Inspiration & Empowerment

We are all born to be royals in the eyes of our Creator, regardless of our gender or ancestry or anything else save our willingness to accept the crown of our God-given spiritual sovereignty. All of us, men and women of every kindred, tongue, tribe, or ancestry, are ordained by God to receive such a crown if we choose it!

You own and have the ability within you to activate and experience your spiritual sovereignty as a human being created in the image of God. While many forces, including man, nature, and hell itself, may array against you, if you know who you are and whose you are, these forces cannot overcome you.

This short essay stands on the assumption that the God of historic Christianity and the Bible as we have received it is in fact real, present, and is in charge in the universe, including on this earth and in our lives. If this is not something you are convinced of, at the very least this essay will explain a bit about the true and deepest sublime wisdom of what this means for our daily lives if we accept this as true.

What is freedom within God’s Creation and especially within His Kingdim, which is the realm of all that is subordinated to His rule and every sentient being who willingly submits thereto? Freedom in this context of meaning and practice is the peaceful, uninterrupted actualizing of both all that is best for our lives and all that is purposed for our lives which comes from our Creator.

While freewill means we are in practice ABLE to defy the laws and plans of our Creator, to use our freewill in this way is a form of bondage we inflict upon ourselves. In a legal sense, we do not say the state or a magisterial authority of some kind can compel us by force to walk in the freedom of Christ.

In a legal sense we may speak of freedom as the untrammeled exercising of our freewill within the limits of respecting the freewill and well-being of others, of society, and our societal and personal commitments which we enter into. But this is a shallow freedom compared to the real freedom of actualizing and experiencing God’s best for our lives and fulfilling God’s scroll of purpose and destiny for our lives.

We may say freedom is the unhindered ability to live at peace, meet our own needs, preserve ourselves, form our own freewill participatory associations, express ourselves individually and corporately, and enjoy the fruits of our labor and investments all in service to actualizing God’s best for our lives and fulfilling our God-given scroll of destiny and purpose IF WE SO DESIRE.

The basis of this freedom is our inherent spiritual sovereignty if we become citizens of God’s Kingdom by our own volition and without coercion. As the Bible says we are “joint heirs” with Christ and members of a “nation of kings and priests”, we realize our spiritual sovereignty makes us unique among all of creation. No creature, not even the angels, has been given such a heady gift.

Jesus Christ alone is King, He is the highest and true sovereign, the Son of God who is coequal in the godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. But He has, through His sacrifice and by the power of His Resurrection, made us joint heirs and decreed us to be kings and priests of God.

In relation to God and Christ we are created beings and servants made of dust, to which our earthly bodies will return. But in relation to the Creation itself, not to God but to all He has Created, we stand tall as Regents of God to the rest of the Universe.

A regent is someone who is not the king themselves but who has all the respect and authority of the king in his absence or in the years of his minority. But within Creation, our regency in Christ is permanent and will exist even when we are physically present with our King who never takes back our spiritual sovereignty which He has endured so much to give us.

The reason why it is so dangerous for humans to wilfully interfere with our spiritual sovereignty as regents of God, through Christ our King, is because when you interfere with a regent of the king you defy the king himself!

It is no small matter that within our coutry, the USA, there are those whose respect for the spiritual sovereignty of others is lacking. It is no small matter even that they defy and disrespect the basic level of freedom, freedom to exercise our freewill and volition, which is also necessary to fully live out our spiritual sovereignty if we choose to do so. To block anyone, by disrespecting their basic temporal freedom, from actualizing their spiritual sovereignty is a gross affront to God.

Spiritual sovereignty cannot be imposed. One either chooses to walk in it through the paths ordained by the Creator or one doesn’t, but respect for the basic human freedoms that enable us to freely choose this must be respected by all.

You can choose spiritual sovereignty through repentance for your sins, faith in Jesus Christ, and acceptance of His reign over your life. Nobody can either choose this for you through coercing you into accepting it or stand in your way through violating your most basic freedom of frewill and volition. Those who have attempted either to impose the ways of God by coercion or to prevent others from knowing and following the ways of God have made themselves enemies of God.

Our commitment to a free and pluralistic society within the broader scope of humanity and the temporal, linear world does not mean we either accept or wish to associate with beliefs and practices that contradict our spiritual sovereignty. We are for our way of life as regents of Christ, with all the sociocultural and moral as well as other standards of righteousness and justice that entails. We are not against, nor do we show intolerance or bigotry toward, any other ways people may choose or feel they were born to choose and follow in their life, within the broaden standards of our temporal and earthly freedom.

We have to recognize, however, that for some people, who reject the very notions of spiritual sovereignty or earthly and temporal freedom, our unwillingness to embrace their ways and our willingness to state our own ways as being best cannot be forgiven or allowed. The fact we are committed to tolerance and to accept people on the basis of our humanity, even if they do not choose to walk in spiritual sovereignty as regents of Christ, will gain us no points or credit.

