Tag: mailvox

I asked the lawyer who previously reviewed Sidney Powell’s GA filing to look at the recent PA Supreme Court ruling. He graciously consented to share his thoughts, which follow.

So here’s my brief take on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Decision. The usual disclaimers in this case are that I do not practice in Pennsylvania State courts, nor is election law my typical case. Nonetheless, several things stand out to me.

Before addressing those issues, let me clarify a few things. Court decisions must be interpreted in light of several factors, not least of which is: 1) what is the court that is issuing the opinion; and 2) what is the relief sought?

In this case, it is a Pennsylvania state court and the plaintiff were seeking an order prohibiting certifying the results of the election. Both of these are significant. It is significant that it is a state court because state courts generally are not viewed as intellectually rigorous as federal courts. Further, federal courts are viewed, rightly or wrongly, as less partisan than state courts. Federal courts also can address federal and state issues while state courts are typically limited to state issues. There are exceptions but I’m not going to go into them now.

The remedy at this point is also significant. Generally speaking, there are two types of remedies: legal and equitable. Legal remedies are usually monetary damages after something has occurred. Equitable remedies are court orders to make someone act in a certain way, either to do something or refrain from doing something. At common law, legal and equitable courts were different. In most US courts, whether federal or state, they are merged.

So the original PA complaint starts by saying, “The amendments to the mail-in voting rules were not lawfully passed. So, this court should not allow mail-in votes that were authorized under those statutes.” There was a flurry of filings and activity at the beginning of this week about that. In the middle of it, the PA Secretary of State ‘certified’ the ballot. Once that was done, the defendants tried to claim that the case was moot, or that there was no need to go further. The trial court said, “No, there are several other things the Secretary of State has to do before the certification is proper so it is not moot.” 

The trial court judge is a Republican. PA as a state allows partisan elections for judges. The PA Supreme Court has 2 Republicans and 5 Democrats. The trial court judge ultimately found that the laws amending the mail-in ballots were not approved according to the rules for modifying PA statutes. So, she said, “You cannot count those votes.” The defendants appealed.

Here is where it gets interesting. At common law, equitable cases had a variety of doctrines and defenses that did not apply for legal remedies. As one example, one who seeks a suit in equity must come with ‘clean hands.’ So if you can show that the plaintiff engaged in illegitimate behavior, you can argue that the plaintiff should not get an equitable decision even if that decision might otherwise be justified.

Another equitable doctrine is ‘laches,’ which means that you have to timely act. It is a defense that essentially says, “Plaintiffs took too long to make their claim.” Note that a laches defense does not address the merits of the underlying argument. It is solely a procedural claim.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court relied upon laches and said, “This law went into effect a year ago and none of the Plaintiffs did anything about it.” The opinion notes that the plaintiffs did nothing upon the law’s passing. The PA Supreme Court says, “They waited until millions cast their vote” so they will not allow the suit to go forward.

However, there is another legal doctrine, one called ‘standing’. Standing simply means that you yourself have to suffered an injury. Think of environmental groups that try to stop the Navy from using sonar to map the ocean floor because the use of sonar damages whales and dolphins. Courts typically say, “Even if you are 100{3aedcb51dac2fbb83a885d32b07950f3050377138d02430f831f0a3ede84357a} right, you aren’t being injured. And you do not have the capacity to sue for the whales and dolphins. You do not have standing to bring suit.” And they then dismiss the suit. No joke. There are several reported decisions about this.

The key to laches it that the delay has to be unreasonable. So if you learn that your city is going to bulldoze a public playground where you take your children, you cannot wait until the playground is razed and they start putting up the apartment complex to file your suit. The PA Supreme Court, without any discussion of the merits, just said, “You’re too late. You lose.” The PA Supreme Court has 5 Dems and 2 Rs. The Rs concurred but said there should be a hearing about the problems with the votes. They essentially said, “Voiding every mail in ballot is too much right now so we would void the trial court order, but we would let the claims go forward and see where that leads.” Put another way, if the evidence shows that X{3aedcb51dac2fbb83a885d32b07950f3050377138d02430f831f0a3ede84357a} of the mail-in ballots were fraudulent, we would not oppose striking those ballots, but we aren’t going to grant a blank check at this stage of the game.”

