The Problem

The problem is the system. This is a problem that cannot be fixed.

The problem is the system. The problem is not in the system. The problem is the system. The system cannot be fixed because the system itself is the problem. The system is not broken. The system works as it was designed to work. It harms you, you do not like what it does, that does not mean it is broken, or flawed, it simply means it was not designed to benefit you.

The system in a word is parasitic. What this means there is a substantial portion of the population that consumes more than they produce. This means the live off what is produced by others. If you owned the world and ran it as a business, there is a substantial population you would fire.

But you are not their boss. They are your boss and they decide how much value they have. They also decide what value you have. In other words, it is the parasites that determine what you get to keep and what they get to take.

Let’s imagine your boss as an industrial farmer who owns thousands of acres. He owns them and you farm them. You work from dawn to dusk planting and weeding and reaping and doing all the work that needs to be done on a farm.

Your boss does nothing but check the books periodically to make sure your labor is producing the profits he thinks you ought to be producing.

He looks at what you are doing as a cost of doing business, a cost that should be eliminated if possible. You represent a cost to the business though it is you who do all the work. But he looks at himself as a person who is worth the many hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, he pays himself. The owner is the only person on the farm who is considered an asset, all other workers represent a liability to the company.

He and his family could own this farm for hundreds of years and they would siphon off millions of dollars from the business, despite never doing a day’s work.

This situation exists all over the nation and the world. There are hundreds of millions of people not producing anything of value yet living and often living quite well.

To understand the problem, think of a family. If the man or woman is alone, they would struggle hard to make a life. A man and a woman together have the greatest potential for making a good life. The man and the woman as a couple can produce the most income and goods for the least output of labor than any other pairing.

When children come along the situation becomes difficult for the pair, because they have additional mouths to feed, and less time to provide for the family needs.

But when the children grow up, things become progressively better because the children begin to add to the family’s fortune without adding a lot to the family’s total costs.

However, if the children do not work or are not fully invested in the fortunes of the family, things could get even worse than before, because the children consume more as they age and the parents become less able to provide for them. This is when the children stop being dependents and become parasitic.

We see the fortunes of the family rise and fall as the individual’s in the family contribute to the family or consume more than they produce. Multiply this situation and one has the situation of a nation or the world.

If everyone works and provides for their needs, the social unit prospers, but the larger the percentage of the population that lives off of the work of the rest, the worse off the community is.

This is why government intervention generally only makes things worse. Giving people more money gives them greater access to the available goods and services, but if there are no more goods and services produced, the increased income only drives up prices.

The only solution to poverty is increased production.

The problem of poverty is magnified according to how much the non-productive sector consumes. Some have blamed the problem on too much money going into entertainment and welfare. But the problem is more general than that. The problem is the percentage of the population not producing sufficient income to match their consumption multiplied by their average income. A large parasitic population living on a meagre income does less damage than a small population living like kings. But the problem is not the parasitism specifically. The problem is the situation that enables parasites to exist and indeed legitimizes them.

Someone cannot just decide to be a parasite; there must be a system in place that legitimizes this kind of behaviour.

Some call it the system that justifies parasites the law of the jungle. It is the proposition that might makes right and the end justifies the means. Needless to say, this philosophy is perpetuated by those gaining an advantage from it. But behind this law is the idea of power being used as a bargaining chip or a commodity. The belief is that if a person is blessed with unusual levels of power, this power or office can be used to trade for goods and services.

The elites are power merchants trading power for property. Idols represent the power of the elites.

An elite is a person who thinks power gives or translates into rights and rights mean power. It is the sense that one has inalienable rights that mark a parasite. He or she does not acquire things through work but through rights, through a legitimizing process based on some innate virtue or merit.

The idol of the tribe represents the people’s virtue or status and right to what they can possess. The tribal idol justifies the power of the tribe. The idol or god, represents the right of the people to the good things of life. Ones office or title is just another idol, though more personal.

The office a person holds or the title they have, is a justifier for their claim on the wealth of others.

The Problem then is ego or self-validation. Some might call it subjectivity or the lack of objective standards of comparison. The identifiers of a person become a justifier for his claim on the property of others.

The idol of the nation becomes the justifier of the person.

The Solution

The solution is honesty. We need to be honest about our situation. This leads to equality because no one is more worthy or less worthy, than another. There are no justifiers that are able to legitimize expropriating the wealth of others.

The solution to parasitism, is to work for what we want and make no claim on anything created by another. If this principle was understood it would cause immediate problems for the people of this system, because we know we claim ownership of property that we did not create. No human being has created an asset or any part of an asset. All physical things were Created by God, not by man.

We do, as humans, add value to assets, we do this through the addition of labor but if you do not labor what value are you creating?

The problem is that some people are not creating anything of value, they are not adding value to assets through labor. They must now share in the value created by others. To do this they need a way to make claims against the value created by others. They do this through programs of social justice, which purport to identify features in certain people that justify them living as parasites.

The solution is to stop these claims being made or legitimized and the only way to do this is through a process of separating. We need to separate from the parasites and from the system that legitimizes them.

We need to escape the lies and the deceit and all of the structural changes that these things create. We cannot have a system built on lies, because ultimately such a system must collapse.

Consciousness is the same as faith. We can only have faith in what we can be fully conscious of. Our faith is a measure of our consciousness awareness.

We need to become conscious of the lies of our life. The places where what we do does not produce the best possible results. We are the caretakers of the earth. We need to work as if for the earth.