The fact we demonstrate and are committed to such freedom and to tolerance and acceptance stems from a deep commitment to God’s standards of righteousness and justice. It is not something we do for, nor do we expect to earn, the approval of others. Our acceptance of human beings as our equals in value who are loved by God and who, therefore, we should love also, is part of our desire and commitment to experience God’s best for our lives and to fulfill God’s scroll of destiny and purpose for our lives.

We neither have any interest in coercing others to walk in the spiritual sovereignty we choose nor in allowing anyone, as much as lies within our legal and peaceful means, to interfere with our walking in our our spiritual sovereignty as regents of Christ.

What the worldlings may see as limits, such as our more narrow definition and practice of marriage and our commitment to God’s standards of righteousness and justice, we see as guidelines for total freedom. These so-called limits are markers for a path of fulfillment, purpose, and happiness that no other path of any kind can offer.

To be free for us is to know and follow these standards and to seek to fulfill God’s scroll of destiny and purpose for our lives so that we can experience His best for our lives. If your version of freedom implies the removal of moral and ethical limits for the convenience of your more immediate and shallow pleasure, then so be it: it is not for us to dictate what freedom is to you, the universe and its laws alone will school you over time.

When the worldlings decide to interfere with the spiritual sovereignty of a regent of Christ, however, they go beyond the just limits of their own frewill volition and make themselves enemies of the King, of Jesus Christ Himself. Jesus does not make them His enemies, they wage war on His Sovereignty by interference with the spiritual sovereignty of His regents.

Dictating what we can say or do or who we can associate and how we should live and use our wealth are all the kinds of things that it is unust to do. If your ideology about things such as marriage, family, sexuality, and gender is so fragile it cannot take our refusal to accept it and our vocal opposition to it, then it must lack a foundation of truth.

What we accept as spiritually sovereign beings created in the image of God is the person and humanity of all fellow human beings, regardless of things they choose that we would not choose. Our need to control their choices or things they feel they were born to be and do is simply non-existent.

So we emphasize love in tolerating and accepting others on the basis of our shared human dignity and human rights and out of our shared desire to promote human flourishing. We do this even as there are those who are so insecure in their ideology that they cannot abide even our criticism much less our active refusal to adopt their ways or to accept and follow their preachments about what is or should be acceptable conduct.

For the protection of our spiritual sovereignty and all that flows therefrom we rely on our firm conviction that God Himself will defend Himself and His honor from those who, in seeking to undermine His regents, set themselves against His Kingdom. It is one thing for you to refuse the free gift of this spiritual sovereignty, it is another for you to condemn and interfere with others in their peaceful exercise of this spiritual sovereignty.

Those who open their mouths to condemn or otherwise abuse regents of Christ for walking in their spiritual sovereignty and for following God’s standards of righteousness and justice are opening their mouths against God. If we say out loud, “these are the ways of God” and you disagree but do not interfere with our rights or ability to so speak in any way, then all is well. But if you seek to interfere with our right and ability to defy your ideas openly, then you do so against God Himself.

When we walk in spiritual sovereignty, we walk as regents of Christ. Like Christ, we offer the path of truth and redemption, we do not coerce others to follow this path, though refusal to enter into the path of life leads to a path of separation from God.

Spiritual sovereignty is superior to all other forms of sovereignty and is the root of all other sovereignty. When we exercise it in our lives, relationships, and freewill participatory associations, we gain the protection of God from whom it flows. It is something we can choose and no power on this earth or in hell can defy it for too long with severe consequences.

While there are many practical, material ways we can exercise our earthly and temporal freedom as human beings, when we walk in our spiritual sovereignty as regents of Christ we have a freedom nothing in heaven, on the earth, or in hell can deny or take away.

You do not have to become a regent of Christ, as a witness and influence for Jesus to the nations. But you do not have any authority from God to interfere with our right to walk in this regency and if you deign to try to do such a thing, you array yourself against the Armies of Heaven.

Willem IV- Our hope and our agenda is to transcend the exploitation and freedom-taking ways of the ruling class and those entities which control our sociocultural, economic, and political environment today, much to our loss and their selfish gain.

The answer is unexpected! The answer is to use the power of organic cohesiveness to intentionally create clustered housing and/or to use the principles of a clustered living lifestyle. We propose a lifestyle rooted in a shared mutual-benefit material culture and Judeo-Christian values in freewill participation with others.

Here are some of the main entities we believe are causing most of the exploitation, if you are coming from the freedomist center-left perspective, and who are greatest threat to freedom, if you are coming from the freedomist center-right perspective: PayPal, Amazon, Facebook, Twitter, Google, Microsoft, John Deere, Ford, Chevy, Chrysler, Tyson, Visa, Master Card, Wal Mart, The GOP, the DNC, Walt Disney, Comcast, Verizon, AT&T, Fedex, UPS, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, IBM, Apple, Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Netflix.