Realistically, given current standing doctrine, there is no way Plaintiffs could have succeeded if they raised this challenge prior to this election. Any potential injury would be too speculative. That is, if they filed suit in December, 2019, the ruling from the court would have been “Plaintiffs challenge how this became law but Plaintiffs do not allege that they are injured in any way. Some of the Plaintiffs announce their intention to run for office but it is not clear whether they will or if they will succeed in the primaries or if any votes would go their way or not. Because they cannot point to an actual injury, they lack standing to assert these claims. Case dismissed.”

Further, if a law is unconstitutional for whatever reason, it can be challenged at any given time. Constitutionality is like jurisdiction: one does not need to assert it to preserve it. So even if a case is tried and lost, you can raise jurisdiction on appeal and argue for the first time that the lower court had no jurisdiction. Not likely the best way to argue a case, and might have the courts thinking that such an argument is just a Hail Mary that won’t go anywhere, but arguing that the statute is unconstitutional will not be dismissed with a blithe “You’re too late” opinion from the court. 

So where does this leave the Plaintiffs? There is now nothing preventing them from seeking Supreme Court review. This does not mean that the Supreme Court will take it but it does mean that there are enough opinions that the Supreme Court can take it. Will they?

Maybe. It comes from a state Supreme Court on an incomplete record. The trial court had issued an order and was anticipating hearings that would develop evidence. That did not happen and the PA Supreme Court certainly did nothing to develop a factual record. But the trial court did consider the evidence before it (primarily affidavits) and relied upon that evidence to issue an injunction. The Supreme Court could pass on this case. That does not mean they agree with the PA Supreme Court. It could just mean that there is an insufficient factual record for them to adequately rule.

The U.S. Supreme Court could revive the injunction, send it to the trial court with an order for further evidence and delay a final ruling until the evidence is developed so the parties can know which ballots are a real problem and which cannot be verified. The Supreme Court could also issue a ruling that problematic ballots cannot be counted and remand the matter to a trial court to determine what mail-in ballots did not comply with PA laws prior to the enactment of their new mail-in-balloting scheme. 

There is a Third Circuit opinion that denied the Trump campaign’s petitions. That could be appealed as well. It could be that the Third Circuit case and this case are combined with directions on how to handle the PA issues.

Given the number of cases that are pending, I would bet that the USSC would take some type of case if for no other reason that it would give guidelines to lower courts, including appellate courts, for how to decide these cases in the future. In 2000, Bush v Gore was just the state of Florida. Here, we are dealing with Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada. Those states have differing election laws and criteria. Realizing the challenging occurring elsewhere, it might be worthwhile for them to take PA now to issue rulings to guide other courts.

And if those other states are still in contention by December 8, those elections could be referred to their state legislatures for the legislature to appoint a board of electors.

I make no claim about what will happen. I know courts prefer to make as narrow ruling as possible, everything else considered. If the USSC can say, “PA’s rules about mail-in-ballots are not legitimate and so those votes cannot be counted,” that is far more limited than throwing out the whole election and they would prefer that if at all possible. Such a ruling could guide any number of states, including GA. Time is rapidly dwindling for courts to make a decision about whether they will decide the dispute or whether they will declare that state elections have not been decided and it goes to the state legislatures.

Until then, nunc pugnamus.

From the recent collection of spam posted by banned trolls, blackpillers, despair merchants, and other undesirables.

• Every time i read your blog you remind me more and more of Hitler in march – April of the 1945, desperately hoping for wunderwaffe or 9th army, that will crush puny soviets and Third Reich will win. To be fair i am not sure if you are serious or just trolling, either way this is pure comedy, thank you.
• Personally, I don’t think anyone will be arrested or face any accountability whatsoever. I hope I am wrong.
• This all will look so silly when deep state zombie Biden is inaugurated January, gammas like you will keep shouting “Trump won”. No Trump lost. Because he was worse then fucking deep state pedo-satanists. Complete and utter incompetent bafoon.
• In Vox Day’s secret kingdom, it’s a Trumpslide every year.
• TC’s paycheck is signed: Murdoch/(((Rothschild))). Now, Sidney is going to present “mathematical evidence” to a hearing of Congressional idiots? And then the 8/9’ths cucked SC? That’ll lead nowhere.
• Trump is not a fighter. Great president, and he knows what faces him, but he cannot pull the trigger or drop and hammer. It just isn’t his thing. Worse, he has no loyalty down. Support him in any way, and get prosecuted on exaggerated or totally false charges? He lets you swing with no support. So even if he decided to actually fight, no one will go all out to help him. I very well could be wrong, and I hope I am, but he has fumbled or slow played every chance to make this a real fight.
• SC isn’t going to take up Trump’s hail mary. They already turned down the request to expedite hearing on a petition for a writ of certiorari on ballots mailed but not received on election day and deadlocked on overturning the Pennsylvania lower court ruling. Roberts isn’t willing to have the SC look political regardless of the Republican skew of its members so don’t expect them and Coney Barrett to come through for Trump in the end. She already skipped out on ruling on the above-mentioned Pennsylvania case, so she’s clearly thinking of her next 30-40 years on the court and not Trump’s last 2 months. And we’re still waiting for that “Kraken”… taking it’s time to show up, ain’t it?

