOffice around 2005, and supposedly it was really bad experiment, but I wasn’t there at the time.  So sadly, no one here contemplates a change from MS Office.  Take an example spreadsheet I use. It is very complex to the point it would be better off in a database, but that’s beyond the scope of this post.

The surprising part is that MS Excel fails my needs even with working with its own .xlsx spreadsheet format. I need to hide 130 columns and Excel 2010 warns me “Cannot shift objects off sheet.”  Prior Excel versions had the same problem.  I’ve spent some effort looking for a solution, but the only thing I found to work is opening in an open source office suite.

MS Excel 2010:

I can open up this Excel document in either OpenOffice 3.4.1 or LibreOffice 3.6.1, and both are able to successfully hide the large number of columns I need hidden where Excel fails itself.  However, LibreOffice has a bug that has persisted for many months, whereas OpenOffice just works.  LibreOffice is making all comments visible by default.  The only solution I’ve found in LibreOffice discussions is to manually close each one.  In this case, that is an insane waste of time, as there are hundreds of comments showing, poking through the hidden columns.

LibreOffice 3.6.1:

Apache OpenOffice 3.4.1:

So in this case, the solution is to use OpenOffice.  I’d rather point to a LibreOffice victory, but the open source community has to acknowledge failures for them to be fixed.  And the bright side is that Apache OpenOffice is both still open source, and still free.  There is nothing stopping people from using both office suites when necessary to see which better renders specific documents.

Update:  Here is discussion where LibreOffice users have known and tried work-arounds for the past six months.  I think that OpenOffice might have had a greater focus on MS Office document compatibility, while LibreOffice has focused on advancing features.  I’m afraid my employer needs are squared directly over MS Excel compatibility vs. new features.

The Bush Dynasty As Link Between Kennedy Assassination And Watergate

June 20, 2012 at 7:55 am | Posted in History, Political theory | Leave a comment

This article by Russ Baker goes into great detail to show how the Bush family brought Nixon into politics in 1946, and controlled his every advance. But the remaining mystery of Watergate was that there was a mole in Nixon’s Whitehouse that had to know exactly where to look through 3700 hours of tapes to find the incriminating evidence.

I don’t know precisely who, but we can be sure it was someone under the Bush family control of the CIA. So the Bushes made Watergate public for Nixon failing to give G.W. Bush Sr. the VP position, and because Nixon had secretly backed some Texas Democrats against Bush Republicans.

I can answer one question Russ Baker raises as to the motives of the Bush family supporting Goldwater in 1964 against Rockefeller. (Remember that Bush was more liberal than most Democrats, such that even John Kenneth Galbraith backed Bush instead of Democrat Lloyd Bentsen for Senate in 1970.) Bush backed Goldwater in the 1964 Republican primary as a favor to his Kennedy assassination cohort LBJ. The alternative justification of Bush opposing Rockefeller because of Rockefeller’s divorce and remarriage is laughable ignorance of the Bush family using religion only as a politically exploitable tool.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at
Entries and comments feeds.