We estimate that these 30 entities control more than 50% of most people’s daily social and economic life as well as almost 70% of their political or civic lives. If all of them deplatform you, then every other entity would follow, effectively condemning you to an internal banishment the likes of which has never been possible in human history. If we grow our list to the most powerful 100 entities we find that the average person is virtually a prey to whatever pressures they bring to bear.

Transcending them means we gain sociocultural and economic independence and our own civic/political clout through an approach that includes both individual and local scale unilateral action and massive scale collaboration and cooperation. We envision a reality FOR OURSELVES wherein our lives, including our sociocultural and economic environment, will reflect our beliefs, values, and convictions alone and not be subjected to the influence or control of these entities.

It is our sacred right of self-determination in freewill participation with others to pursue such a course of deliberate self-preservation from forces and entities that are violating our human rights, human dignity, and human flourishing. We owe no explanations and do not need to ask permission. Our approach is not for everyone but if we choose to define marriage, family, and community according to ancient traditions and values, we take nobody else’s right to do otherwise away from them!

(In other words, if you don’t like our concept of marriage, family, extended family, and communities of trust, then don’t become part of one of our clustered living communities. Nobody is forcing you to be part of such an extended familial community!)

Our true aim is transcendence of their structures and systems of control over our lives and circumstances and the development of our own relationships, associations, communities, structures, and institutions which reflect, as opposed to attacking, our values and lifestyle.

Before we can begin transcending their systems we must understand their nature and extent and just how dramatic and extensive our response will need to be. We must realize that our very lifestyle of libertine atomization coupled with collective dependency must fundamentally and unilaterally change in a very big way.

Our society has been collectivized by a monopoly of wealth and power ruled by a class of people whose vision for the future is positively hostile to any Judeo-Christian understanding of a good and just society and to human roghts, human dignity, and human flourishing in general for everyone.

To reiterate and make it clear: it is our position that unless and until you make a dramatic change in lifestyle from libertine atomization within a collective dependency, regardless of what you think your ideology or party leaning is, you will never, ever break free from these entities unless you personally become quite wealthy.

Moreover, we propose the basic tenets of historic Christian and Jewish moral and ethical orthodoxy are the path to a better future because they not only have worked before but are eminently suited to the needs of the 21st century. We desperately need a path of transcendence from the controlling entities which are threatened to destroy every semblance of human rights, human dignity, and human flourishing.

A good and just society, we believe, is most assured when most all children are raised by their biological or adopted mother and father within a living home and who are united in lifelong monogamous love. Our vision, unlike that of our opponents and that which ALL THESE ENTITIES PROMOTE, is to follow and build our own sociocultural and economic norms in a freewill participatory association instead of trying to coerce or bully people into this way of life.

The ideal home is connected in some form of freewill participatory and/or familial bond with a few dozen or so other homes. This home can meet its needs on a single salary or two part-time salaries or through a small business. This home is either singularly or within a smaller cluster of 5-10 other homes in a housing development, at least 70% self-sustaining for basic food needs and 100% for energy and shelter needs. This home has light impact on land and pays little or no property taxes dorec, thus ensuring its owners (husband and wife) can survive with little cash if need be.

To acheive this requires a high degree of organic cohesiveness, which means shared beliefs, values, and convictions which translate to a lifestyle and material culture that allows for maximum collaboration and mutual self-reliance without the need for top-down hierarchical systems of control. When the starting point is a Jewish and/or Christian worldview and sociocultural framework, you have the ability to connect on a mutual benefit basis with people of like affection. You also have access to ideals and principles which are both proven since ancient days and useful for now and the future.

Indeed, when one considers the sociocultural application and practice of the Judeo-Christian belief system, it should be clear that a clustered living lifestyle is in fact essential to the Christian and ancient Hebrew faith.

Clustered living as if in an extended familial unit, small tribal clan, or self-sustaining village is the only practical and material way to remove at least 70% or more of your material life from any dependency on these types of controlling entities. Again, let’s be clear: only by becoming physical self-sufficient can you transcend these controlling entities and only through clustered living can less than super rich people gather the resources to fulfill that aim.

You cannot do this on your own. You cannot boycott these entities into changing. At present, if they banish you internally, there is little real hope you as an individual without a decent support system will be able to thrive and prosper. On the other hand, if and when we see clustered living based on some form of organic cohesiveness emerge, then people are less likely to even gain the notice of these entities let alone have to endure being banished internally by them.

Clustered living through a modern adaptation of the ancient multi-family extended household community, rooted in Judeo-Christian sociocultural values, and practiced as a small village of closely related families or a tribal group, is the only viable way a small group of people can liberate themselves from this top-down control.

In cases where people gather and meet in clusters with local and like-minded people who cannot physically create a clustered housing development, a high degree of mutual support and mutual self-reliance as well as mutual assurance can still be obtained. Eventually, that cluster of people realizes many of the benefits of clustered living even though their residences aren’t clustered in one development.