 A reader gives me too much credit:

 I really like your post-election coverage. I read a lot of different Far Right takes and you’re the only one I check out who either: hasn’t bailed on Trump or isn’t just shouting “We got robbed.” Most are hoping we win. You’re showing actual fraud according to law. You’re showing how the ruse is falling apart. If it ends up going our way, a lot of people are going to jump back on the Trump train. And the ones who never left are going to take a lot of the credit. You’re the only one I see, keeping a level head and being consistent since Trump started running in 2015.

Jumping on and off the Trump Train has been par for the course since Scott Adams was predicting Hillary was sure to win back in 2016. (He tends to sweep that little post-Pussy-grab period under the table.) But I am merely calling things as I see them; no doubt others are doing the same. And there are more than a few people, such as Anonymous Conservative and Neon Revolt, who are just as confident that a) Biden didn’t win and b) Trump will serve his second consecutive term as I am.

But if publicly expressing my opinion happens to disrupt the operation of the media’s demoralization and disinformation campaign, I am pleased, because I simply don’t see any truth in it. Frankly, I don’t see any reason to even begin to pay attention to it until Kamala Harris resigns her Senate seat.

 In which I am called out by a nobody on the Internet:

So since you appear so totally confident in the Don still being President after January 21st 2021, how about attaching some actual stakes to them? So, in the event that, contrary to all your predictions, the Trump campaign gets owned in court after completely failing to prove their case, and Joe Biden ends up inaugurated as President of the United States of America in January, would you pledge on this very blog to donate a modest amount, let’s say $10,000, to a Black Lives Matter charity, or perhaps a trans rights charity?

If you’re really as confident as you claim about your “God Emperor” totally remaining President (as opposed to the reality where he lost 306-232), then as I said, put your money where your mouth is, otherwise it just comes across as you telling your supporters one thing while not having the balls to actually prove the strength of your convictions.

No, it really doesn’t. You see, I’ve been blogging here for a long time. This is very far from the first such proposal I’ve received. And the thing is, people like this never, ever pay up when they lose. It’s just a joke, you see. They were just calling me out, you see. They didn’t really mean it, you see. They didn’t sign any contracts, you see. Betting isn’t legal in their state, you see.

Save us the posturing. Epstein didn’t kill himself. And Biden didn’t win. 

UPDATE: There is a lot of this going around. Apparently it’s part of the demoralization campaign. As we’ve seen here, it’s just feeble, projection-based rhetoric.

Just saw your post “Mailvox: No Deals” where the SJW demanded a bet on the election to “prove” yourself, with your Trump prediction and yet the SJW offers no bet himself or way to guarantee his payment. 

This is all very familiar. Another SJW online demanded the exact same of me just a few days ago when I told him Biden’s votes were going to be proven fraudulent.  Again, he offered no stakes, nor anyway to make sure his money would come to me if I won. I told him he was a commie, and therefore going to welch. He whined and demanded I was “punking out.”

All the while he demanded that I make the whole structure of the bet—the stakes, the neutral 3rd party to hold it, the rules on when a win may be declared—despite his offering it to begin with. “If you don’t do all the group project I demanded, you’re lying” kind of b.s.

The SJW hive has seized upon this rhetorical demand and are repeating it, thinking it will shame us. I wonder if an article on some SJW website encouraged this to “prove” we don’t actually believe Trump will win.

And into the gatekeeper? I can’t guarantee this is true, because I’m not on Parler. 

Maybe I’m late to the party, but did y’all know Parler is not allowing links to Vox’s blog?

But if it is true, you might want to rethink the wisdom of joining yet another social media platform intended to police your thinking, even if it is by cuckservatives rather than SJWs.