The parasite acts as if the earth exists to care for him and if the rest of us are suppliers of his needs. The parasite believes he or she is entitled to what he or she can get from the rest of us.

We need to regain the rights of ownership and regenerate the way we understand ownership to inoculate it from the predation of parasites.

We do not own as a physical act, but as a moral relationship. We own what we create as we own our sons and our daughters. What we create is owned by us, but logically owned, owned by the logic of the relationship.

We own our sons and daughters because we created them and there is no other relationship that can take precedence. This is how we own what we create commercially. We can refer to this as possessive ownership, or ownership by virtue of our possession. If we each learn to honor the possessions of others, then ultimately those who produce something will be the sole and uncontested owner of it, until they transfer this to someone else.

Volunteers Needed To Settle A New Nation

Apriori is a new world. Its settlement will usher in a new era of human civilization and the Golden Age of man.

Apriorians are the new peoples of the new world.

Aprioria are the settlement small groups, the units that compose the lowest political and economic and ecclesiastical divisions of this new world.

Separaton, is a concept community, developed out of the Aprioria or small group jurisdictions. It is the small groups which certify and legitimize citizenship.

Citizens retain and exercise full control of who lives in their community. Citizen councils control the conditions of citizenship. Those who fail to abide by the conditions set by residents, lose their rights as a citizen. This of course is a very radical idea.

Citizenship is earned in aprioria. In Apriori, which is a world defined by a civilization and culture, citizenship is a privilege. When one attains to the rights of membership, one also acquires citizenship. Citizenship is a status bestowed upon the new member when the conditions of citizenship have been met. The privilege of living in an Aprioria is rescinded if the criteria for membership and citizenship is breached.

As an Apriorian with the sacred rights of an Apriorian citizen, everyone of us is given an equal share in the small group we are part of and which we create. Apriorian create their own political jurisdictions, or small group. These small groups are the basic political unit of the organization. It is owned as a political jurisdiction and economic unit by its members.

Aprioria contain three to fifteen persons. This is the smallest political unit of Apriori. Aprioria are headed by a chairperson picked from the members.

The members of the aprioria are citizens of Apriori. Each citizen works and is paid for the work they do by the Aprioria or small group, of which he or she is a member.

Each new citizen is provided with an account in the aprioria of which he or she is a member. The account is used to make purchases and earn income. Purchases debit the account and sales credit the account.

Every citizen is a member of an aprioria and every citizen works for and is paid by the aprioria of which he or she is a member.

Every member is always able to work and is paid by the aprioria of which he or she is a member, and every member is paid according to the hours worked.

All work is paid at the same agreed upon rate.

Radicalism is the political or social belief that fundamental, society-altering changes are necessary to solve systemic problems. Rather than relying on gradual, step-by-step reforms, radicals believe that structural issues run deep and require revolutionary or root-level changes to government, economics, and social norms. One either agrees with the system or seeks fundamental change. If one subscribes to change but within the parameters and methodologies provided by the system, one cannot be deemed a radical.

Radicals need to be outside of the system and indeed the very prospect of working within the parameters of the system marks one as an evolutionist or relativist.

A true radical must work outside of the system he or she seeks to radicalize. By definition, radicals are separatists.

A true radical is a person who advocates for a comprehensive systemic change of the status quo. This is more than what a revolution does, which often is less concerned about the system than those who govern it. Most revolutionaries are content with a change of leadership.

But if the system on is in prohibits real change from happening and the system itself is flawed, only radical action will achieve anything meaningful.

Globalism is a world-wide system in which parasites have the ability to acquire wealth and power and legitimacy for their claims, even though the often contribute nothing to the wealth of the system. There can be no piece-meal or evolutionary progress, only radical change will get to the root of the problem.

If the problem is selfishness or an idolatry that tells us that everyone has intrinsic value, regardless of personal attributes, then we lose all rights to our personal property. The human identity trumps all secondary elements.

The idol bestows intrinsic worth onto people. This could be an office or a classification of some kind, even a racial identity. The identity becomes the value.

This has taken on a whole new level of importance with identity politics, where your intrinsic merit is tied up with your identity.

If human life has intrinsic merit, it means people have no obligation to earn legitimacy. The criminal becomes as important as the child or the factory worker. Life does have merit in the promise it holds. Human life in the womb is human, and it has merit because it is the promise of a future. But this value and this merit can be extinguished or expended. The value of a human life is not inalienable.

There are some things that are just not worth it, even if it does save even one life.

If all human life has intrinsic value, then technically no death ought to be permitted, regardless of what the cost of saving it might be, but this is a paradox because such a policy would harm an indeterminate number of other lives.

The world is in the state it is in because from the earliest days man thought reality had to be real. He thought that because what he could see and feel seemed real there must be something with substance that was being seen, felt, heard, smelt, tasted and viewed.

The five senses were considered our door way into reality, but no matter what we did, reality remain in our minds. Therefore, how can something that does not exist, have intrinsic value? Where is physical man?

The question is not what consciousness is, consciousness is information. If you have information, you are conscious. The question is, what kind of information do we have and what kind of information ought we to have?

That determines our consciousness. The information we have determines our consciousness. So the question as to what consciousness asked out to focus on what sort of information do you have access to? From whom are you getting your information?

There is only one thing that matters. There is only one thing that has intrinsic value; that is information.

The solution to parasites and the idolatry of man, is information or consciousness. We need to enhance human awareness. This actually makes us more human. We are what we are conscious of.

If evil is parasitism or taking what you have no right to, then the ultimate crime is to take or destroy information. To eat of the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is to take information and to some degree destroy it. It is benefitting from the information without contributing to it.