The simple and unavoidable truth is that UNLESS you are willing to cluster together for mutual support and profit with like-minded people until most all of your basic necessities can be met with you and those you are closest to, then you cannot expect liberation from these controlling entities.

Of course, if you are independently wealthy you could be more free and/or you could even directly fund such a clustered housing development after you found like-minded people. Most people aren’t and, while we also promote the idea of individuals becoming financially prosperous as a means of liberation, the likelihood of most people in any short term doing so is fairly low.

Basically, for most people, clustering together in some capacity for mutual support with people you have a strong organic cohesiveness with (in our case, with a strong Judeo-Christian moral and social foundation) is the shortest and overall best approach to liberation. Just whining and trying to boycott entities you really cannot live without on your own are not mature responses.

We can explore exactly how to approach this, but what it important is a close degree of mutual self-reliance and mutual profitability in connection with people you have a strong organic cohesiveness on spiritual and sociocultural as well as as economic grounds.

Aside from this kind of approach, all efforts to extricate yourself from these entities that do not involve a massive structural reform of society from bottom to top are doomed. While massive structural reform of society may not be impossible in the long-term and may be a goal, it is highly inprobable in any event. It is, however, virtually impossible if the would-be reformers are not themselves materially independent of these controlling entities.

We can transcend these entities but because they control so much, this requires an approach like the clustered living approach with like-minded people for mutual profit and support. This is in fact a major lifestyle change that will initially be hard, inconvenient, and not without its risks. But, for all that, it is the most viable response to the present crisis for most people.

Circle Logic and Insane Degrees Of Relationship As Justification For Authoritarianism

Willem IV- Rooted in the dialectical thinking of Marx and Engels and made famous by the Frankfurt School, “critical theory” is both insanely opposite of critical thinking and a justification for authoritarian regimes. Basically, it uses circle logic and insane degrees of relationship to connect cause and effect in order to delegitimize historic institutions that stand athwart a path of radical atomization of individuals that renders them hopelessly dependent upon corporations and/or the state.

Circle logic is based on circular reasoning. If we say, “the Bible is true, therefore you should believe it”, this isn’t proof. We are using our conclusion as validation of itself without offering hard evidence.

In circle logic, the connection may be less direct, for instance if we say “people who think they are not human but animals are more suicidal, therefore society’s lack of accommodation for them is unust”, we are using a form of circle logic. The effect, being more suicidal, has no proven connection to the cause, the lack of society accommodating “species benders”, or whatever we want to call these folks, by refraining from using terms like “people” or even “human” for fear the species benders would be offended.

“Insane degrees of relationship” means you find multiple degrees of separation which connect people, groups, or events to other people, groups, or events and then make a causal statement of relationship between the two. If someone with the same last name as you, some 200 years ago, did a thing that wasn’t good, then you, despite perhaps having a name your grandfather adopted (so you are not blood kin to that family, which isn’t blood kin to the original malefactor), are “related” to the original misdeed and bear collective shame, if not collective guilt.

The effect is that those who wish to be a certain way, prefer a certain way, associate together according to their values and identity a certain way and those who see the world a certain way must be shamed and coerced into something not to their liking in order to assuage those whose preferences and etc. are in the decided minority. The majority must literally change how they refer to others and even themselves for fear of corporate or official entities doing real harm to their economy and/or social life.

In a society in which the great bottleneck of commerce and discourse or social life itself flows through monopoly corporations and their platforms and institutions, where most commercial and social activities demand access to these platforms and institutions, it is no longer necessary to invoke the state in hard authoritarianism. It is soft authoritarianism invoking the so-called “rights” of private platforms to regiment the culture and economy in ways that are harmful to individuals and that violate their human dignity.

Here are a few for-instances:

– Around 40% of eCommerce happens through Amazon, 67% of eCommerce flows through the top 10 eCommerce companies.

– 51% of all banking is dominated by the top 13 banks.

– According to this report, the top 5 social media platforms that DOMINATE social life and discourse, have a 98% market share, “The leading platform in the Social Media market is Facebook with 69% social media market share in 2019, followed by Pinterest with 14% Social Media market share Twitter with 8% Social Media market share, YouTube with 4% market share, Instagram with 4% share, and Other Social Media platforms with 2% social media market share.”

– Only 26% of transactions are by cash, while credit and debit cards, run by Visa, Master Card, and American Express, account for 51% of transactions.

– The top 10 retailers control over 45% of the retail market, the top 100 controlling more than 80%.

– PayPal processes over 54% of all online transactions and the top 14 online processors account for 89% of online transactions.

The fact almost ALL these corporations have woke communist adherants at the top and/or as owners, again understanding that woke communism is different from 20th century state communism, is alarming to be sure. If all of them agree you are persona nom grata, good luck surviving or having a voice or social life. The concentration of wealth and power and the stunning lack of ideational diversity within these entities is the very face of modern woke communism in America today.

