What if Secularism Worships Irrationality?


2014 © Cameron Rebigsol



  PDF copy also avaliable

1.      Pursuing Irrationality with Law

2.      Pursuing Irrationality with Natural Science

(a)   Nothingness being the Creator of Many Universes

(b)   Chaos being the Creator of Life


1.     Pursuing Irrationality with Law

Guided by the teaching of Christianity, the Declaration of Independence laid down the legitimacy for American people to pursue the separation from the British crown nearly two and a half centuries ago:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that…whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…

Today, however, a new ideological flood has tried everything possible to convince the Americans that Christianity is the exact culprit that has made the US government become destructive of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.   This ideology is not new in history, but just being comparatively new as a trend gaining momentum nowadays in influencing this country.  This ideology is actually not even an ideology in nature, because, being called secularism, it is veiling itself as some “principle” only to pursue separation between ideology and government. 

Anyone being puzzled at this secular veil must keep one truth in mind: no large scale of any human activity, government business in particular, can go on without ideology, but just what kind of ideology.  He who claims to make the activity free of ideology is, actually, intentionally or not, paving way for some particular ideology to filtrate in.  In today’s American salad bowl of secularists rally all the atheists, Socialists, people declining moral restriction, people holding adverse view toward Christianity such as Muslims…

All these secularists sternly share one vow: to defend the US Constitution’s genuineness, which, according to them, has secularism as its utmost essence.   They said the US Constitution has plenty of text to manifest its secular nature and to mandate the government to abide to secular principle.  If, they claim, secularism cannot achieve dominance in all public life in this country, the US government would become irrational, deriving its power without the consent of the governed.  The texts they found in the Constitution or other document as evidence for their support are mainly: 

(1)   The First Amendment. 

(2)   The segment of clause “…no religious Test shall ever be required…”

(3)   Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796, which says “…the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”      

(4)   The religion backgrounds of every signatory in the three most prestigious documents in American history, i.e., the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States.   

So unfortunate to the secularists, all the evidence they found for their support only turned out to stand firm against their argument.  For this, we have a separate article with more details explaining why the secularists’ view is so inescapably self-crumbling.  This article can be found under the title The United States of America―A Country of Christianity by Law, contributed by Rebigsol in this website www.huntune.net.  To avoid repeating the arguments from that article here, we would briefly summarize in the following few paragraphs why the secularists must fail themselves with the “evidence” they found. 


When quoting their evidence (1), the secularists must ask people to view “an establishment of religion” being equal to religion.  However, an establishment of religion cannot make itself equal to religion, just like a citizen of America cannot make him/herself equal to America.   English grammar alone will not make their view of equaling pass, not to mention law and logic.  Law can find an establishment of religion committing crime under certain circumstance, but no law can find a religion committing crime.     

As to their evidence (2), the secularists have long contorted the understanding of “religious test not required” into a test of “Christianity being unacceptable” and, riding on this contortion, ruthlessly mandating secular test.   However, a secular test is exactly an ironclad religious test, and it just forces a pledge of animosity against theistic faith, targeting at nothing else but Christianity in America.  How is it not a religious test if it sternly requires the cleansing of certain religion? 

As to their evidence (3), they apply the same trick of confusion as what they apply on the First Amendment, equating the “government of the United States of America” with the United States of America”.  Adding to the confusion, they never mention to people that this treaty of 1796 has been superseded by a similar one signed in 1805, in which words describing the government’s religious nature are dropped.  Most decisively crumbling this evidence of theirs is the fact that both treaties of Tripoli have vanished in history and been unable to bind anyone with legal power what so ever, as one of the beneficiaries of the treaties no longer exists. 

Using evidence (4) to serve their secular agenda, the secularists have devoted all diligence they can find to blemish the religious background of those signatories.   However, their diligence only reaffirms the worldwide historical sentiment regarding the USA being a Christianity nation.  Because of the religious background of these signatories, the worldwide sentiment that America is a Christian country has been always strong and so strong that the secularists believe they need to “clarify” it.

Nevertheless, no matter what text they found as their “evidence”, such text must only be seamlessly conform to and be coherent with the following statement in the Constitution: 

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. (Article VI)


Without this clause, America does not even have a country name to stand as a nation.  The Constitution of 1787 did not bestow itself with a power to name this country, but decided to inherit such a name as one of the “Engagements” that is recorded in another but the only document, which is called the Articles of Confederation (AOC), in which one can read:

The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America". (Article I)

   So inheriting, another engagement, entered as Article III in the AOC, must also, with the full power as a supreme law, actively continue to mandate the US Government to defend Christianity.  Selective inheritance is unfound and not allowed because of the word “all” in the above statement of Article VI.  Also unfound is any mentioning of preference of secularism in the US Constitution.  Here is the engagement found as Article III in the AOC, which is pledged by the US Constitution to be unconditionally inherited altogether with the name of the nation: 

The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever.

Religion is listed in this engagement as the top account to be defended.







2.     Pursuing Irrationality with Natural Science


(a)   Nothingness Being the Creator of Many Universes



Besides fabricating legitimacy with text doctored from the supreme law, the secularists also try to search for legitimacy with the help of natural science in order to make their secular shamming look indisputable.    Is the evidence they formulated with nature’s laws impeccable or just as equally irrational and self-defeated as their evidence fabricated with social law? 


Needless to say, to them, if the concept of God, the Christian God, can be disintegrated, all their secular claims will be naturally taken for granted by Americans.  To help them achieve this goal, they reckon that no science theory can serve them better than the Big Bang theory and Darwin’s evolution.  These two theories, sternly and directly contesting the existence of God, have earned high popularity because they are able to robe themselves as some symbol of topmost wisdom of mankind.   Overall, Big Bang is a theory preaching that the creation of the universe has no need to have God involved; the universe has created itself from nothing, which would continuously create new universes.    Darwin’s evolution is a theory just owes the existence of all lives to some common ancestor that had established its own life in an otherwise lifeless world; human being is just one of the links appearing somewhere along the descendent chain for this ancestor.


Before we go any further, a common character from both theories caught our attention: both theories must intertwine with a doctrine that nothingness is the source of everything. Both theories simultaneously need the support of this doctrine to prove their own validity as well as providing “evidence” to fortify this doctrine.  


Let’s first go over the Big Bang theory.  

When referring to Big Bang, everyone knows who Steven Hawking is.  According to Mr. Hawking, God is not needed, but just a set of laws of nature, in the creation of the universe.  In his book The Grand Design, he said:


Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.  It is not necessary to invoke God...


This statement would immediately dismay its readers how the law of gravity could have been part of the nothingness before the universe is created by the nothingness.  Do people need to redefine “nothingness” in philosophy as well as in English dictionary?  If this puzzle born with such fallacious logic cannot be clarified, the Big Bang theory must carry with it all irrationality to meet any challenge against it.  Setting aside this puzzle, to which the only solution is an acceptance of being self-ridiculed, let’s further examine a few other cases arisen by Big Bang.  


Case (1), regarding how the Big Bang’s singularity completed its explosion in an extremely short time interval.  Hubble’s observation has established that the majority of celestial objects are receding from us, signified as red shift movement.  The further an object is located from us, the higher the speed in its receding.  Using this as evidence, the Big Bang theory reasons that the universe is expanding.  Because, according to this theory, the universe came to existence after the explosion of a singularity, the universe then must have an edge denoting its most frontal expansion.    Celestial materials there must have been traveling at the highest speed leaving us, while those lagging behind would travel at lower speed, the further from the edge, the lower the speed.  If this reasoning sounds, today, 13.8 billion years after the explosion, the material distribution along any line we look toward the edge of the universe must impress us with this phenomenon:  the further along the line, the thinner the space density of material would become.   Subsequently, given the inevitable isotropic character that the Big Bang theory must allow for the explosion, a material point that could be referred as the center of universe would have easily suggested itself to us.    So far, all observations only suggest a homogeneous material distribution per unit volume allover in the space, although local irregularities are seen here and there.  Such observed homogeneity must cast serious and nearly irreconcilable skepticism on the view that the expansion is a result of an explosion.   Indeed, to reconcile, the Big Bang promoters suggest people to imagine how a loaf of bread would expand during the baking process.  Such a loaf does maintain spatial homogeneity of material distribution while expanding.  To have a model matching this suggestion, the Big Bang supporters have necessarily led us to the next case.