The solution is to do what God did, we need to protect and secure our information because this is the same as protecting our identity and our consciousness. The difference is, we need to do what God did but in reverse, as we are not in the Garden, we are in the world of the flesh. We need to create a garden of separation where we can protect our information.

Morality, honesty and equality are the trees of this garden.

With truth comes faith. When there is faith we bind together and become a true community.

A mission is a specific task, duty, or assignment that an individual or group is sent to or called upon to accomplish. It often refers to an overarching life goal. The two elements are complementary. If we have a goal at all it ought to supersede all other concerns.

Indeed, it is difficult to see how anyone lives without a mission, implicit or explicit.

Even if for some people their mission is simply to survive. For others their mission is tied up with their own success. They want fame and wealth and seem unconcerned how they come by it.

However, a real mission ought to take us to perfection. A perfect mission does just that. There are three elements to a perfect mission as there are three factors that much be in place to have a perfect life or perfect outcome.

A perfect mission is actually a statement of a perfect destination, the mission being the process by which we hope to accomplish the task.

A perfect mission can accomplish only one task, and that is the binding together of all persons in faith before God.

Apologetics is the study of the reasons for why believe. Theology is the study of perfection in the form of God whereas theologics is the application of theology and the playing out of our apologetics in the form of a mission.

Aprioritorium is a place of logic, a place where the perfect mission is implemented. Apriorian missions is a mission to perfect reality and to create the perfect mind. Apriorian Apologetics is the theology of the perfect mission.

The perfect mission leads to the perfect mind because all that is not of the Holy Spirit is discarded.

The perfect mission is a way to get rid of dishonest, inequality and the evils of this system of things, in a systematic and orderly manner.

The perfect mission is perfect because it leads to a perfect outcome, that is, the success of the perfect mission and therefore, the fulfillment of the perfect mission.

The perfect mission’s mission is to be perfect, that is, achieve perfection. If the mission achieves perfection, meaning its objectives, it has completed its task, meaning there is no one left to perfect.

The perfect mission is to perfect the system and the people and so as long as there is imperfection, the mission is not complete.

To define and measure perfection requires a way to quantify results. The validation of the perfect mission’s objective requires a scientific experiment. In other words, the perfect mission is a scientific experiment because the results and processes must be perfectly validated and this involves an objective and scientifically valid way of verification.

Perfection requires separation. We cannot be perfect in an imperfect system. The tool for generating separation is a model community called Separaton. As it generates perfection it systematically achieves separation. The two processes are not separable.

Separation is a controlled process with measurable feature and so progress can be quantified and validated. Building Separaton is achieved by what amounts to a scientific experiment.

Separaton is designed to function as a small group program, needing nothing but a few persons to set up a neighbourhood. Members help one another and are paid for the work they do at a set rate by the program. Separatons are paid at the rate set by the small group or separatist council. Therefore, there is no risk to members. If you work you get paid, if you get paid you are able to obtain goods and services from other members or serpatons.

The purpose of the small group is to separate from the state and eliminate the parasitism, which is the state and its allies. This process is the other side of creating perfection.

The perfect mission is to create perfection through separation using the technology of separation, creating the concept community, Separaton.

Creating Separaton from this world and its flaws, is therefore, the objective of the perfect mission.

What do you want in life? The answer is, if you are honest, honesty. Even liars want honesty, at least in the rest of us.

Honesty permits predictability. When everyone is honest, we can predict the future with some accuracy.

Honesty gives us security, because we know if someone tells us what he will do, we know it will get done.

Honesty also gives us equality. Honest people do not have the framework within which inequality can be produced. In a population of honest persons there must be equality. Inequality is based on a lie, the lie that my time has more value than your time. We need to all be paid the same for our labour. For it is only the labor we put into a task, that belongs to us.

If we are equal there is no means by which one person can oppress or exploit another.

We get equality by applying honesty to our lives. To be honest, or the first step to living an honest life, is to be honest about ownership and our claims on the things of this world. We own only what we create, there is no legitimate way to claim anything we did not create.

The Apriorian Covenant is a pledge to permit you to own everything you create on you permitting everyone else to own what they create.

If you do not agree you have lost all claim to what you created. You lose sovereignty over your labor.

You either agree to the Apriorian Covenant, or you become a slave to the most ruthless and the most powerful because you have abdicated all rights to the only thing you can truly own, and that is the things you create.

Morality is the belief in honesty. The moral person prioritizes honesty, and we know that with honesty comes equality.

The ethical person rejects morality and honesty and seeks to do whatever he has the power to do. He lives by the power of his own right hand.

As some say, that which your own right hand can possess, is yours.

This is also referred to as the Law of the Jungle. This is the ethical stipulation that might makes right and the end justifies the means. Those who are ethical live by some system of laws.

Lws need enacting and they need enforcing. Depending on the law and its level of enforcement, those who reject the divine right of ownership, have no rights. At best they have privileges.

That which is given can also be taken.

Ownership is created by the labor of the one who did the work, which makes ownership inalienable. However, if you give up all rights to what you create, you lose those rights because you lost them through abdication.

To refuse the offer of the ownership of what you create, puts you in a war of all against all in which only the strong have rights and these the ones they assign to themselves. The weak end up with nothing other than what they are given.

Those who abdicate the rights of ownership end up subject to the vagaries of the law of the jungle, which promises no peace and provides nothing but crime, war and constant risk.