UPDATE: It’s confirmed. I am dangerous, Par…ler.

I wonder how many places currently ban me? Let’s see:

• Consimworld
• SFWA
• Google Mountain View campus
• Twitter
• Indiegogo
• Parler

Take an anonymous email for what it is worth, which is to say, precisely nothing. But in the interests of sharing what may, or may not, be happening at levels well above our cognizance or the mainstream media coverage, I am providing an excerpt of an email that I received from a European reader today.

I am not claiming to have truly inside information, only nearness to certain banking, business, and diplomatic circles. I also do not claim to share your political views entirely, but I am sympathetic and a long-time reader, and this can at this point be published hardly anywhere else.

In short, Trump outplayed the left, on a global scale: he absolutely will become President and there will be an unprecedented exposure of corruption throughout the US, EU, and Russia, and a massive wipeout procedure of it all – along with a reset of national debt, which amounts to wiping out the most criminal banks, institutions, and political parties across the world.

The key to this is what’s happening in Europe at this very moment: As of yesterday, all borders on the continent have been sealed; militaries are engaged for “contact tracing” in England, France, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland; a friend of mine with both Swiss and EU passports is now stranded in Berlin because they are not even allowing departures from EU nations. Hotels have been ordered “not to take new reservations” until November 30. (Note: not “to close.”) There are massive, spooky-as-hell, fully empty “apartment complexes” (i.e. prison complexes – literal bars over the windows) already built in remote places in Europe. But these are not for normal people: they are housing built by and for the elements of corruption in Europe, at least, that will be exposed. I expect something similar to follow in America.

The Great Reset is underway but not quite, or not entirely, what Archbishop Vigano thought it was in the open letter posted by Q on October 30.

Now, the two things I can confirm or deny is one, that it is still possible to make reservations at hotels in Milano and Paris through online booking sites. However, I don’t think the reader was referring to ALL hotels, but rather certain specific hotels, so that’s probably not a reasonable metric. And two, the European militaries are engaged in contact tracing and absolutely no one is out and about. I went out to visit a friend last night and despite it being Saturday night, it was like Night of the Comet even in a city downtown. There was literally no one on the road.

While I am optimistic that President Trump will serve a second term, this sounds far too much like the groundless NESARA nonsense that has been floating around conspiracy circles since the Reagan administration. But, at this point, given the incessant drumbeat of DESPAIR-DESPAIR-DESPAIR being pounded home by the media, a little hope is not a bad thing. So, let’s hope that this anonymous reader is absolutely correct about what the next month has in store for us.

UPDATE: more observations from Europe

While looking at flights to Krakow over a period of time, one day I noticed Ryanair cancelled the rest of its flights to Krakow for November and maybe even December if memory serves correctly. There was only one week of flights left uncancelled, so I took the last flight out yesterday.

While I was at BCN, I looked at the departures board. There were only 3 flights for the next 4 hours at the terminal I was at. The entire terminal was a ghost town and I’m not sure if it looked incredibly dark because most of the ceiling lights were turned off or because the light from almost all the closed shops was now gone.

I can also confirm that flights scheduled for the end of November are being cancelled on the continent and in the UK. That doesn’t mean anything, in and of itself, but it is consistent with the reader’s predictions.

 A reader emails to admit that his past belief in political neutrality was incorrect:

I pray your readers can get some benefit from how wrong I was about being politically neutral. 

See, I was always taught to keep politics out of business conversation and to keep a reasonable face on. So for 20 years, I assumed if the day came when we had to take a stand, friends and family would view us as just that… the ones who would speak out politically only if it was absolutely necessary. Something like the voice of reason.

Then the pandemic happened, and now the election. With these, my eyes have been opened.

When we express an ounce of skepticism, about anything… BLM, Covid, voting, media, global corps… we’ve been immediately denounced as ring-wing Nazis. I wish I could say I was joking or exaggerating. This is true of friends we’ve had for decades. In some cases, they’ve flipped on us in seconds. It’s obvious these people are so beside themselves, they’ll end up turning us in one day, if we let them.

For those of you who believe you can remain neutral, you’re fooling yourself. Whether you know it or not, you’ll always find a reason to excuse yourself from the fight. However, sooner or later you’ll have to stand, and don’t think they’re going to give you a pass for your past neutrality. You cannot reason with evil, and they do not care.

A quote from Machiavelli’s Discourses on Livy seems apt here.