Case (2), material is homogeneously distributed along any radial line centered from an observer.  To realize such distribution, the source of explosion must control the exploding so well that material batches, regardless of its size, can leave the source with certain constant speed that is linearly decreasing according to each patch’s leaving time.  This model sure can maintain linear homogeneity along each radial line and between all these lines.  However, it is unable to maintain the same areal density of material distribution between surfaces of spheres of different radius.    The bigger the radius a sphere has, the lower the material density per unit area on this sphere’s surface would end up.  Besides, unless the material spewing can permanently continue, an exhaustion void in the universe about where the source locate must sooner or later show up.  So far, no such active source is ever reported for the Big Bang to earn any material support. A model of well controlled explosion and a model of abrupt explosion, which is the one the Big Bang theory has been advocating, must remove each other.  Sure, for the fun of it, we can also devise another model as illustrated in case (3) below to match the Big Bang’s fantasy.


Case (3), prior to the explosion, density of mass and energy contained by the singularity had been distributed inversely proportional to each patch’s distance from the center of the singularity.  However, this model is very destructive to the fundamental concept of the Big Bang theory in two folds: (a)  No any dough of bread loaf before baked can be so devised as illustrated in this  model if the expansion manner of the universe is to be compared with the bread’s expansion manner.  (b) Acceptance of this model means that dimension of space can exist before the singularity launched its explosion.  The Big Bang theory must forbid such acceptance, which appears so fatal to the Big Bang’s flagship idea that dimension of space cannot exist before the singularity’s explosion.


No model regarding spatial material distribution can be devised to match what Big Bang preaches.  Besides, other astronomy observations also directly challenge Big Bang’s single explosion assertion, such as blue-shift movement, meaning some celestial objects moving toward us, directly contradicting explosion behavior.   Further, did the singularity contain limited or unlimited quantity of mass and energy before the explosion?  Either limited or unlimited would embarrass the Big Bang theory. To extricate, it relies on a concept that dimension of space has no significance until it is created by the singularity’s explosion.   


One of the big challenges that Big Bang always encounters is how the singularity had found space for itself to stay when the universe is not yet created.  If space was already so provided for the singularity, shouldn’t this space belong to some universe of more seniority and make the singularity just part of it?  So the Big Bang supporters ask people to accept that the singularity had packed and monopolized with it everything that we can feel with real sense, such as mass and energy, or imagine with abstract reasoning, such as space and time.  


If their dogma works, space cannot exist beyond the outmost expansion front.  Beyond this front, nothing must stay as nothing.  If the dimension of space can be found beyond, something not created by Big Bang’s singularity has existed, and the Big Bang theory must terminate itself right here.   However, the idea that dimension of space is created by the explosion of the singularity would dreadfully remove the notion of explosion.  As a product of the singularity’s explosion, the dimension of space cannot be independent of the character of the universe’s expansion, but must inherit the same elasticity as the expansion itself.  The comparison between the dimension occupied by the entire expansion and any segment of this dimension must then forever maintain the same ratio―no expansion can be concluded.  Simply imagine a kid growing with perfect proportion between all his body parts all the time.  If he is allowed only to use his knuckle to measure his body length, he can never know how much he has grown, but permanently, say, 50 knuckle lengths.  He would know only if he is allowed to use, say, the length of his first shoes in his life; the shoes are independent of his birth, a creation from some other source.  


Self-contradictions invoked by the Big Bang theory are so overwhelming that its promoters feel the need of putting up many “indisputable” band aids for rescue.    The main idea of all these band aids still relies on their flagship avocation that something can come from nothing, and nothingness does warrants the emerging of something.


One of the band aids is the concept of multiverse: “Science predicts that many different kinds of universes will be spontaneously created out of Nothing.  It is a matter of chance which we are in...” This is only a different appearance of the same version of the idea that nothingness, with some laws from the nature, such as the law of gravity, can create universe―upon the maturity of some random combination of nature’s laws and cosmic constants is born a universe.  Therefore, according to them, universe and the nature are separate entities.  How much rationality, or irrationality, can be found in this “science” logic?


It requires energy for any random shuffling of anything into new combination.  Where does the energy come from if a universe is not yet created?  Another band aid thus shows up:  Random fluctuation in the nothingness creates negative energy and then allows positive energy to be generated for a universe to form. Negative energy and positive energy well balance each other, thus law of energy conservation is not violated.  Perfect! But fluctuation contrasts to what backdrop, time, matter, space, light or heat intensity…?  Even more to the point, what is fluctuating?


Some of the band aids even claim to have found material evidence in observation witnessing something coming out of nothing, both in experimental and astronomical environments.  However, there are two catches against such claim. (1)  Is the space from which the source identified as nothingness but producing something part of the universe we live in? Or is it part of some other universe from which we are absolutely isolated?   (2) How do they identify the source capable of producing something as having been genuinely nothing? What degree of perfectness can their instrument and method achieve in identifying absolute nothingness?  At least, it is said nowadays that dark matter and dark energy have permeated in our universe so thorough through that no one can live anywhere without their embracement, save the mentioning of neutrinos.  Does the Big Bang theory support or oppose the idea of dark matter and dark energy, how about neutrinos?   Human beings have been fooled many times by nothingness in their history of understanding the nature.  One of the most typical puzzles of nothingness in ancient time was what had caused the spread of epidemic disease.  The bacteria or virus in those eras were so undetectable and thus appeared so matching their concept of nothingness. 


The most inconceivable price the Big Bang supporters are willing to pay for all this band aids is their volunteering sacrifice of Einstein’s relativity, relying on which the Big Bang theory develops its mathematical validity.   To maintain that the outmost expanding front enabled by the Big Bang can proceed beyond any speed barrier, they claim that general relativity allows the movement of the “edge” of the universe to exceed any speed limit.  If they don’t bestow general relativity with such privilege, they have hard time to match the universe’s age with the age of many remote celestial objects that tell us different story with their virtue light frequency and redshift character.  In claiming that general relativity allows light speed to be exceeded, do they remember that speed limit of light affirmed by special relativity is the steadfast principle for general relativity to gain its validity? Even more to the point, how serious are these so called scientists in doing research?


Surely relativity is an invalid theory, but not in the way shown by the frivolous and reckless arbitration commanded by the promoters of the Big Bang theory, by those who ask people to believe the universe can come out from nothing.  Relativity is invalid because its own cored mathematical derivation is self-defeating.   For this, if a reader feeling interested in more details, he can refer to Rebigsol’s article A Simple Question from but against Relativity in the website www.huntune.net, where an award of $100,000 is posted for successful refutation against Rebigsol’s argument.   


All in all, the promoters of the Big Bang theory advocate their theory with this faith:  owning the laws of nature and some cosmic constants, nature itself is nothingness but would inevitably create universes, namely, multiverse. The central theme of this faith is:  The existence of universe needs a creator, but a creator of their version, a creator that is the synonym of nothingness!  All this self-defeating and irrational arguments can only serve as a confession from them that they fail to explain the origin of the universe.  So failing, they must permanently leave room for other’s theistic faith to prevail. 


Besides the Big Bang theory, the secularists also found another theory that would help them no better in sternly affixing their target at repelling God: Darwin’s evolution.



(b)   Chaos Being the Creator of Life


Since its debut, Darwin’s evolution had been incessantly cornered to confront with a challenging question: how was the very first life enabled to show up in nature?  Retrospective scrutiny of parental line of living beings must make this question unavoidable.  Before this first life appeared, any grouping of materials, simple or complicated, must be lifeless.  Parallel to Big Bang’s simple faith that nothingness having created the universe, all those atheistic evolutionists ask people to abide to a faith that lifelessness has created life. 


Scientists, many of them are also Christians, have long pointed out one mathematical conclusion: with the chaotic distribution of substance found in the wild nature, to have random material particles join together to form highly orderly arrangement as shown by live organisms, the probability is extremely low.  It is even easier to expect a brand new dictionary to be the aftermath of the bombardment of a junkyard.  Unless planned effort interferes, no organization of material, while depending only on nature’s random shuffling, can reach the complexity of arrangement as shown by live organisms.  