If you would like to see the end of the Ten Great Evils, which are: unemployment, debt, poverty, inflation, pollution, waste, taxation, homelessness, war, and crime. These evils are created and perpetuated by the state, which is the mother of all parasites. The Five Foundational Errors give the state is power. These errors are democracy, ownership, currency, laws, and power disparities.

The choice ultimately is war and enslavement with the ultimate collapse of an inherently unstable system, or the Apriorian Covenant.

If you prefer there are other way of looking at the choice. You can choose between good and evil, war or peace, spiritual maturity or spiritual immaturity, equality or inequality, right or wrong, physical or spiritual. We all have the choice of paying our way with the proceeds of our labor or waring over the spoils as if no one really owns anything.

However, lets stop for a minute and take time to understand the situation.

We no one owns the earth. No human can create or destroy matter. It is transformable or malleable, but we have not the means of adding or subtracting from the supply.

But humans do modify matter and turn it into something more desirable, through work. Work adds value to matter and transforms something with low value into something with a higher value. It is this portion that belongs to the creator of the value.

We can say that God owns the assets of the world and man owns the equity added to the assets through labor.

When value is added to the earth we replenish the earth. When we replenish the earth, this is charity. If we consume what we produce and leave nothing over, this is parasitism. If we all work and live of what we produce and no one claims what belongs to another, we have equality.

The mission of Apriorian is to bind together people of faith. In modern terms this is ecumenicalism. In practical and in more prosaic terms, it means we must separate from those who are without faith.

Apriorian Apologetics is a theology of faith, or the pure and applied science of apriology which is also the science of separation. The reason why we have the faith we have is because it separates us from those who do not believe. If you have faith, the last thing you wish is to be joined with those who are without faith.

When you join the Apriorian Small Groups program, that assists in your separation from the world, you will become bound together in faith with other Christians. As you learn how to eliminate the things which divide us we separate from the world.

When everyone works and owns what they create the condition known as equality is created. Equality breeds honesty. When bound together in faith we learn to live honest lives.

When we are bound together in faith, perfectly, we live perfect lives. All of our problems are due to division and there is only one cause of division, conflict over property. There is only one solution to this kind of division, and that is to divide from the ones who seek to divide us.

The church is believers bound together; the church only exists to the degree we have become bound together in faith. We can only bind together when we separate from the ones who try and divide us.

The purpose of life is to be perfected. Perfection gives life its direction. When bound together we create no costs we do not pay for. But we cannot bind with those who will not pay their costs.

Apriorian is a logical construct. It is a mechanism or technology for binding persons together in the perfection of faith. If you commit to binding together with others in faith we need to separate from those who would divide us. Separaton is a model community designed to form even as we bind together as a church while separating from the state.

As we separate from this world, social problems are eliminated and a new era in which peace and prosperity predominate is created.

Binding together in faith eliminates all ten great evils and corrects the five foundational errors. Parasites make claims on the things that belong to us or to others. This creates a culture of risk in which faith becomes itself, a source of risk. When we put our faith in those who seek to exploit us, we are the first to be compromised.

We need to separate. Separating from the world separates us from The Ten Great Evils of unemployment, debt, poverty, inflation, pollution, waste, taxation, homelessness, war, and crime. The Ten Great Evils are created and perpetuated by the state, which is the mother of all parasites. The state gets its power from The Five Foundational Errors, these are democracy, ownership, our currency, laws, and power disparities. These errors cannot be fixed within the system that created them. We need to separate and to separate we need to replace the ethics of the present system with the moral right of dominion. We do not own the earth nor any part of it, but we have the right to create value from it: we own what we create. If we live by this principle, there is no need for laws and if we do not need laws, we do not need the state and where there is no state, the ability to own assets whether publicly or privately is abolished. If there is no private or public ownership the types of currency we use can no longer exist. But none of this can happen from within this system. Which is why there is such a need for separation.

We have then two options, continue down this present path to its utter destruction, or to separate.

If we separate, where do we end up, the answer to this question is that we end up in a place called Separaton, which is a place devoid of the state and its parasitic allies.

The options are these: Stay in a place where you are alienated and lost or move to a concept community in which there are no social costs, no inequality and no dishonesty, a place in which God rules and our only official and foundational document is Scripture.

It is an offer you cannot refuse.

In this essay we discuss what is sin, what has law got to do with sin, what is the difference between sin and evil.

This world is very confused about sin. People think it is about being bad. The world is even more confused about what evil is, thinking it is akin to being very bad. But then mankind does not understand where law fits in with their ideas about sin and evil. What is worse is that humans have no idea how close they are to perfection.

We all know everyone makes mistakes and that we are all tempted to make even bigger errors. We all fail to follow the law, to some degree. Therefore, people do not even entertain the idea of perfection or attaining to perfection.

We cannot even adhere to our new year’s resolutions. How are we to be made perfect?

But what is sin and what relevance has law? Law cannot reveal sin because law is only someone’s opinion as to what good and bad is. The law attempts to make us good, according to someone’s idea as to what constitutes good behaviour.

The law regulates us, assuming those who created the law have the means to enforce the law. That is not always necessarily so.

It is not enough to claim sin is doing bad things and then making laws to stop the bad things from happening, when obviously those who break the law and those who make the law have differing opinions as to what constitutes bad behaviour. Why ought one person’s opinion on what constitutes bad behaviour predominate, simply because they have the physical force to impose their way of thinking onto others?

The law is simply the opinion about what constitutes right behaviour of those who wield the greatest power.

This does not tell us what sin is, it merely tells us what those who wield the legislative power, thinks is wrong.