The counter, using the state to “fix” the monopoly corporations and their platforms, may actually be as problematic as the disease. Our approach via unilateral change from within through absolutely freewill participatory association doesn’t change the fact we see the top 100 modern mega-corporations in same light as major landed sovereignties. Both entities exert societal control by degrees of authoritarianism, which may be hard, as in the state, or soft, as in deplatforming. Using one against the other is like casting out the devil in the name of Lucifer.

What leads to this soft to hard authoritarianism is the core concept that the only way to “solve” these “problems”, as proposed by “critical theory”, which defies all tenets of “critical thinking”, is to massively alter all societal structures. And the only way one can force a change in sociocultural norms, down to language itself and how people relate to one another, which runs counter to what people trust and are comfortable with, is some means of short-circuiting or suppressing the individual’s critical thinking and freewill. In short, some form of manipulation, fraud, or force must be used.

If you brainwash people through lies and coercion into accepting things not for their own good and without them being fully informed as to the cause, the potential risks, and the effect as well as long-term intent, then you violate their innate human spiritual sovereignty, agency, and dignity. Critical theory is itself an authoritarian assumption: it seems to say that society has been written this way by the coercive enterprise of corporate and state agencies and can only be righted by the same.

One critical theory advocate claimed that the emergence in the early 20th century of all-powerful superheroes like Superman was part of an effort to acculturate people to the all-powerful fascist state, like Hitler and Mussolini. This is circle logic and insane degrees of relationship gone awry and the only “solution” is to proscribe any such materials and to delegitimize those who peddle it as Nazis.

Critical theory, like communism, is a term that hardly portrays the underlying theory. Communism implies community, but in 20th century communism, community is meaningless and only the state matters. In 21st century woke communism, management of society by monopoly corporations and the state replaces community. Likewise, critical theory implies some form of multidisciplinary critical thinking approach to society, but in truth there is no real criticalt thinking.

Critical theory is simply and only authoritarianism and its underlying pretzel logic justifications used to fool or cow people into accepting chains of bondage. Critical theory is invalid from any spiritual, moral, or logical standard you might wish to apply.

While many aims and goals, such as fighting fictional bogeymen (such as “white supremacy”) or fulfilling utopian promises (like “free housing for all), are invoked by critical theory, in practice it points nowhere. Its only true aim is to grow power for those in power at the expense of everyone else, but as to societal aims, it points nowhere and will not acheive any good for society.

Unlike the totalitarianism of the 20th century, which rather explicitly stated that its totalitarian structures were intentional and necessary for society, the critical thinking, or woke communism, totalitarians of today do all they can to mask both the authoritarian roots of their ideas and the totalitarian intent of their agenda. Also unlike the authoritarians of the 20th century, who tended mostly to rely on the state as a monopoly holder of economic and political power, today’s woke communists are happy to use the corporation itself, the corporation in partnership with the state, or the state alone, all controlled by a single interconnected ruling class, to reach their goals.

The gender-bending, race-baiting, and Nazi-mongering are all merely a means of softening people up, undermining institutions which can resist corporate and government control and liberate individuals from dependency. The aim has nothing to do with protecting rainbow people or minority “races”, nor actually confronting actual Nazis. The aim is total monopoly comtrol as an end that justifies any means.

Modern monopoly platforms are to woke communists what the state was to Marxist-Leninists in the 20th century. The new politburo combines shot-callers in the corporate world and the political world into one loosely connected whole and “critical theory” provide the “validation” for this soft authoritarianism. The aim is still the atomization of the individual, the end of personal independence and private property by individuals, and the collectivizing of society under centralized hierarchical control.

The proposed “Great Reset”, touted by the World Economic Forum, for instance, started with the phrase, “you will own nothing, and like it.” This by an organization that is run by and for mega international corporations which purport to be capitalist enterprises. Herein is woke communism explained: the use of wokeness born by critical theory to soften up society for mass collectivization under the rule of a few monopoly corporations and governments.

It isn’t a conspiracy. The pervasive acceptance of this new totalitarianism by most shot-callers in every major institution causes an apparent comity of action that is born more from organic cohesiveness among the actors, who share the same worldview, than any planning or conspiring among them. The fact they are using the illogical methodology of critical theory to divide and soften up society, leading to an assault on institutions like marriage, family, and community, is merely an outgrowth of their own parochial interests and stems also from inflated egocentric grubbers who imagine they alone know what’s best for everyone.

They may indeed have “good” intentions, but their underlying assumptions, rooted in authoritarian nonsense like critical theory, prevent them from seeing that they are in fact “the baddies.” People of EVERY single racial, ethnic, or religious background in every country who embrace some varied form of the new totalitarianism acts almost as if in concert when no real coordination occurs.