Any live organism can be considered a thermodynamic system. Except independent eggs that take nearly zero mass from the vicinity, most of these systems incessantly receive energy and mass from their external environment.  While retaining part of the intake, a live organism also releases some, although different content, back to the environment.   Overall, the system must enjoy a positive net gain on the energy account.  Gaining energy, such living system is also found reducing the entropy introduced to it along with the mass intake. However, the net gain of energy and reduction of entropy in the same system must contradict the dictation of the second law of thermodynamics (simply called the second law from here on).  Circumvention of the dictation is needed so that incoming entropy can be lowered at the presence of additional energy―uncontrollable increasing of entropy must lead to the destruction of the system.  So far, no thermodynamic system in the wild nature except live organisms can be found being able so circumventing.  Other than live organisms, anything else that can circumvent the second law’s dictation is unexceptionally found being a product of intelligence activity. Induction enabled by such innumerable products of no exception would naturally lead people to establish that live organisms are also products of intelligent design.  The reason is simple: why are they not and how can they be not?     


Evolutionists against the notion of intelligent design commonly regard the entire earth as one open system to support their argument, instead of regarding each live organism as an individual thermodynamic system.  Relying on this preference of regard, they think they found sound reason to reject the argument from their opponents who insist that spontaneous upgrading of complexity of material arrangement in the wild nature must violate the second law.  The second law, in the perception of the evolutionists, cannot constitute a reason in an open system to obstruct the happening of such spontaneous upgrading.   


If nature functions as what their preference speculates, every day we must be able to discover in the wild nature the omnipresence of material conglomerations that can behave similar to manmade refrigerators.   Such conglomerations can have function of putting its own entropy under control at the motivation of added energy, but yet unable to self-replicate―self-replication is uniquely a necessary and sufficient sign of life for an organism.   Possessing such behaviors, these conglomerations then necessarily occupy the ancestral stage before some future organism can show sign of life.  Conversely speaking, the appearance of live organisms requires the preemptive appearance of such material conglomeration.  However, never any such material conglomeration has been found in the open system called earth. 


In supporting their argument against intelligent design, the evolutionists even use circular logic, saying that it has been so natural for a huge cascade of lives to manage the energy from the sun without the concern of the second law’s adverse effect on spontaneous upgrading orderly arrangement of material particles. Thus, according to them, intelligent design has nothing to do with this cascade’s appearance and continue existence.   No more plainly and literally, they just say that life’s appearance is enabled by life.  Equivalently, this logic says that the appearance and sustenance of the refrigerators is enabled by the refrigerators, having nothing to do with intelligent design.  No argument, cloaked as sophisticate academic idea conveying, can appear cruder and more irrational.  


It is true that the second law of thermodynamics is quantitatively concluded with some hypothetical isolated system (not exactly closed system as what the evolutionists appear to refer to).  However, the same law also allows the co-existence of a qualitative statement saying that heat energy cannot spontaneously transfer itself from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.  The qualitative statement should be more universally and unconditionally applicable in open or closed system, while absolutely isolated system for the quantitative derivation does not exist.  If the evolutionists refuse the second law to be applied in scrutinizing the thermodynamic process in non-isolated system, open or closed, they need to prove the following process being independent of the second law’s governing: When a system’s entropy is lowered as a result of heat being exported out of the system, separate amount of energy must be applied to realize the exportation, and such separate energy must be isolated from the system. Following this, they must further prove the following is possible: in an open system, materials can rally into some group that shows a state of lower entropy but either (1) without heat being generated, or (2) any heat thus generated can stay out of this group and will never reenter.  But then they must answer how genuinely open is their open system.     


People disagreeing on evolution focus their debate on “The Origin of Species”, not on the origin of the Earth.   The evolutionists’ asking people to examine the entire earth as one thermodynamic system obviously only want to divert the focus of discussion.   At this point, they may want to put up material evidence such as Miller-Urey experiment for their argument on how life initially appeared from a lifeless world.  Then they need to explain why an experiment carries no nature of intelligent design.   


There are two major mechanisms of life that no evolutionist is able to explain regardless of what known nature’s law they would apply.   (1) Given a material conglomeration that maximally resembles a live body in material arrangement, must this conglomeration be guaranteed to possess the functions of life? (2) Why must all lives die? If “yes” is the answer for question (1), we would have no trouble for a corpse to have signs of life restored―signs of life can just wander in and out of the body freely.  Question (2) annihilates the validity of evolution’s absolute dogma “survival of the fittest”, because no immortal life has ever been resulted out of this dogma.  If this dogma can stand firm and immortal life has been found, then, the evolutionists may have a chance to declare that chaotic collision of material particles may introduce right opportunity for some spontaneous occurrence of live organisms.  However, no such right opportunity ever shows up; all lives must be destroyed in the arms of nature’s randomness, sooner or later, one way or the other.  These two questions come together would give so much more room for intelligent design to render indisputably valid answer. An egg is a good example to illustrate the phenomenon involving these two questions together.


An egg is a good closed system, which hardly exchanges mass with the environment but, during incubation, does receive good amount of energy from its vicinity.  While being intact, no one can guarantee a new life would inevitably emerge from it with respect to the same egg.   Even when everything else is the same, the presence or absence of a droplet of semen will lead to a life’s thriving or perishing, two opposite worlds.   Sperm here serves as a key of life unlocking.  How would a key not bear the finger print of design?  While an egg may stay inactive for a while if not incubated, prolonging storage will eventually make it unable to hatch new life―nature’s randomness must destroy its life mechanism, one way or the other.  Nature’s randomness has never showed people that it would lead a new life out of an egg―it, then, must be even far more remote to expect any life to be established out of some lifeless materials scattered in the wild nature.  Plant seeds carry scenario similar to eggs.


There are some more questions that can challenge evolution’s idea that life has come from nature’s lifeless random environment.    If life has established itself on lifeless materials, when the first sign of life showed up on earth, did it show up on only one single individual organism? Did it show up on one batch of multiple individual organisms of the same content? Did it show up on multiple individual organisms of different content? Did it show up on more than one batch but with a distribution spreading in different areas on earth?  Wild speculation must arise in answering these questions with “yes” or “no”, but they must all pivot the validity of evolution.


Aside from so many challenging questions concerning the emerging of the first life, the part of evolution concerning primatology and anthropology would be hungry enough to exhaust evolution’s answer.  Here are a few of these questions.


1.      One of the modern sciences that the evolutionists constantly refer to for their support is genetic study, mainly, DNA.  They claim that life in higher form possesses more complicated DNA arrangement than life in lower form.  It is so because only gene mutation makes it possible for more variety of gene samples to appear in nature’s selection.  After the selection, those with more complicated genes survive the selection and thus stay as a higher form of life.  (To avoid more complicated argument, at this point, we skip questioning them whether gene mutation in their concept covers only different arrangements of the same gene count or also covers gene addition/elimination.)  It has also been commonly accepted by both people agreeing or disagreeing about evolution that Homo sapiens represent the highest form of life. If so, isn’t it reasonable for evolutionists’ gene mutation theory to predict that human beings have the most complicated genome among all animals? Surprisingly, we human beings even have one pair less chromosomes in our cells than that of chimpanzees’, which have 24. The evolutionists arbitrate the explanation on such retrogressing with a term called “fusion” but with proof skipped.  If their idea “fusion” holds, what term will they use to explain the following chromosome number finding (shown with haploid number)?

Green monkey, 60

Diana monkey, 60

Brown woolly monkey, 62

Capuchin monkey, 54

Owl monkey, 49 (male) and 50 (female)


In the chronology of evolution, life form development is moving from low to high as primates progress from (monkeys) to (arboreal apes) to (Homo sapiens).  The complexity of DNA structure must escalate accordingly along this line if the evolutionists’ gene mutation assertion is correct.  But the finding is that the chromosome number gradually lessened along this line.  How would evolutionists extricate themselves from this theoretic disaster of devolution?

2.      Evolutionists have long told people that our ancestors had dwelled in the tree canopies for a long evolution period before they came down to flat land.  Do the evolutionists have a clue who had placed those ancestors in the treetops to begin their arboreal life and from where?