But what could be wrong? In this world the only possible wrong is being weak, because being weak permits wrong to be done you. Those who make the law attempt to mitigate against this but at the expense of the weak giving them even greater power over them. We have to submit to the law to permit the law to work.

As flawed as this system is, it gives us some insight into the wrong that is being done, that is the nature of sin.

When all is said and done, what does a bad man do, but take from us what does not belong to them. What might be the case, is that they take what does not belong to us either. For stealing to be the foundational sin, our ownership of what they take would need to be uncontested, that is justified. But what is actually the case?

We take assets and we claim to own them, but how do we establish ownership of assets?

The only way to answer that is to reinvigorate the doctrine of force or the Law of the Jungle, which states that might makes right and the end justifies the means.

But were this true, why do we enact laws to keep the exercise of force at a minimal level? The truth is, the Law of the Jungle is a doctrine that leads to anarchy in the worst possible meaning of the word.

Ownership in this world means you claimed an asset and have the means, direct or indirect, to maintain your claim even in the face of counterclaims. But when looked at in a serious way, what basis has any of our claims to ownership other than our ability to defend our claim or our access to a state that protects our claim for us.

The state claims a jurisdiction as its own. However, the nation is not a natural entity. It is created from violence and claims back up by violence or the possibility of violence. Ownership in this world is no more complicated than a man seeing some land and claiming that it belongs to the king.

It is a meaningless ceremony is the king lacks an army and the means to defend the claim. This makes war the final ajudicator of who owns what. On a lower level the state may tell us wew own something and we may have papers and the law to support our claim to something, but if we do not have the means to defend this claim, a criminal can easily deprive us of it.

Without the power of the state to back up some of our claims, they claim itself would be meaningless.

If all of this is true, what does a claim of ownership even mean?

We are familiar with the idea of private and public ownership, but despite the way some people talk about them, they are different more in degree than substance. Both private and public ownership models involve the states hegemonic power and powerful individuals who actually exercise the power.

Personal ownership is a third form of ownership, but it relates only to those things used personally to maintain life. We can understand the need for and validity of, personal ownership even if it does not necessarily have any greater objectivity or legitimacy than the other two forms.

It can be legitimized and justified just on the basis of necessity if nothing else. We need to own basic assets to survive. However, there is an element associated with personal ownership that needs further discussion. When mankind first entered the world he had to till and herd and fashion implements for his use. The things he used and claimed were fashioned by his own hand. He had labor invested in them which gave some legitimacy to his claim.

We all know things such as books and music are claimed by their authors and no one disputes Mozart’s right to his music, and name remains associated with the pieces he wrote despite how long ago they were written and how many times by how many people they have been played.

The same with War and Peace. Regardless of how many persons read the book or how many years go by, Leo Tolstoy remains the recognized author the world over.

That which we create, we own. That which we did not create we cannot own and ought to lay no claim to. When we make a claim of ownership against something we did not create, we invariable create a liability, that is a contested form of ownership with two or more persons laying claim to the same object.

As we mentioned, claiming things created for personal use has a sense of legitimacy to it. But what happens when we stop producing for personal use and begin to mass produce for commercial purposes?

What happens when the artisan stops making just for himself and begins to produce a single item full time and perhaps hires apprentices to help out?

In the first instance he makes something for his own use. He puts his labor in and consume the value of this labor in the use of the item created. In one sense he is living off of the fruits of his own labor.

Even when he begins to create a professional or commercial product, he is creating a community that lives off the avails of its labor. This is akin to the church.

Small-scale production, or artisan activity pushes the cycle of consumption up one level, but the final result is not much different than what we found with personal use of what is called subsistence culture.

It is when we get to the industrial scale of production that a subtle but genuine change occurs. The industrialist or capitalist does not live by labor but by expropriation of the labor of others, and this takes a complex set of relationships akin to a protection racket.

The state creates its own legitimacy and justifiers. Which is what any protection racket does.

There is a sharp and dramatic line of demarcation between someone or some community that lives by its own labor, whether consumed personally or as a community, and someone who does not produce anything of value, yet consumes the things produced by others.

This has a correlation with the situation of an individual. We are all born dependent on others, primarily our parents. Over time we all mature physically, but not all mature spiritually. It is from this fact that we derive our understanding of sin.

There was not much opportunity to live as a parasite in the days of yore. Everyone had to work to survive. Even the king often engaged in necessary works like the design and building of fortifications. But as time when on and production became more and more specialized the role of the administrator became more ephemeral and became totally disconnected from what he or she was ostensibly administrating. From the end of the mercantile era and its guilds management became largely divorced from anything productive and became focused on the manipulation of financial vehicles.

Profit and tazes are the two main financial vehicles parasites use to exploit labor but there are many others. The trick is to act as a gateway to something the productive sector needs. Its akin to setting up a toll road.

If the early days man was able to reap what he needed from the earth. Later on prior to industrialization he needed manufactured goods to work with, but these were still the products of skilled craftsmen trading their labor and skills for the labor and skills of other craftsmen.

The point is, at the beginning of time, people had access to the assets needed to carry out a trade. Because of this direct access to the needed assets, the Labour Theory of Value could be used to determine the price of things. There were no inputs other than the asset cost and the value that was added to the asset through work.

Now we have all kinds of financial vehicles that allow people to make claims against the labor of others.

But there is no legitimacy in these claims, because the value of all things is due to the asset and the value of the labor added. Everything else is parasitism and it is this, the parasitism of some, that causes all of the problem of this world.