This woke communism is somewhat like China’s new Maoism, only it also adds gender-bending and critical race theory aspects of critical theory to soften up society just as Mao’s “great leap forward” did in 1950’s China. China’s new Maoism uses the corporation and a limited free market to produce goods and services, maximizing efficiency, but remains as authoritarian as ever.

Critical theory is dangerous because wherever it gains purchase, human rights, human dignity, and human flourishing become untenable. Critical theory is authoritarianism, period.

If you want to know of a culture leader, politician, or corporate leader is a totalitarian loon, ask them to renounce critical theory and all its components. If they don’t unequivocally do so, mark them as totalitarians and do all you can to extricate yourself from their influence or dependency upon them.

If any leader who holds a position of public office or public trust or who is followed by millions refuses to name, renounce, and confront those who are using the techniques of critical race theory, calling everyone racist or Nazis, then they are nothing more than totalitarians. Moreover, if they refuse to defend the rights of individuals in free association to build and form marital, familial, and community bonds and relationships in preference to their own core beliefs, values, and convictions, then you automatically know this person is a totalitarian.

A holistic view of society, seeing how things and people are connected and interdependent, isn’t a bad thing. This multidimensional and multi-faceted kind of quantum thinking can be an excellent way to solve problems within the broader scope of logic, reason, and critical thinking. This kind of intersectionalism is logical and fact-based. But critical theory invokes intersectionality in tenous ways through circle logic and insane degrees of relationship. It does not identify real problems or real solutions and yet it demands all the tools of authoritarianism (censorship, canceling, deplatforming, criminalizing) applied by corporations and/or the state against relatively powerless people who depend upon them to survive.

Critical theory is, basically and simply, authoritarianism. Period. Full stop. It has no logic and it serves no common good. Its adherants are being fooled into accepting controls and dependency which violate their basic human rights, human dignity, and human flourishing. Its proponents are using this, albeit some of them unconsciously, to soften up society and gather power unto themselves.

It is necessary to confront critical theory as an authoritarian ideology, a modern form of woke communism, that must be confronted. Its innocent adherants must be liberated through peaceful persuasion and outreach. Its proponents who use it to advance their power must be treated with deserved contempt and every effort must be made to disassociate from them, especially from dependency upon them and anything they control.

Willem IV- If our societies are going to bring benefits to most all the people most all the time, then we must replace tribal bias in public policy, the marketplace, and culture with principles embraced by, and which can be articulated by, a mostly independent thinking citizenry. We propose that principles must replace bias as the driving force behind public policy, the marketplace, and the culture!

What we have is a system of tribal bias that excites partisans but that brings less and less benefits to fewer and fewer people less and less of the time. Most of the time, most people’s needs and interests are not served well by public policy, the marketplace, or culture.

The problem is tribal bias and those who are in a position to exploit it for their own parochial interests at the expense of the common good.

Everyone has bias. Generally, bias is a prejudicial disfavor and unfair favor in one direction but not based purely on reason or merit. Our cheering on of sports teams is classic bias, only we hope the referees are unbiased and call the game according to objective facts and merits.

In American politics especially, and in most countries to some degree, bias by society’s referees, from the press to the courts, and by individuals who vote, resembles the sports team anology. Whatever their team is, be it a Party or a perceived ideology, like the left or the right, it can do no wrong, the other team can do no good, and every situation will tend to be judged on the basis of how that interpretation itself benefits the team.

This shallow kind of cultish identification with a political “team” is the major reason why the actual positions and policies of the team’s all-star lineup, be it the Party or its perceived representatives and leaders, shift so wildly. They are always finding situations where they were for something before they were against it and all their “fans” applaud each shift not on the basis of principle but on the basis of how it advances their team.

Of course, only the other team is biased, your team is absolutely principled, even when the principles followed and/or their definitions shift wildly over the years.

When a political “team” is formed it begins to make its own position of power in relationship to the other team of teams its highest aim. Winning elections and adding seats to a legislature or winning a key office, like a premeiereship or a presidency, is all about cobbling together a coaltion of “fans” whose parochial interests are addressed, often at the expense of the other team’s fans. The actual rock-ribbed principles that may momentarily be invoked are really just putty and window dressing.

Political teams demand loyalty of players and fans and will excoriate any referee who dares rule against them with hyperbolic, nay, histrionic invectives like unto a doomsday preacher invoking the final judgment. The ability to even see past anything more than “what gets points for my team” is completely compromised.

Simply deciding to stop backing your team in a biased way isn’t such an easy solution either, especially if you have real, deeper, principled and/or parochial reasons to oppose the other team’s agenda. If you resort to principles even when it zings your former team, and if it advances the other team, then your own principles and/or parochial interests could be fatally compromised.

Extricating ourselves from the bias is not an easy task once it has been hardwired into the political system and the name of the game is basically this: your team wins seats and power by any means necessary or loses them and loses power. The fact some of America’s founders in the early days despised and feared the appearance of Parties on these stores reveals their deeper, if tragically ignored, wisdom. Parties and partisanship, which is bias writ large, tend to undermine principle and focus on short-term “election wins” which never produce long-term benefits to anyone.