3.      Evolutionists and those anthropologists taking the atheistic evolution view claim that primates were all originated from Africa, even fossil evidence has suggested monkeys appeared in Europe more than 20 million years ago.  Have they found any evidence to support a speculation that no primate can originate from other continents, and that, once dwelling in other continents, any primate must be forbidden from migrating into Africa?

4.      Similar to the above claim, the same groups of people claim that all modern men are the descendants of some African origin in this 50 or 100 thousand years.  Again, material evidence from them is absolutely absent.  Equally dramatic, without material evidence of any kind, they also assert that Caucasians’ blue eyes are consequence of cultural selection of these seven or eight thousand years.


Evolution has presented enough to suggest that it desperately destroys itself in many ways, in logic, in natural law application, and in presentation of material evidence. 


No other science theory can be more directly and pronouncedly confronted with the belief of God’s existence than the Big Bang theory and evolution theory started by Darwin.   However, as formidable as the hope that these theories would serve the secularists’ God repellent desire,   the self-defeating potential of the arguments from these theories are impassable.     As the secularists mock and accuse Christians believing miracles, how far away do they think they are from worshiping nonsense?  At least, holy miracles would not be self-defeated, but just possibly incomprehensible and inexplicable in a human’s mind with the power human can ever possess.  Nonsense, however, is always self-rescindable.


If both the US Constitution and natural science can provide the secularists with no credit of rationality, why must the US government be forced to accept the dominance of secularism in its administration, openly violating its constitutional obligation of “binding themselves…against all force offered to, or attacks made…on account of religion…”?   What can be so authoritative as to be able to force secular test down the US government’s throat so that it must openly violate “…no religious Test shall ever be required”?  The violation has victimized our public schools with the most cruelty among all sectors of governmental institutions.  A government supposedly defending religion affixes its persecution power against any education officer who dares to spread God’s words among the young posterity of the Founding Fathers. The US Constitution has been openly challenged and violated from top to bottom by secularists under the veil of pursuing its genuineness. 


All in all, why should this country relinquish its dominance to irrationality in herding this county?  The consequence of the relinquishing is that this country has become more and more irrational in all domestic and foreign affairs―the entire world has been acknowledged the America’s ever increasing irrationality, except, sadly, many Americans themselves. 


How long can a person stay irrational?  Then, how long can a country stay irrational?  


  PDF copy also  available




Robberies Orchestrated by Government

© 2014   Cameron Rebigsol


Capitalism=Free Trade

 Socialism=Forced Trade=Robbery

Who Else but Government Can Enforce Socialism?

Limitless Power Enables Limitless Robbing!


  PDF copy also available

 The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money —Margaret Thatcher—

Eventually, no one has money, but only the few topmost socialist chiefs who have the power to “run out of other people's money”.


1.                 There are Only Two Types of Trading


2.                 The Manifesto of the Communist Party

      —A Declaration of Monopolization of Absolute Power



1     The Only Two Types of Trading


It has been commonly accepted that the essence of capitalism is a free market.  Indeed, it is so defined by the Manifesto of the Communist Party, one of the most pioneering and authoritative political documents ever objecting capitalism:


The bourgeoisie…has left no other nexus between people…than callous "cash payment"... It has resolved personal worth into exchange value…has set up that single, unconscionable freedom ―Free Trade...free selling and buying…if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also.


Meanwhile, along with its objection, the same document declares how much irreconcilable hostility it has toward free trade―an open calling for abolition:       


This talk about free selling and buying ... have no meaning when opposed to the communist abolition of buying and selling…


Selling and buying constitutes trading; a market, big or small, is thus needed and formed. In the market people trade materials, services, skills, ideas..., exchanging any kind of interest.   Therefore, trading is the essence of a market.  Joining the trading are people called either sellers or buyers. The trading is called free, and genuinely free, if, and only if, the will of both the sellers and the buyers in the trading are fully respected.  Without this respect, no trade can be termed as free.   If the freedom in the trading is not hampered in any degree, either a seller or a buyer can withdraw the trading without suffering any undesirable consequences when he finds the trading term not favorable. With all this explained, we can define capitalism with a term of more condensed essence:  The essence of capitalism is free trading, termed as free-trade, wherever the trading happens, within a designated market or anywhere else.   


A trade cannot be seen as being free if the will of either the seller or the buyer is jeopardized.  In such a trade, one of the parties, either as a seller or a purchaser, is forced to complete the trade.  Such an individual cannot withdraw from the deal even if he found the trading term unfavorable to him, because otherwise he has to deal with the duress imposed by the other party.  Only successfully overcoming the duress can free him from the deal.  Natural enough, contrasting to free trading, this kind of trading but under duress is forced trading.  Let’s term it forced-trade. 


Besides free-trade and forced-trade, can people find another type of trading among humans’ interaction in interest exchange?  None! Trading is either free or forced; there is no third choice.  The only thing different is how strong some duress is there to enforce a trade; zero duress is in free-trade but duress from mild to extreme must present in forced-trade.   Therefore, it must become indisputable that he who objects free trade can only favor forced-trade.  In a forced-trade, one party, either as a seller or a buyer, is setting terms to force the other party to accept.  From now on, we call the party setting terms in a forced-trade as term setter, and the other party as servitude bearer.  Can we imagine that a servitude bearer would love force-trade?  Of course not, because he is victimized and must suffer in a forced-trade. The one who loves forced-trade can only be the one who perceives himself being a term setter.  With the term he is able to set, he, if being a buyer, can force the other party to relinquish, say, a house in exchange for $1, or even some discarded underwear from such a buyer. Or he, if being a seller, can force the other party, say, to pay $1,000 for a banana peel the seller will not eat.  


Given that the essence of capitalism is free-trade, nothing is more logical that if someone objects capitalism, he must object free-trade, or if he objects free-trade, he must object capitalism.  The equal sign in these relationships is simple, clear, and indisputable.


In human history, nothing other than Socialism, or indistinguishably Communism, has been found more ferociously and systematically hostile to capitalism.  Then, needless to say, aiming at replacing capitalism, Socialism must aim at the removal of free-trade, and thus inevitably replacing it with forced-trade, as no other kind of trading can be found.  The MCP made it very clear in the above quotation―the Communist abolition of free trade.  


Upon the completion of a forced-trade, following some unfavorable terms, the servitude bearer has to surrender to the term setter what originally belongs to him, either partially or completely, depending on the magnitude of the duress.   To describe and summarize such a procedure and such a results out of a forced-trade, we find no word better than robbery from any dictionary to do the job.  So what title should be given to all those people who were viewed by a big population as heroes in all socialist revolutions in history, such as Karl Marx, Fredrick Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Che, Pol Pot…who relentlessly pursued forced-trade that the Manifesto of the Communist Party fervently promotes? If not robbery gang leader, what else?


Subsequently, we can also find no better label than bandits’ logics to tag on any ideological theory that glamourizes and legitimizes forced-trade.  As a document earning the most prestige of calling on abolishing free-trade, the MCP naturally draws the most focus of our scrutiny.




2   The Manifesto of the Communist Party

—A Declaration of Monopolization of Absolute Power



The Manifesto of the Communist Party (MCP), published in1848 by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels, is a flagship document for the Communist Movement. What makes it so influencing, on top of its moving rhetoric, is its lucrative slogan: to convert the entire proletariat class, which, according to Marx and Engels, has been so suffering, into a class of ruling.  


The Communists… openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. …The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.


(In the entire article, this author will use the terms of Socialists and Communists indistinguishably but interchangeably for illustration. These two groups of people are indeed indistinguishable even by themselves; they worship the same ideology, pursue the same political goal―to set up a government that can enforce forced-trade.)


The biggest crime MCP found the bourgeois were committing was setting up a free-market, through which the bourgeois substituted the old naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation with both destruction of a mass of productive forces and the more thorough exploitation of the old ones; the most devilish tool serving such crime is cash in the free market. The bourgeois, which simply means business owners and capital holders in more popular terms nowadays, together with the system of free-trade and its lubricant—cash, should all together be removed according to MCP. The new state governed by the new ruler in place of the old is so detailed in the MCP, “… the following will be pretty generally applicable”:


1.      Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2.      A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.      Abolition of all rights of inheritance.

4.  Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralization of credit in the banks of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal obligation of all to work...