It was therefore necessary, if Rome wished to remain free amid the corruption, that just as the city had created new laws in the course of its existence, it should also have created new institutions, because different institutions and ways of life must be established for a subject who is evil rather than good, nor can similar forms exist in completely different substances. But since all these institutions must either be reformed all in a single stroke as soon as it is discovered they are no longer good, or little by little before everyone recognizes they are bad, let me say that both of these two alternatives are almost impossible. 

The wish to reform them little by little requires a prudent man to come forward who sees this problem from some distance and in its initial stages. It is very likely that an individual of this type may never emerge in a city, and even if one were to emerge, he might not be able to persuade others of what he himself has come to understand, because men used to living in one way do not wish to change, and all the more so when they do not see the evil for themselves but must have it demonstrated to them through abstract arguments. 

As for changing these institutions all at once, when everyone realizes they are no longer good, let me say that this ineffectiveness, though easily recognized, is difficult to correct, because to do so ordinary practices are no longer sufficient, once ordinary methods have become wicked.

It’s been fascinating to see how much less radical and how much less insane I am presently perceived to be than I was 15 years ago. And yet, my observations and positions are virtually unchanged.

Or rather, why they TRY to silence us. A reader from Australia writes:

It’s been very educational reading you. Your writing is a great source of strength and truth that I can turn to in a world where most people are very confused. 

I’d heard your name mumbled in a few corners of the internet that I’d frequent. It wasn’t until I came across Jordanetics that I became disturbingly intrigued. Jordan was standing up against the stupidity of the world that I’ve had to increasingly witness throughout my years. 

So why would someone write a whole book about criticising him? And not from a leftist perspective? In an effort to be “open minded” I gave it a go. And that book was a significant and pivotal point in my life. Down the rabbit hole I went reading more of your books, becoming a regular reader of the blog and now a subscriber to Unauthorized. 

Your writing is a great educational resource. It has hardened my convictions in the face of a very confused, sickly and aggressive world. Even when I feel like everyone is against me and I appear to be wrong because I don’t have all the arguments marshalled and facts committed to memory, I still know where I stand and what I believe in despite of such external pressure. I know I can turn to your blog as a source of strength where the truth is so blatantly obvious. 

I do not worry about being nice or appearing extreme in observation of the truth. 

Those who are enslaved by the Lie and fear the Truth know that it’s impossible to prevent the first person from standing up, because he could be anyone. That is why they focus on marginalization, deplatforming, defamation, and other techniques to prevent a second person from doing so, because that second person is a signal to both the first person and everyone else that they are not alone.

This is why the gatekeepers – Rogan, Rubin, Shapiro, Peterson, and other ticket-takers – are so assiduous about never mentioning the names of those they most fear, because marginalization is their primary weapon. As the reader demonstrates, just a mere mumbled mention or two here and there can suffice to render all their efforts moot.

Before Marvel was acquired by the Devil Mouse and given over entirely to the slavery of the Lie, one of its writers raised Catholic, J. Michael Straczynski, wrote what has become Captain America’s most enduring quote. It is both an inspiration and a reminder of Aristotle’s teaching that the most powerful rhetoric is always rooted in the truth.

DSC objects to the philosopical concept of Münchhausen Trilemma. Posted without comment.

I object to the notion that what is called “fundamentalism” is no better an epistemological foundation than the other two parts of the trilemma. 

Why do chemistry, physics and biology involve so much lab-based education? Seeing something first hand offers the hope that a person can better delineate between the realm of conjecture and “real” reality, the stuff that doesn’t give a fig what you think. I find that the older I get, the more of an empiricist I become. While I have broad personal experience in but a minute part of the whole world, I base my pyramids of trust on people whose primary premises match up to my own personal experience. Those who have very little first hand experience in anything must have very little data on which to base their pyramids of trust.

I aver that there are four kinds of questions: Those answerable by logic, those where experiment yields what is essentially certainty, those that yield answers that can never be better than “today’s best guess,” and those that cannot be answered by empiricism at all.