Without addressing, much less proposing, the possibility of abolishing Parties, which may be impossible, it should be noted: the very existence of the Party structure that exists in most “democracies” today makes this kind of tribal bias inevitable.

When the purpose is merely to win votes to gain seats, principles are always the first casualty. No major winning political party has ever been absolutely and consistently true to any set of principles it held, say, 30 years ago! Principles can be changed as new data reveals the need to adjust our understanding, but the rate at which “principles” or their definitions change in modern politics is intense. It reveals either a stunning ignorance of truth which leads to constantly shifting principles and/or changing the definitions of principles or, more likely, blatant dishonesty.

The “players” cheered on by the “fans” almost to a person have no higher principle than to stay in their position, whether it is an elected position in public office or a corporate/institutional position of public trust. This doesn’t mean no players and no fans have any principles, but it does mean that principles are not very important and there is little real devotion to them.

We could explore the real parochial interests pursued by the real shot-callers who are essentially owners of both or all teams and how this makes a hash of any so-called “democratic process”, but that is beyond the scope of this essay. Suffice it to say, only the “owners” of the teams, who form one competitive club, benefit from this tribal bias.

Let’s walk away from the bias and examine our principles. What ideals or societal goals do you think are important? What role should major institutions (like governments, family, the church, private associations, businesses, corporations, and etc.) play in your life? What moral, ethical, and/or philosophical guidance should apply to social and other norms, to public life, the marketplace, public policy, or law?

If you don’t have an idea about what your principles are and what priority you place on them, then you are easy prey to whatever “team” captures you with slick marketing and manipulation.

To put put it more clearly; if you desire to not just be prey to others and to be independent, then you should be able to identify and explain both your principles and the ideals, moral and ethical standards, values, or convictions that underlie them.

It bears repeating here that, while may be all the rage to claim to be an “independent thinker”, unless you can articulate both your principles and their underlying ideals and etc. then you are not really an independent thinker. You may not be a strict partisan for one of the teams, but you will tend to gravitate toward people and parties, from time to time, who outmarket the others in relation to your perceived parochial interests.

You may argue that the average person working 40 hours or more per week and struggling to make ends meet doesn’t have the time to do this. Unfortunately, your education from the earliest years to university should have prepared you and empowered you to do this on your own, and on an ongoing basis.

It may not be any accident that all education in the past 100 years is more about indoctrination than empowerment. People who were never given the tools and the time to become independent thinkers and who then become full-time wage slaves may imagine they are independent thinkers, but they cannot articulate either their own principles or the basis of those principles. They were never given the time or the means to do this, which is itself an injustice inflicted by our top-down sociocultural and socioeconomic hierarchies of power.

To become a fully independent thinker one must be able to articulate one’s principles and that which underlies them. Anything less and you are being patronized by powerful forces of manipulated influence and control who simply want you to support their team, often without any benefit to yourself.

Principles must be known and articulated so that you can, in making them visible to yourself, use them as a plumbline to judge any party, policy, or person who holds office or any kind of public trust as to whether they deserve your support or not.

What are your principles and upon what are they based? Know this and then examine every act and actor on the public stage who clamours for your support, patronage, or vote.

If enough people did this, and truly got in touch with the things they deeply believe and support, then the bias of our shallow politics (as well as marketplace and culture) would give way to a more reasoned discourse and to a more results and people focused public policy, marketplace, and culture that brings benefits to most people most all the time.

Willem IV- What are gaps for freedom and how can understanding them make you wealthier, more successful, and more fulfilled as a human being?

A phrase we often use at The Freedomist is “gaps for freedom.”

We live in an increasingly less and less free world. This is true in America, where The Freedomist is based, and around the world. And it’s not just something political. In fact, the political aspect of freedom is the least of our concerns: most of the hindrances to you enjoying a life of freedom with unlimited prosperity are not “political” in nature.

We do identify and confront the hindrances to freedom, from the corporate dead-end of wage slavery to cultural authoritarianism from the press. But, that being said, our creative energy is focused more toward identifying and imparting gaps for freedom and how to profit from using them.

So what is a gap for freedom?

A gap for freedom is some method or means by which you can be self-sufficient and enjoy your inherent spiritual sovereignty as a human being created in the image of God without external manipulation or control in an otherwise unfree environment where most people are not enjoying freedom.

The tendency of human beings who are not constrained by moral and ethical limits and accountability thereto is to gather power unto themselves at the expense of others. The robber baron, the dictator, the overbearing boss, or the machismo man lording it over wife and kids are all symptoms of this malignant trait.