When, in the course of development … all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power…is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. … (T)he proletariat, by means of a revolution, makes itself the ruling class


All those words that call for Abolition, Confiscation, Centralization, owned by the state, and exclusive monopoly can only portray to people nothing else but a social construction of absolute monopolization of power of a state at the settlement of some violent plundering.


One of the sicknesses the Communists claim they found with the capitalist society is the monopolization of capital. To remove it, they claim, according to the MCP, is to get hold of a far more aggressive monopolization, which is an absolute monopolization of power of a state, in which capital is only a tiny item to have been monopolized.


As to how this monopolized power is governed and exercised, and who will represent the ruling class to carry out the will in exercising all these powers, the entire MCP absolutely presents no word about it. For an untold reason, Mr. Marx and Mr. Engels, whom have been said to be so intelligent, left behind only this vague statement to answer this vital and essential question: everything has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character... (T)he proletariat… makes itself the ruling class


A society without chief is a Utopian society, which is strongly rejected by any Communist. The history forged by all socialists in this one and half centuries is indeed a history threaded by innumerable ferocious struggles in which they all fight for being such a chief at any cost.  The cost is either to be paid by one’s own blood, or, even better and outrageously more often, by other’s blood.   It is impossible for these two ancestral figures of socialism to have been unaware of this vital point of leadership in a new state they dreamed of.  But they were unable to extricate themselves from the hypocrisy they created: to overturn capital monopoly by establishing power monopoly; to make the vast population as a ruling class but this population must have some ruler above it.   Even worse, while the MCP creates chance for someone to rule, these two scholars themselves must be embarrassed if they were seen riding on the same theory to get access to ruling the monopoly of absolute power.  This point of leadership is finally explained and put in practice by another frantic Communist chief: Vladimir Lenin, who left behind a shelf of ideology volumes called Leninism.


In the core of Leninism, Lenin proposed a ruling mechanism called dictatorship of the proletariat.  He wrote that those who were to assert the dictatorship for the proletariat must be those from the Communist Party, which assumed the role of "revolutionary vanguard".  The dictatorship under his pen also carries a fig leaf termed as democratic centralism.  What is democratic centralism?    Has anyone seen blackish white or frigid fire?    With the leadership Lenin had attained, would anyone need to guess who could centralize the “democracy” inside the revolutionary vanguard?  While he asked others to practice this term under his leadership, he did not even believe any significance existing in this term, as the same Lenin also said “When there is state there can be no freedom, but when there is freedom there will be no state.   Hypocrisy is so inseparable from Socialism ever since Marx, and can only be more and more elaborated by each generation of socialists.   How about, for example, another equally mocking term called “socialist market” found in the Constitution of Communist China?  Literarily translated, it means robbery place of free-trading. 


How Lenin’s dictatorship of the proletariat would work out for the state is no better explained by his another doctrine: “There are no morals in politics; there is only experience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel.” Why did Lenin, one of the most successful communist leaders, needed to use scoundrel? The only reason must be, of course, for the success of the Communist Movement, in which he was the one on the top of the food chain of dictatorship of the proletariat.


Logic and experience tells us that a scoundrel can only be submissive to and used by a person with a mentality that is more scoundrelly. Then upon the top leading figure’s success, he can only be swarmed by nobody else but scoundrel subordinators. He who is not scoundrel enough is not qualified of being next to this chief.  Won’t this also qualify the top leading figure as the topmost scoundrel? Mr. Vladimir Lenin, how do you rate your successor, Joseph Stalin? Was he a great Communist warrior or a great Communist scoundrel, who had been so submissively used by you until your death, and who so highly praised you until his death? Stalin, what an atrocious murderer who can find no one else being able to even slightly match his killing record in Russian history!


With the doctrine of using scoundrels, here are a few examples how the top leading figures of Communist Movement promoted their career and for whom. During the Russian Civil War, when Lenin learnt that one of his troops was delayed by a big swarm of prostitutes in a little town, he ordered to have all the prostitutes executed; all soldiers involved with the prostitutes were excused, because the “revolution” needed their continue dedication.  Killing the prostitutes on the one hand, Lenin did have an official record of contracting syphilis on the other hand. Similar things happened to another extraordinary superior leader of the Communist Movement. At the eve of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, when Mao learnt someone acted as a pimp boss of an underground sexual business in Shanghai, he ordered to execute the pimp boss.  When he was advised by his private doctor that he had contracted with gonorrhea, he replied with a laugh: “It doesn’t matter; I can wash it clean with other women’s body.”


If a gravely influential leading figure like Lenin confessed no moral but scoundrel needed to be used, witnessed by his and other leaders’ personal behavior, no one can separate bandits from the Communist Movement leaders. Subsequently, no more proper label other than bandit’s logic can be tagged with the Manifesto of the Communist Party.  Far surpassing any highway robbery, which may aim at any substance of daily life, topped with cash, jewelry, gold nuggets… the rubbery that the MPC aims at is factories, tracts of land, bank system, governmental institution and infrastructure…


Now, all Lenin’s words, or doctrines, should have nakedly revealed to us the gruesome nature of the Manifesto of the Communist Party with absolute transparency:


It is a document written for people with scoundrelly mind to pursue absolute monopolization of power of a state, allowing finally only one or extremely few people to dominate such power. First time ever in history, human beings created a systematic “theory” to glamorize robbery, pillage, plundering…, all forms of forced-trading. Even no more wretchedly, the robbery is carried out by the highest power that human can ever establish―government. At the completion of the monopolization, a more powerful term setter can aim at anything and everything of someone less powerful. 


Tens of millions of corpses, converted from otherwise innocent and vigilant lives by hunger, manmade desolation, torture, murder… in history witnessed the fierce robbery committed in the Communist movement beginning as early as the Paris Commune of 1871.


With a nature so repulsive and menacing to people’s common mindset, why does communism appear so invincible in history? In less than twenty years after the Soviet Bloc disappeared, Socialist torches are seen spreading with a new surge of wave, burning even at the doorstep and backyard of America, a country that is said to be the most typical capitalist state. Should people wonder why?


The absolute key for the Socialists’ success is their lucrative slogan, with which they promise people that the path they lead can convert a sufferer into a term setter.   In the words of MCP, “(T)he proletariat, by means of a revolution, makes itself the ruling class” and “They have a world to win.” Their slogan matches no better to human greed, which, as an animal instinct, each of us must possess, but just how much each person can restrain himself from it. Human greed enables this kind of slogan perpetually untarnished.


Stand up, damned of the Earth… prisoners of hunger…enslaved masses…The world is about to change its foundation. We are nothing, let us be all…” ( Lyrics from the International Anthem)


Normally, people will decline robbery, either robbing others or being robbed.  However, many of them may lower the guard against robbery or even approve the robbery if they are told someone else would rob for them and let them share the loot.  It is why Robin Hood is such a legendary hero who never died.   The robbery even rapidly gains popularity if people are urged to believe that their participation of robbery is only for a course of justice and that anyone resists being robbed by them is a criminal.  This is a never failed propaganda strategy of socialism.  Using this strategy, even some modern drug lords are fanatical in promoting socialist movement.  If it is said that the main asset Lenin relied on for his Socialist career is violence, those drug lords have both money and violence to start the same thing.  Gaining popularity with the veil of glamorizing robbery can be unbelievably profitable to them―all the way up to the absolute power of the state.  The Columbian drug lord Pablo Escobar is a no better example telling us how any criminal gang’s operation and Lenin’s socialist doctrine of using scoundrels are just lovers in the same bed, seamlessly collaborating each other. 


Wealth and poverty are always displayed in a relative scale. In any society, people feeling poor and unsatisfied are always far more than those feeling rich and satisfied. This social phenomenon always incubates unhappiness for “revolutionist” to take advantage. This is to say that those pied pipers playing the magical flute of revolution can very possibly be someone who feels no suffering at all, while those who feel unhappy are not necessary the one playing the flute of revolution.  The flute players just use human greed as a catalyst, relentlessly luring those unhappy guys to fight for the player’s ambition programed by their far bigger greed.