Take out the illicit claims and we have peace and prosperity; war will be no more.

Sin is dishonesty and in practice or application it leads to parasitism. We own only what we create, there is no other basis for ownership, than this. What we create with our minds and the value we add with our labor, belongs to us. Everything else is an illicit claim and causes liabilities.

One cannot claim what is not theirs, without creating a liability. The true nature of a liability is an illicit claim made against an asset or the value it represents, owned by its creator.

All sin is the imposition of claims on that which one did not create, this is aided and abetted by the state.

The state is the mother of all abominations, which are claim against things which one did not create.

These claims destroy value, they destroy industrious, they destroy the peace.

Imagine a world without risk; at least without risk other than that represented by the laws of nature.

Imagine a world where insurance was no longer needed and where no one was worried about losing their job or paying their bills. A person could walk around day or night without fear of being accosted or robbed.

There would be no war.

All it takes for this to exist if for people to be honest. However, all it takes is for one person to be dishonest, to destroy the system. What does the Bible say?

“To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us:

Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (1 Corinthians 5:5-8).

A society can be enlightened with the right influencer and destroyed with the wrong. It depends on who we listen to. According to the bible, it takes three people with faith to initiate change, according to most experts, it is virtually impossible to change anything. Everyone listens to and believes the 'experts' and prove the experts right.

It is virtually impossible to achieve real and meaningful change, listening to the experts. Human authorities do not know where risk comes from or how to alleviate it, therefore cannot usher in any real change. Even if things are changed, the risk remains.

There is no legitimate form of ownership risk has no meaning. All risk is a perceived liability. All risk poses as a threat to property, that is to something we believe we own.

However, if we claim something that is not rightfully ours, it is us who pose a risk to the rightful owner and because our claim cannot be legitimized, it will always be at risk of being removed from us.

How do we own what we did not create? What process is used? There is only one means by which ownership can be established when there is no creative origin, and that is by force. There are only two forms of ownership, strategic and natural. The only natural form of ownership is by creation. One creates what is owned.

Strategic ownership is when something is claimed to give the owner a strategic advantage.

No one claims the ownership of debt that they did not create, because it provides no strategic advantage. If one found a source of gold everyone who could would be claiming ownership because the ownership of gold is seen as an unmitigated benefit.

If people want to own property and contrive means of obtaining it or title to it, how much more would people want to own the planet, or at least some portion of it. But if I were to claim the Hudson River, how would I justify my claim?

Assume I have a very large army and could defeat anyone who opposed my claim? This would make the claim technically defensible, but still not philosophically or theologically sound.

I could write reams of laws and make a flowery constitution laying out all the rights and privileges I bestow upon myself, but without the army and my willingness to use it, the arguments would not mean a thing. There is no way to justify my ownership of one grain of sand or one drop of water that would hold up in any reasonable court of justice, not based on the self-serving law created by the one on trial.

The ownership of anything natural is banditry. There is no argument that can defend anyone’s claim whether they be a nation, empire of an individual.

There is no legitimate way to buy land because there is no legitimate owner to sell it to you.

Everything natural was created by God and He is the only possible owner of all that is physical and natural. We own the value we add to the things of God.

No one has standing before God to contest the righteous claim to the physical universe. There is no justice in any claim regardless how made or who makes it, made by any man or any corporate body to any part of the planet.

If we cannot own any part of the earth, then what is strategy but a manipulation of the facts to defraud God out of what belongs to him and man out of what was given to him for his enjoyment.

So long as man keeps making strategic claims on what belongs to God, we will have our own wealth exposed to risk from similar strategic activities.

All risk comes in the form of an illegitimate claim to property. Threats against the person depersonalize the victim and dehumanize them. Yet even here the objective is usually to obtain the persons property.

Slavery was less about the enslavement of a person than about gaining the right to the slave’s labor. Everything in this world is created by God and by rights the property of God. Some allowance is made for the ownership of personal property. But there is no justification for an individual to lay claim on physical property he or she intends to use as commercial property.

We do not have a right to the proceeds gained by the exploitation of land, water, or the resources contained on or in them.

When someone or some consortium acquires land and water, they pose a risk to the rest of us.

This is the start of dishonesty, and it is dishonesty that poses a risk and if left unchecked, destroys any hope of prosperity.

Imagine 1000 people who are honest. Everyone works to earn what they need to live. No one defrauds the other. There are no bills of sale, no debt, no interest, no laws, or descriptions of ingredients or contents, because everyone is honest there is no fraud or deceit.

One person enters this place and sees everyone trusts him and he trusts everyone because he knows they are honest. Because everyone is honest there is equality. But the new citizen does not wish to be equal, he wants power. He wants the wealth that will give him power. But how can he be unequal and gain power if he, like the rest of the community, is honest?

Because everyone is honest, it is a simple matter for the dishonest seller to shortchange his customers, cheapen his products, skimp on the ingredients and generally reduce what he supplies while doing what he can to increase what he receives.

Without protection and a means of holding people accountable, there is always the temptation for dishonesty to enter a perfectly honest system. This is where the world failed, it did not protect the honest person but left him unprotected when faced with the liar and the cheat and the scam artist and criminal. Because ultimately, the biggest criminal of them all and the biggest scam artist is the state.

We need to understand the source of all risk is the dishonest person and the start of all dishonesty is the need to live free, that is without assuming responsibility for ones own costs.

At the individual level this results in scams and criminal acts, but at the corporate or group level we get war and the state itself, along with all of the activities the state engages in to try and justify its existence.