• As you know, some things are true by axiom, ex. a consumable cannot be consumed and still remain available for consumption. These axioms are the foundation for what Hans Hermann Hoppe describes in his essay The Democratic Leviathan.
• Hard science rests on experiments where the outcome is the same no matter how many times one considers repeating it. While dropping a stone a thousand times to see it fall may induce someone to posit that on the 1001th try it will rise when released, such a belief is clearly irrational. 
• Much of today’s “science,” as you’ve well described, falls into the third category. It is the realm of statistical study, where confidence intervals, poisson distributions and Student T tests live. The 95{5c1a0fb425e4d1363f644252322efd648e1c42835b2836cd8f67071ddd0ad0e3} confidence interval of course posits that the hypothesis is 19/20ths likely to be true, but this is not remotely the same standard as category 2 above. Vast amounts of “social science” attempt to mimic this style of study, but there’s no substance to it at all. “Real” science, in my view, is that where variables can actually be controlled, a condition that is laughably absent in a vast amount of what today is billed as science.
• What happens to us when we die? Do we have consciousness beyond our physical envelope? Is there life on distant planets? What color is a virion, and if we could see it like we see a golf ball, what would it look like? These and myriad other questions cannot be answered via empiricism. Providing systematic answers to empirically unanswerable questions is the province of religion. Today’s Equalist Cult religion is particularly odd, in that most of its dogma and sacraments are actually at odds with empirically-derived reality. It is thus a pure exercise of the “power” Orwell illustrated when O’Brian forces Smith to “see” a different number of fingers than O’Brian extends. The first step toward wisdom comes by calling things by their right names.

The author notes that “Human beings are rational animals.” This is daffy on its face. Most humans may be capable of reasoning, but it’s self-evident that few spend any time at all in this part of their mind. As Kahneman shows, experiment after experiment documents that most of the time we let the nearly autonomic part of our brain do all the thinking. Only rarely do we invoke our deliberative, analytical mind. Most people are largely creatures of emotion, and their decisions are based on what action or belief would yield the greatest emotional comfort…and it’s usually to think and do what the herd surrounding them thinks and does. I was dismayed to confront that intelligence does not coassort with rationality. Very smart people are especially good at rationalizing their folly. 

 These are the premises on which I base my objection to axiom and empiricism being lumped in with circular reasoning and “turtles all the way down.” Reality exists. The notion that people see different things when observing the same thing is baloney. If I drop a golf ball and simultaneously launch one horizontally, they will always hit the floor at the same time, no matter who insists with great fervor that the dropped one lands first. If, upon observing them bounce simultaneously, an observer still insists that they hit at different times, it’s not a case of competing epistemologies. Some systems of thought rest on axiom. From axiom comes reliance on empiricism, trusting ones eyes when what’s seen conflicts with others’ ideological constructs. This is not a three part problem. Two of the trilemma’s legs are folly, the third is the only means of attempting to align with reality in order to decide and act. Among today’s great follies is insistence on baseless conjecture as fact. Our society is structured under Taylorist notions, that there’s one best way to live, and the dogma that populates this conflicts openly with observed reality.

A modern example: Say’s Law is “In order to consume, you must first produce.” This is a logical axiom, given that if people consume without producing, eventually there’s nothing produced and thus nothing to consume. If that’s “fundamentalism” and somehow not axiomatically true, show me (Mr. Macris.) Monetary Madness since the 1960’s posits that the ability to enter the market (to consume) can be created out of thin air via the act of borrowing. The IOU (generally a T-bond/T-bill) becomes wealth, and the borrowed loot goes straight into someone’s hands to be used (mostly) to consume. No production precedes this consumption, so the net effect is less product available (but a vastly rising perception of wealth, both in holding the debt and in the rising prices of assets goosed by a tsunami of credit money.) 

Since the bond market low in 1981, the US gov’t didn’t need to tax in order to spend. This is why spending could skyrocket as tax cuts were passed. Domestic production could be shipped to China, who then sent us endless pre-landfilled junk in exchange for Treasury Debt. Since China doesn’t trade in dollars, that loot came back here…and we now see that Americans pawned their land, their businesses and THEIR POLITICAL SYSTEM in return for some trinkets. China bought our legislatures, our executive branch agencies and our judiciary. Pretty smart on their part. With the helicopter drop of $1,200/person thing this summer, we now see that credit creation has entered a new phase, where the government still does not need to tax, and people no longer need to work in order to consume. Everyone’s a welfare recipient now., not just people on SSDI, AFDC, Section 8, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Prior to this summer, only Big Business oligarchs and financiers received such loot. 

Where’d Say’s Law go?