Karl Marx was from a family that enabled him to attend a university at the time he claimed that most of the populace struggled at the economical edge of life and death. Fredrick Engels himself was an elated bourgeois, whom the Manifesto of the Communist Party that he shared writing asked to remove. Lenin is also from a family that could support him to attend a university in a society of which the economic foundation is serfdom. Mao Tse-Tung, another prominent leading figure of the Communist Movement, was from a family that should be the richest in their immediate community. The economic status of this family was so good that, after Mao seized the power in China, people displaying equivalent economic condition in any part of the country could easily be placed in the list of enemy class by the Mao’s government and be executed.   Mao’s lifetime second man Chow Ein-Lai was from an aristocratic family of the previous Chink dynasty. With all these, we have not yet mentioned that almost the entire leading core of the previous Vietcong, North or South, during the 1940’s, 1950’s and 1960’s were from families privileged in either economy or social status, so were the members of the leading core of the Cambodia Communists who decimated one quarter of the nation’s population in three years during the early 1970’s. Were any of these who “stand up” after they grabbed the power the “damned of the Earth… prisoners of hunger…enslaved masses…”? 


Witnessed by no personal suffering in social status, one of the modern celebrated American business owners was so heard in some human right assembly: “Free market is not working. What Chairman Mao said is kind of true: ‘Power comes from the gun barrel.’”


Gun barrel, what a lovely tool that enables someone to become a term setter! Nakedly, a businessman expresses his unsatisfactory with what free market can bring to him but aims at what a gun barrel can seize. The well-do personal background paired with the personal desire of this business man is so in harmony with what Marx, Engels, Mao…showed.  What amazes people is that this businessman is not alone in the modern society; many more social programs that would only pave the road to socialism are launched and supported by a handful of the super-rich. How about providing funds to support the legalization of marijuana? How about providing funds to make certain that the American southern border stays irreparable? How about providing funds to make certain that almost every movement made by Christianity in America faces litigation? 


Once we think of why Pablo Escobar can be so fanatical to socialism, we can immediately figure out why these few rich businessmen are also so fanatical about socialism.  Sharing the same ideas with Lenin, Mao, Escobar, what these few rich businessmen are aiming at is to buy the socialist governing power on top of their wealth. Rich people buying socialism must immediately rip off Marx’s fallacious proclaim that the goal of Socialism is to remove the rich and let the proletariat win the world.  A rich man is pursuing power, either though violence or through wealth spending, to have himself removed? Isn’t it a plain hypocrisy? History shows that when all those rich men like Lenin and Mao in the classic socialist movement finally “stand up’ with satisfaction, they would have held in hand something far surpassing what their original social status could have provided. Aren’t all these enough to tell people how hypocritical the nature of the Communist/Socialist Movement is?  Will the modern rich socialist business men aim less than those classic ones did? Urging people to rob for justice, Socialism is born of hypocrisy and destined to be perpetually hypocritical.  


The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” said MCP. Marx and Engels were both correct on that. What they did not tell people was that, regardless of how one may detail in classifying social members, there were permanently only two classes in the society: the one that ruled and the one that was ruled. Human instinct of dominance must determine that these two classes could never be eliminated from any society; otherwise it can only be a Utopian society that the Communists wait no time to kill.  Hiding this fact from people, Marx and Engels, including Lenin, Mao…, of course, actually also hid from people the fact that Lenin’s dictatorship of proletariats needed the existence of a class to be ruled. Class struggle must exist between the one who rules and the one who is ruled. Why must class struggle in any other society be so devilish but class struggle under the dictatorship of proletariats be so acceptable and needed to be hid? Why must people need to replace one class struggle of less life costly with only another class struggle whose cost is more than 100 million corpses?


When a revolution is not found launched nor led by the class of damned of the Earth… prisoners of hunger…enslaved masses…but by someone else belonging to the class under which they were ruled, and after the success of the revolution, the power is not found in the hands of these damned of the Earth…but in the hands of those who originally ruled them, the only genuineness the MCP has is deception unless it completes its lucrative slogan “they (the sufferers) have a world to win” with an appendage “for someone else.”  Without being so corrected, the MCP can only convince people that not only it was written solely for those who have scoundrelly mind, but also it never bore any purpose to be written for those damned of the Earth… prisoners of hunger…enslaved masses

All in all, MCP advocates establishing a government that enforces socialism/communism, while the essence of socialism and communism is forced-trade, which is nakedly nothing else but robbery.  No more danger ever threatening human being’s existence is for them to establish a government that can rob them of anything with any “just” reason the government chief can invent.  Government’s power of dominance tolerates no checking from anyone. 

Some modern Socialists claim that the type of Socialism they seek to realize is not what the MCP promotes.  But can they answer one question: will the ultimate goal of their type of Socialism seek for the replacement of capitalism? “Yes” is the only answer they can come up with.  With “yes”, however, what is the difference between their type of robbery and the type of robbery promoted by the MCP?  What is the difference between a robbery realized with pillage and a robbery realized with plundering? 

Besides the nature of hypocrisy, the MCP advocates regression of civilization with its vicious aim of scraping cash.  Cash is a great invention of social tool propelling human civilization forward.  Its significance is by no means lower than that of fire and wheel in propelling human’s material life toward more prosperity.  Without cash, should human beings go back to bartering, an exchanging system so popular during slavery time and prehistoric time?


3   Effects of the Two Types of Trading


As we have seen, the goal of the MCP is to establish a society in which forced-trade can be indisputably enforced by someone.

It can be said that forced-trade is an expression of animal instinct, and forced-trade is nearly the only form of interest trading in the animal world. It is more so among carnivores, except in a few cases, for example, a mother feeding a baby. In the animal world, the physically stronger one generally forces the weaker one to surrender its possession―prey, mate, and territory. What the animals follow in the trade is rules of jungle―survival of the fittest; blood shedding and life loss are norms in such trading. Trading in such procedure but in a human society is only termed as robbery, pillage, plundering, or even murdering if loss of life is involved… He who enforces such changing hand of possession is called a bandit. In such trading, the will of the loser is not respected.

To avoid blood shedding, people finally learn that the will of all parties involved in interest exchange must be respected. Gradually, another form of trading appears; it is called free-trade. Civilization begins. A trade is called free if and only if the will of any party, called trader, involved in the trade is not hampered in any degree. In other words, a trader can withdraw for any reason at any time before a deal is sealed. Along with the debut of cash in history emerges the term of seller, who aims at cash in a trade by providing something, as well as the term of buyer, who aims at acquiring something from the seller by giving up cash. Free-trade is invented by human and is only found in human society. This is an invention enabling human society to distant away from any barbarian gathering of animals; civilization is propelled forward with immeasurable advancement after its emerging.

As civilization moves forward, however, no human being can get rid of his/her animal instinct, which is called greed and is usually followed by the desire of dominance. Greed must determine that free-trade and forced-trade share one result in common: all traders in both types of trading seek an ultimate result of maximum benefit at the lowest cost. The only difference is that a person respecting free-trade will allow the other trader to withdraw from a trade before a deal is sealed, but a person favoring the forced-trade will try his best to enforce the trade onto someone who has less power in order to arrest the biggest benefit at the lowest cost.

At the level of animal, forced-trade is fundamentally exercised on a one-on-one confrontation. This usually leaves room for the stronger one to win. Different from the wild animals, to become strong in order to win in a forced-trade, people gang up more often than not. Ganging up provides the best vehicle for someone to achieve the social status of term setter. However, if resistance against forced-trade from opposite gang is foreseeably strong, gangs may complete the trading via free trade in order to reduce the trading cost. That is where the so called co-existence comes into play in some part of the society.

As we must all have known, gangs may be of any size, spanning from small group of only two people to as big as a country, or even alliance of countries. As much as some gangs are formed for the purpose of enforcing forced-trade, some other gangs are formed, indeed, for the purpose of fending off the forced-trade that someone else intends to exert on them.

With enough power, forced-trade can be invincible in the world of “trading”, bringing in the maximum benefit for the term setters. For the free-trade, however, it must place itself in a peaceful environment for processing. So free-trade is only enabled by civilization; its execution needs intelligence, experience, education, and patience. This is a born weakness of free-trade in contrast to the freedom of force utilization that force-trade can enjoy.

It is only natural that gangs appeared solely for the purpose of force-trade in human’s early history. Gang forming up to fend off force-trade must show up later than the other type, because it has no reason to exist if it is not for the existence of the gang for forced-trade. Gangs opposing those gangs that enforce forced-trade in the long human history can only gain their strength through a slow process of learning and gathering. As the new gangs rise up to tear apart the old gangs, they may introduce more chances for the free-trade to set up a norm in human society.