But how can a parasite justify its existence except by justifying parasitism and who can it justify this to, but other parasites.

This is the source of the social justice movement, a movement created solely to try and justify dishonesty.

One unjust and immoral act is used to justify another until the dog finally catches its tail in the form of the state and ultimately a one world government that owns and controls everything, without a single justification for its existence, other than that provided by its existence.

Its called the Law of the Jungle which states that might makes right and the end justifies the means. If one is not committed to honesty and justice, there is only one thing available to keep order, and that is brute force, or its threat.

There is only two options available. Every choice we make comes under one of two headings or aligns with one of the two options.

We are a theological person or a numerological one. We strive for quality in our life or we strive for quantity.

The theological person is primarily focused on community and the welfare of the group, whereas the numerological person sees significance in numbers, he or she wants more of something.

The desire is for more, irrespective of what the consequences or implications are, so the person who just wants to get rich and famous will do what it takes. The test of a numerologist is that he or she will sacrifice the quality of their life to gain more money or fame.

To have quality of life is to have a community life. Quantity is something more personal, we want more of this or that for ourselves. When the community hs more money or better jobs, the quality of life improves. When the individual gets a better job or more money he is seen as someone who has become richer or more successful, even if his or her quality of life has declined.

To eliminate risk is to eliminate the potentiality for claims against what we produce. That requires we eliminate liabilities, which are assets that have competing claims attached to them, as with a mortgage or the position of the state as a lien holder.

But two criminals who have stolen a car have trouble deciding who owns it and how to control its use.

The same goes for the things of this world. When we take ownership of the things of nature, there is no true way we can justify our ownership of it, rather than someone else. Why ought to pay the payment of money to own land make a difference, we are not paying the real owner. We are paying someone who happened to seize it. It is not much difference that buying stolen goods off of a robber.

The only way to truly and completely eliminate risk is to eliminate theft because ultimately all risk is the threat that someone will claim what you created, and the only way we can eliminate that threat if no one is permitted to own anything they did not create. This means all of the natural world is off limits to human beings. We cannot own any of it because we did not create any of it.

Everything physical was created by God. Mankind cannot own any of it. We own the value we add to the planet; this is equity as contrasted the assets created and owned by God. Only when we start by honoring God’s ownership of the universe will we be able to be in a position to defend our own position as owners of the equity we create.

In a physical world peopled by those of the flesh spiritual things will appear bizarre. Nothing has caused more confusion and controversy than the Abomination of Desolation. But why not. The readers of this passage are all staring at various spots all around the planet looking for an apparition to appear. Perhaps like the obelisk appeared in 2001 a Space Odyssey.

“When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)” (Matthew 24:15).

We see in Daniel reference to a “they” and then to a “him”. That is first Daniel speaks of an individual and then of a plurality. Assuming he is not using gendered language the individual and the group while important subjects of this event they are not the main player.

“And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that maketh desolate.” (Daniel 11:31).

“And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.” (Daniel 9:27).

If the main character is not a person or group of persons but an ideology or culture the abomination of desolation is a corrupted viewpoint exercised by man that is “poured upon the desolate”.

“When ye therefore shall see,” … is not a remark aimed at a physical observation. There is no visual “abomination of desolation” there is a situation that we have become accustomed to, which we see in a new light with new understanding. When we see, refers to an awakening and the scales of blindness falling from our eyes.

If we assume charity covers a multitude of sins and leads to perfection, the abomination of desolation destroys charity, this for all intents and purposes, is the state.

The state is the antithesis of charity.

The state is also discussed in the singularity of the leader or in the plurality of the government and its allies.

Charity works towards the perfectness of the people. This is both subjective and objective in that the people determine what they value but this value is then quantified in a way that can be justified. But if the state removes the means and the ability of the people to engage in charity, the means to our salvation is compromised.

We can say the sinner’s prayer and we can get baptized, but how do we bind together and produce fruits of faith in a system when the abomination of desolation sits in the place where charity would have taken place?

How can we be perfected in a system of law, where the state defines what is good and evil, or as the state sees it, what is legal and what is illegal?

The abomination of desolation destroys everything, because it sits at the center of our value systems.

We are to be theological and strive for perfection as we seek God, but the state defines the path that is open to us. This path is not charitable because the state pre-empts the possibility for charity. Yet, the bible says that it is charity that covers a multitude of sins.

But it is what lays behind the state that makes it an abomination and of desolation, not only is the state parasitic it is logically incoherent. There is no way for the state to logically justify itself. Nor can its existence be morally justified, it is an illegitimate creation.

Everyone lies and holds ideas that are logically incoherent. None of us are perfect morally, but it takes a government to legalize and legitimize logical incoherency and make it a legitimate part of our life’s.

Christians cannot be obedient to God nor obey the shepherd Christ and comply with the logical incoherent dictates of the state. There is a choice that must be made and a separation of church and state.

One is logical or not.

If one is not logical one is free.

You can wonder where you will, both physically and mentally. You can explore where you will, build what you will. It does not matter if any of it makes sense. You are free as only the irrational and insane can be.

This is a condition known as apriotic. In mild cases the person simply does not wish to work. he does not wish to grow up. He does not wish to take responsibility for himself. And so he becomes a criminal, a politician, banker, investor or lawyer, or he becomes a ward of the state. He may just continue to live as a dependent of his parents.

If one is logical, one is not free. Logic constrains. Logic binds. We are bound together by logic because logic does not free you once you are enmeshed in the dictatorial requirements of logic.