It is necessary to see freedom beyond mere politics. Non-political hindrances to your freedom as a spiritually sovereign person include relationships that aren’t healthy, overbearing bosses, wage slavery in a dead-end job, social pressures that shun you for otherwise moral or legal conduct, and the list goes on.

We often refer to liberty as defined by the original spirit and intent of the US Bill of Rights as one of the three principles of freedom. The other two inlcude a virtue founded on four core ideals and common decency and independence founded on material and financial self-reliance, including mutual self-reliance through some form of freewill participatory association with other people.

As to virtue, these four core ideals include Unity in diversity, Popular sovereignty, Democratic equality, and Rule of law as understood from a Judeo-Christian worldview and as applied in a balanced manner with one another. Any relationship or association and any form of system of governance that gets these in right balance according to a more enlightened definition of their deeper meaning has a great chance of being successful.

As to independence, this really means you either individually or through purely voluntary freewill participation in some relationship, association, or community of trust can meet your basic human needs without any dependence kn anything or anyone that doesn’t respect yout, your values and beliefs, and your dignity as a human being.

Virtue, Liberty, and Independence are the three legs of freedom as we understand and promote it. Our application of this kind of freedom is balanced and harmonious and it is comprehensive, multi-faceted, and multi-dimensional.

With this in mind, therefore, gaps for freedom include whatever allows you to acheive this kind of freedom in your life, regardless of what society around you is tolerating and choosing. If all your neighbors are wage slaves struggling to make ends meet and stuck in their jobs without any hope of advancement, you don’t need to be yourself. If your neighbors are happy to conform to social pressures by celebrities or the press or even college professors, you can wave your banner of independency and choose your own moral code without caving in to any of that.

A gap for freedom is some legal means by which you can obtain freedom, using virtue, liberty, independence as your guide, even when everyone around you is not walking in freedom.

Here is an example in the US.

You desire what humans have always desired since our creation: to cluster together in the closest proximity with people you can trust deeply because they share your beliefs and convictions and because they care for you as much as you care for them.

Assume you have a band of 20 families and aorund 5 single adults who share these same convictions about how to live and who want to all live next to each other in a small but private neighborhood. Legally, if you built such a neighborhood with 20 houses and 5 apartments you could not restrict the future sale or leasing of those spaces to people who are in your little community of trust.

But through a mutual benefit corporation, whereby the members of your little band of like-minded people, you could actually make identification with your community a requirement of membership. In that case, each member owns shares of the corporation, which in turn owns the buildings, but membership in the corporation is limited to your trust community.

It is important to state here that Freedomists do not advocate large-scale communities like this which would tend to balkanize society.

In our ideal free and pluralistic society model, many clusters of up to 120 or so adults in private neighborhoods plus housing as we have it today (based on the fair housing act, which we support) would form communities of diverse sociocultural communities of trust whose members all respect the basic dignity and freedom of all other members of that pluralistic community.

We vehemently oppose using race as a basis of these clustered living neighborhoods and we would never countenance denying housing to anyone based on things like race or sexual orientation or religion.

You can use MBC (mutual benefit corporation) as a gap for freedom to exercise your freedom to cluster around what amounts to a form of an extended familial community of people. If, however, you abuse this gap for freedom to promote racism or intolerance toward others outside your trust community, then you are becoming a hindrance to the freedom of others.

The use of this gap for freedom can both give you a legal means of enjoying this instinctive human need to cluster and increase your wealth and happiness. An MBC properly organized can substantially reduce costs to obtain land and build housing both through the power of collective buying and if members participate in the work with expert oversight. When, say, 30 families and 10 singles adults all contribute to a fund owned by an MBC, they may have options on real estate opportunities that none could have as individuals.

For almost any situation where it seems there is something that prevents you from exercising freedom there are legal devices, like an MBC, or financial and other means, like a mutual assurance fund for health care, that create the conditions whereby you can exercise your virtue, liberty, and independence in peace and prosperity.

When you connect to other people of a like mind and based on freewill participation to build these gaps for freedom, you increase the odds that you will enjoy freedom in peace and prosperity.

You can be MUCH MORE FREE than you currently are, if you do not feel very free right now, by identifying and using gaps for freedom. This is especially true if you connect with other people who have similar beliefs and convictions and who also desire such freedom.

Hopefully by now you understand what a gap for freedom is. In these pages we will identify gaps for freedom individuals can use and groups of people, using freewill participatory association, can use to exploit these gaps and use the principles of freedom to prosper and become fulfilled human beings.

To recap: gaps for freedom are legal methods, means, and devices (like self-employment, the MBC, or a mutual assurance fund) that give you a way to experience real freedom even if society around you is not choosing or experiencing freedom.

At The Freedomist, one of our main lines of content development is focused on identifying and explaining gaps for freedom and imparting techniques for exploiting them in the most resource-efficient manner possible. Becoming a subscriber means you want to become free as a spiritually sovereign person created in the image of God and in whatever form of freewill participatory association you deem suited to your convictions and lifestyle.