When we review history, we see a timeline of social development, displaying a pattern that ruling gangs are gradually getting less and less vicious in enforcing of forced-trade than precious ones. History is so processing because new gangs favoring free-trade are gradually gaining in all fronts: population, self-value awareness, level of education, and tangible strength. As more elements of free-trade are introduced to the society, and as the ruling class become less vicious, free-trade can achieve more authority in dominating humans’ interest exchange. These two factors reinforce each other. Finally, capitalism, a social system encouraging maximal free-trade, descends. Since its appearance, human society is propelled forward with unprecedented prosperity; meanwhile the corresponding ruling gang in this society is also made unprecedentedly mellow to the populace.

History shows us a trend how free-trade propels forward prosperity and thus civilization for human society. A feudalist society shows more prosperity than a slavery society, because the feudalist society lessens forced-trade than the slavery society to a certain degree. Having evolving from the feudalist society, a capitalist society maximally removes the forced-trade from the society; it therefore shows the maximal prosperity among all types of society in human history. For this, America, a most typical capitalist country, has provided the best evidence to the world. In contrast to America’s success (past yet?), all socialist countries are unexceptionally barren and desolated. Tortured by absolute poverty for too long, feeling the need to compete with her enemies with better material backup, China introduced an economic reformation thirty years ago. The content of reformation brought in is nothing else but just simply free-trade, a social operation that the MCP must permanently criminalize. Sail set, coupled with the excellent endeavor and endurance that Chinese revere in their cultural tradition, miracles released by free-trade just invigorate China to surpass the world’s economically powerful countries one after one.

Free-trade encourages competition; competition encourages the elimination of the weak by the strong. Monopolization thus appears. Monopolization is always an instrument that enables as well as enforces forced-trade.   Monopolization in capitalist countries usually stays within the form of capital monopolies other than government power monopolization like what is unexceptionally shown in all socialist countries. It is just simply because there are many different interest groups of capital monopolies in the same country. Each group must want to make sure no other group of monopoly can command too big a share of the government power, otherwise its own interest may be easily jeopardized.

Besides capital monopolies, capital countries have another type of monopoly: labor monopoly, which is usually the so called union. Capital and labor, these are the only two partners needed to sustain production for the survival of a society, any society. Neither of the partners can survive without the other. However, both must also incessantly compete with each other under the same principle: maximum profit at the lowest cost. The more each partner can aggregate into a monopoly, the more such a partner will intend to enforce force-trade. No one can change this natural tendency.

Motivated by the same principle of maximum profit at the lowest cost, the social effect hurled in by the two types of monopolies, i.e., monopoly of capital and monopoly of labor, can be dramatically different. The force-trade promoted by monopoly of labor force is born in nature far more menacing and dangerous to human society than the forced-trade promoted by monopoly of capital. The visualization of such danger can be so straight forward: Monopoly of capital is the absolute ownership of something that has no life; monopoly of labor force is the direct ownership of something that is of life.

When capitalism as a political system is still alive, monopoly of labor force would not show so much of absolute ownership of its members because of the interference of rules from the not yet vanished capitalist government. However, that “workers of all land unite” can aggregate various labor monopolies into some political entity that can abruptly convert the society. The Russian October Revolution in 1917 is a typical example. In the “new” society, the monopoly of absolute power can trash any rule from anyone else. Removing free-trade being its goal, the labor monopoly of course replaces it with forced-trade. Power in hand, those who control the monopoly naturally become some term setters; the weak also naturally becomes servitude bearer and is owned by the few term setters who have monopolizes the absolute power. Slavery system is thus no more thoroughly restored, but with 100 time stronger viciousness than the ancient slavery system. The enslaving power in the classic slavery society is scattered among many slave owners; the enslaving power in the modern slavery society set up by “workers of all land unite” is concentrated in the hand of only one or extremely few.

Before the conditions mature for the labor monopoly to convert the society, i.e., when it still inside the capitalist womb, labor force monopoly already effectively imposes forced-trade in the society. By forming powerful unions, the labor monopoly corners the capital holders to a “choice” of single price when the capital holders shop for labor. On the other hand, when the capital holders place the merchandise in the market, the prices of the merchandise must be set as low as possible to survive the fierce competition unless some particular merchandise has established a monopolized market. The reason that the merchandise price is driven to as low as possible is indeed even created by the labor force. When going to the market, each laborer switches his role from a producer, who adds the highest possible cost to a product, to a role of consumer in the market, where he only pays the lowest possible price for the same thing. If the business cannot survive in the scissors of low selling price and high labor cost, it would need to close or lay off workers. The society, mainly the labor force, would subsequently experiences difficulty. However, the labor force monopoly quickly attributes the reason to the “crime” of the capitalists, telling people that the time for social conversion has come:

Stand up, damned of the Earth… prisoners of hunger…enslaved masses… We are nothing, let us be all…”

In a history as long as we know, human beings keep gushing blood to rebel the old society with the hope of setting up some new ones where free-trade can be more and more revered. When such a society like America finally shows up and conveys to the society unprecedented prosperity, human greed quickly leads a big population to swear at free-trade with all the words they can find to mean crime, trying every way to topple it. If this population succeeds, of course, the only outcome for their success is the restoration of forced-trade. A government not serving free-trade must serve forced-trade. Logic and experience will give human no third choice, and no third choice can ever possibly exist.

Because free-trade is so vulnerable but forced-trade is so menacingly spontaneous, many people longing for a peaceful environment to maintain free-trade feel the need to appease those who would constantly promote force-trade. The abusive welfare program found in the capitalist society is one of the typical programs for appeasing. We will leave this for more detailed discussion in other chapters.   The unfortunate part brought up by this kind or that kind of appeasing programs is that they do not remove the force wedging in forced-trade; they just postpone the acting time of the force. During this postponing, such force is just given more time and resources to increase its strength. When the juice for appease runs out, the force will act without mercy. However, the juice must run out sooner or later; production out of free-trade is limited, but human greed can be pushed beyond any bound.

The various appease programs have taught those forced-trade lovers well that criminalizing free-trade is a lucrative business. Since socialism and forced-trade are synonyms, we can directly call this kind of business socialism enterprise, which means criminalizing capitalism to milk profit. As long as the appease juice is still available, the force-trade promoters do not need full scale of violence like what the MCP calls on. The tool of violence can be set aside for a while, but criminalizing free-trade cannot be stopped, otherwise the juice may stop flowing. Indeed, the more they can tight the screw in the press of criminalizing, the more juice they can have—for a while. They quickly discover some good tools to facilitate the screwing. These tools are nothing else but the terms that have been so widely loved for so long in human history; they are just the few terms called democracy, freedom, human rights, fairness…. These terms have helped free-trade, or capitalism, to set feet in human history, but now they are used for a purpose to remove it. These terms permanently look peaceful and benevolent. However, a bomb can have a delicately soft shell that is in pink color and coated with sugar, and the same sword can have two blades.


  PDF copy also available



The United States of America

—A Nation of Christianity Because of the Law—


  PDF copy also available


© 2014   Cameron Rebigsol

Everyone knows what country The United States of America is.  How has the name of this country been designated by law?  One may be surprised that this name is not given by the Constitution adopted by this nation in 1787.  Unless a constitution can declare to whom, or to which country it would deliver its service, it must remain as a document of no sovereignty, and cannot be protected by any organization and does not have jurisdiction over anyone, anything.   Though the country name is unfound in the US Constitution, however, the same Constitution does clearly declare to the world that it serves the country called The United States of America with its bold statement found in its Article VI, which reads:


All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.


Immediately, through this inheritance pledge, the US Constitution of 1787 emboldens the country with a name that it serves, as this name is found as one of the engagements the Confederation honors and records. In Article I of the Articles of Confederation (AOC) adopted by the Confederation, we found:

The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America."