In logic there is only one answer because there is only one logical conclusion.

Logic leads to perfection because in logic there is truth and truth is absolute.

There are no problems in logic other than logical problems because logic eliminates problems in the logic of its arguments.

If it is not logical it does not make sense, regardless of how many people believe it or think it is necessary. In that sense, unemployment is a logical absurdity, no matter how many economists and politicians try and explain how necessary and unavoidable it is.

But no one can justify the existence of the state, other than by first assuming it exists, because the state is the reason for its own existence. It is, because it is. It exists because its existence makes its existence necessary. This is why the state is the abomination of desolation for it sits in the same conceptual place as God.

But no parasite can be logically justified, and the state is the mother of all parasites.

The state taxes us not because taxes are a good thing or even the best thing. The state taxes us because the only way the state is able to survive is through extortion. If anyone has the choice, no one will pay for it.

This is the same excuse given for public works, namely that no one, given the choice, would pay for them. Why would they give profits to random people if they did not have to. It’s not like people would pay for anything if given the option. The point is that they will pay for real goods and services to get them. But obviously a road is not a product in the way a car or house is a product only in that a road cannot be owned by the user, as a road is a facility more than a product, if we define a product as something owned or possessed by a consumer, whereas a facility is used by the consumer without being owned or kept in their possession.

In this world we are taught to want freedom, but that can this even mean? What is there to be free from that we ought to be free from? The things we should be free from are the things we create, for example poverty and crime. We can and ought to be free from these things, but if this is true, why do we create them?

There is a logical problem with valuing freedom. We think we are gaining freedom when we seek to separate from certain things, but when freedom is made a central concern what happens is that we lose a sense of responsibility. We may not even want to take responsibility for ourselves, which means we remain in a child-like or dependency state.

This happens to a lot of people. We all mature physically but we do not all mature spiritually. We may look like adults and act like adults, in some respects, but we never assume the responsibility of adults. Many of the spiritually immature will not work and prefer to be wards of the state if not criminals.

It’s a dangerous precedent to strive for freedom from our responsibilities, even the responsibility for raising up the new generation, as all of our ancestors did for us.

It is not truly logical to put the individual before the group if the individual success does not benefit the group. It is not even that wise to gamble that if we permit individuals to succeed on their own terms, that perhaps they will end up benefitting the group.

Logically we would find a way to benefit those who benefitted the group the most, while penalizing anyone who wanted to benefit themselves at the expense of the group.

But how does the group make the group obedient to the groups needs? It’s a convoluted question that has never been answered, because ultimately a group is not a thing but a collection of individuals.

But perhaps we have asked the wrong questions and so have got the wrong answers. Is it really a group that we ought to be aspiring to benefit? Perhaps what we need is a higher order destination or objective? Perhaps we are created for something more than greed, even when it helps our group.

We as a species are striving for Dominion. This planet was made for us but it was not made perfect if it was, we would not have Dominion over it. It was made so we could exercise dominion.

The Mission of man is to achieve dominion over the earth and the things of the earth.

Genesis 1: 27-28. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

This is our first and true mission even taking precedence over the Great Commission.

It is our mission to subdue the earth.

If we do not do this how can we prosper? If we are fighting each other over portions of it, how can this translate into dominion?

To have dominion or to dominate, requires a shared or organized authority. We must speak with a single voice. But to have dominion is not to have supreme power over the earth. To have dominion is to have the authority of use. Our needs predominate. There is nothing on earth that pre-empts our claim or rights of use.

But does this mean we can individually just do what we wish to the earth, as if it had no protections?

The environmentalists were right that the earth is not to be exploited. To retain dominion, we need to exercise responsibility, we need to be accountable to each other for the use we make of the earth.

We need to replace the value we consume. This is not just having children to repay past generations for the cost of our own existence, but we need to create more value to replace the value our living consumes.

The earth is ours as the church. We are the church as the world. There is the local church but the church itself in the global sense is the earth.

Our charity ought to replenish the earth.

Logic requires a goal. Logic requires a destination. Logic must have a standard to aspire to. Logic requires us to be heading somewhere by some means or other.

The Bible calls it the replenishment of the earth, but this requires we restore all the value we consumed in our living.

The truth is what makes logical sense. It must be true that we need to replenish the earth otherwise we would soon destroy it. It is true that there must be a logical destination to aim for, otherwise there is no direction to our living.

It must be true there is a solution to the problems of the world, otherwise we could not understand that we have problems. It is only by comparing what we have to what we know we ought to have, that we know we fall short of what we ought to have.

Apriorians are people committed to logic and to the logical truth that tells us that there must be a New Era on the horizon. There is no logical path to the perfection of the system we are in, and so we need a disjunction between the past and the future which bespeaks of a new era. A new Era in which the problems of the present have been by-passed by the formation of a new way of doing things; a logical way which does not perpetuate the problems of the past.

We call this the Apriorian Way, or the way of logical thought. Apriorians are logical and represent a new way of thinking, a new mind or consciousness that is aware of perfection.

Apriorians, meaning those who follow the Apriorian Way, strive to live logical lives. Aprioria is the new earth, that is the new Christian Era. It is earmarked by the elimination of the Ten Great Evils and the removal of the Five Foundational Errors.

The Ten Great Evils are unemployment, debt, poverty, inflation, pollution, waste, taxation, homelessness, war, and crime. These are the harbingers of the state.

The Five Foundational Errors that give the state is power are democracy, ownership, our currency, laws, and power disparities.

More about these in a later essay.