I’m a longtime reader of your blog and a pastor. Your denunciations of Churchianity are spot on, and I’ve lived through an ugly denominational transition out of the apostasy. I can testify to the rot. I’m attaching the letter I read to begin a sermon this year, where I call out the New Religion, so that you can see how at least some of us are fighting the good fight. I know there are other pastors out there doing the same, but the level of cowardice among so many of my peers in the pulpit is a shame to me.

There’s a new religion growing in our world.

A new Marxist faith.

A new Woke orthodoxy.

A new kind of Luciferian worship that is as old as sin and idolatry itself. 

Eight weeks ago I stood in the pulpit of this church and declared that the formal organization called Black Lives Matter was demonic in both origin and nature. That BLM isn’t, as it purports, an organization promoting racial justice – but, rather, is an organization that is actively working to undermine the knowledge and worship of the One True God.

Eight weeks ago I kicked off this sermon series aiming to help us understand the nature of our enemies by calling out this one organization, but BLM does not stand alone against God in this world.

Instead, what we have been seeing over the past six months, and what has become increasingly clear in the two months I’ve been preaching this series, is that this new Globalist religion has many apostles and adherents in the world – many individuals, groups, and organizations that have bowed the knee and are now demanding the same:

• Antifa
• Hollywood
• Disney Corp.
• Google/FB/Twitter
• the Main Stream Media

along with Governors, Mayors, and other elected officials, at almost every level of government and in both political parties, who have pledged their allegiance to this new Globalist, Marxist, Anti-Christian religion.

And believe me when I call it a religion, because it literally has all the makings.

There are, for instance, blasphemy laws in this new religion.

Just try saying, “All Lives Matter” or “Blue Lives Matter” in public or on social media. Try to link to a video with medical professionals breaking ranks and speaking to the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine and see how long it stays up.

And there are holy scriptures for this movement too.

Marxist ideologies and writings, which always and only result in class wars and totalitarianism, are the foundational texts of this faith.

Writings about Critical Race Theory pit people against one another based solely on the amount of melanin in our skin.

Prevailing Gender and Sex Theories clearly and purposefully undermine the Biblical definitions of man and woman, husband and wife, and family.

And, even more, this religion’s teachings on Intersectionality argue that victim status is the measure of a person’s worth – with victim status defined as follows:

The less white, the less male, and the less Christian you are, the more you’ve been the subject of systemic victimization, and the more we should be listening to you.

Which is precisely, by the way, how this new orthodoxy distinguishes between clean and unclean.

• The more white.
• The more male.
• The more Christian.

And the more conservative you are politically, the less clean. The less pure. The less holy. The more sinful.

And so this new faith offers the rights of expiation – of having your “sins” forgiven:

Are you hopelessly locked into your White Privilege, and so unaware of your own deep-seated but invisible-to-you racism? Get on your knees and say sorry to a Black person today!

Have you offended the Race Hustlers? You can donate money to the right causes!

Is your workforce not diverse enough? You can make your employees complete sensitivity trainings!

Have you tweeted something the mob didn’t like? You can march with the protestors!

In fact, depending on the nature of the transgression you can do lots of things to seek forgiveness, but in this new Woke Church it only counts if the Priests of this new faith accept it; if the leaders of this cultural revolution deem you acceptable.

• Has Colin Kaepernick vouched for you?
• Do you have President Obama’s endorsement?
• Does Rashida Tlaib, Shaun King, or Van Jones agree with you?
• Have the influential pundits vouched for your credibility to the cause?
• Is there a local person of influence in the movement that can accept your sacrifice?

Without this approval, no amount of sorrys will ever be enough.

Because this is a war over Truth, and this new religion demands your conversion.

As exhibit “A” I present to you this perverted faith’s one and only Sacrament – which is clearly the murder of the unborn through abortion. The zeal with which this Globalist, Marxist, and anti-Christian religion pursues this agenda reveals just how sacred a right they believe it to be!

It. Is. Demonic.

And so while it looks like we fight against these so-called priests, they are just men and women: blood and flesh. Their blasphemy laws and rights of forgiveness may be lived out in the physical world, but they are rooted in the spiritual forces of darkness. The “scriptures” they lift up can be held and read, but they are simply the tangible expressions of their spiritual agendas. Their definitions of “clean” and “unclean” are built on the foundations of power and control in the material world, but they have neither.

Because our real war is with the Principalities and Powers that lurk behind and empower from underneath – that hide their demonic faces behind the masks of institutional “progress” and “wokeness” and “being on the right side of history”.

Our real battle is not with the destructive fruits of this movement, but with its demonic roots.