Without this inheritance pledge, the only statement according to which one can find the Constitution of 1787 stressing its service is its preamble, mentioning “the United States of America” as the beneficiary of its service.  However, without a capitalized “T” in the first word, “the United States of America” is only a phrase to indicate some uncertain political combination but not any defined political conglomeration that can exist as a country.  Coupled with the fact that all nouns are capitalized in the original copy of the 1787 Constitution, English grammar, logic, and the context of the Constitution must all lead people to accept that the name for this nation is lawfully and solely given by Article I of the AOC, not the Constitution of 1787.  Indeed, some organization as “the United States of America” had existed quite a while before “The United States of America” was formed.  Furthermore, the original copy of the Constitution of 1787 did not even give itself a formal title as “The Constitution of The United States of America”, and thus it needs to rely on the Article I of the AOC to tell people who owns the Constitution and whom this Constitution is serving.


Upon acknowledging what the above inheritance pledge affirms, Americans must find themselves having been outrageously led by one misconception too far in law practice for too long. This misconception tells them that the AOC has been retired by the Constitution of 1787.  If what this misconception says is ever true, the name style Article in the AOC must also be inescapably retired.  Then, Americans must accept that they have never had a country to live by since 1787, but have been international political orphans in this land for nearly two and a half centuries.  This is dead serious!  


The AOC is the only document Americans can find to have a country name defined for them, and the name is affirmed with the inheritance pledge in the Constitution of 1787.  No document of any legality significance can affirm and reject (or retire) the same thing at the same time. 


It is true that many highly influential people in our history, politicians and scholars included, told people that AOC retired as soon as the Constitution of 1787 assumed the highest authority to govern in this land.  However, no matter what opinions these people have given, they all are of personal opinions only, not something ratified by the common will of the Founding Fathers in Congress.  Subsequently, none of such opinion can stand as a constitutional statement. 


If no document that has constitutional significance can be found to retire the AOC, all engagements recorded in the AOC must “be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation”.  Subsequently, going along with the name style engagement, entitled by the word “all” in the inheritance pledge, another engagement in the AOC must also continue to be actively ruling in this land:


The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. (Article III)


This is a plain statement of engagement to institute a government.  Logic concluded by both this statement and by the inheritance pledge of 1787 thus leads to an inevitable certainty:  Among many principles and purposes that America as a nation is formed and its government is instituted, religion defense occupies the topmost account.  The word “all” in the Constitution’s inheritance pledge empowers the Constitution to fully, seamlessly, and unconditionally weld the AOC into the Constitution of 1787 as its inseparable part.  Technically, indeed, not assigning itself with the legality of naming a country but choosing to inherit a name from the AOC, the Constitution of 1787 places itself in a position as amendment to the AOC.  What is found more essentially done in this amendment is not to add more principles but to elaborate the technicality how to institute a more efficient government for a more perfect union.  As far as principle is concerned, such an amendment also continues the same nature of religion revering by enthroning our Lord in its chronology, just like what is shown in the AOC.  Indeed, even more is added in this amendment:  the government needs to abide to Sabbath.       


It is only of common sense to everyone’s understanding that religion, or theistic faith, and atheism, typified by belief such as evolution, must rescind each other’s validity in ideology.  With the responsibility of religion defense being so loftily regarded in the Constitution, allowing dominance of atheism in any sector of public life in America by any measure and in any form must be in violation of the US Constitution.  So, if not atheism, what theistic faith, among so many in the US, does our Constitution single out to defend?


First of all, no logic whatsoever will enable anyone to imagine that the Constitution drafters came together only to draw a document serving an interest of disagreeing each other, and thus encouraging each of them to defend idea that any other must object. Therefore, a religion that they all felt the need to defend must be a religion that they all felt commonly acceptable in their worshiping. Indeed, such common acceptance is witnessed by words “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent” specified in the Constitution. Comparison among all religions that people know, the only religion that all these Founders singled out to defend with the power of a Constitution must inevitably be



not Islam, not Buddhism, not to even mention atheism or some extremely religious ideology such as Marx’ Socialism, which never allows absence of human “gods” in its practice…


Not only logic deduction concluded from historical environment must show Christianity being exclusively the religion earning the Founders’ unanimous reverence, but Christianity’s unshared supremacy above any faith is also literally bolted with text in the Constitution of 1787, which so expresses:


    Done … the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth.


Statement parallel to this is also found in the AOC, which so expresses:


Done … the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.



Among all religions that we know, only a calendar serving a Christianity Lord and dominated by the same would apply chronology with dates as shown above.  Conversely, and naturally, a calendar following this chronology in the name of Lord will not entitle any deity from other religion as Lord; only the Christianity God can so entitle.  In fact, for example, if Lord in the above chronology is to mean Allah in Islam, Muslims would consider it an insult, if not an attack, against their religion. That the Muslim’s sentiment cannot abide to the Christian dating in chronology can be clearly witnessed in the two treaties of Tripoli, one singed in 1796 and another one in 1805.   Therefore, God, and Lord, and similar terms in the Constitution must be the Christian God; all American official documents inferior to the Constitution, such as the president’s oath “help me God”, must all indisputably, exclusively and coherently refer to the same supernatural figure, a Christianity God. 


Since the chronology in both the AOC and the Constitution of 1787 is also applying the time mark “of the independence” following the Lord’s timing, this referral must solely and adequately entitle the Christianity God being the Nature’s God, the Creator, and divine Providence revered in the Declaration of Independence of America.


Besides verbal respect to the religion of Christianity, the US Constitution also enforces Christian practice in the top administration in our government.  The (Sundays except) found in Section 7, Article I is a practice respecting Sabbath―even the president’s message concerning law enactment cannot interrupt, but wait for another day.


While respects embedded in the US Constitution to the religion of Christianity are found so imperatively many, disrespect is found none. However, for each of their own demands, some people do try hard to dig evidence from the US Constitution to promote their argument that the US Constitution is established on the principle of secularism.  These people include atheists, secularists, Socialists, and followers from other religions that must have adverse view against Christianity.  The “evidence” they usually say they found includes (1) the First Amendment, (2) the statement “no religious Test shall ever be required” in Article VI, (3) Article 11 in the Treaty of Tripoli signed in 1796, (4) The signatories of the Constitution worshiped multiple deities and some of them were even atheists.  All these so called evidence are either fabricated with foul logic or with baseless contortion on the Constitution texts.


(1)   Here is the statement from the First Amendment concerning religious reverence:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…


This statement emphasizes its concern on some entity that fits the description of “an establishment of religion”, but not at all any religion.  For secular people using this statement to support their sentiment of repelling Christianity, they must confuse their listeners to accept “…an establishment of religion” being the same as “religion”.  Common sense dictates that an establishment of religion can never be equal to a religion, just like a citizen of America being never equal to America.  Law can find an establishment of religion committing certain crime, but no law can ever find a religion committing crime.  As pointed out in all previous analysis, the US Constitution has ample separate and prominent texts singling out Christianity to receive respect.  The 1st Amendment cannot sanction such texts because this amendment has restricted itself to mediating matters between establishments, not religions.  An establishment of religion must be inferior to the religion it serves.  So the secularists’ evidence one is self-defeated.


(2)   Here is the statement of the no-test-required clause found in Article VI:


…Officers…shall be bound by Oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or public Trust under the United States.


No logic would possibly lead this statement to be warped into a statement to force secular test, and thus to mandate secularism, upon all government officers, or any officer referred herein.  From the point of view of rhetoric, a religious test is simply a pledge, but a pledge either to show affinity with or animosity against some theistic faith.  So mandating secularism is just nakedly forcing a pledge of animosity against religion.  In so forcing, the secular test has not only deprived the freedom of religion granted by the no-test-required clause, but the secular requirement is even forced upon with a reason “…no religious Test shall ever be required…”  No contradiction more openly sordid than this can be found in mankind’s reasoning!  After so “constitutionally” enforcing, only the type of “freedom” satisfying the secularists and atheists is allowed to dominate in the public life in this nation.  A Constitution respecting Christianity but not secularism has been ruthlessly forced to disgrace itself!  


As one of the results of such disgracing, the Christianity followers have been forced to relinquish their privilege of educating the posterity of the Founders with morality in the public schools.   Can any person with a reasonable mindset accept that the purpose for those Christian Founding Fathers to found a country and establish the Christianity revering Constitution is to institute a government to brainwash their posterity with atheism?  Can any of today’s US citizen claim that he has most faithfully abided to the Constitution because he has most faithfully insulted the Founding Fathers’ will with his diligent promotion of the atheistic evolution?  Yes, our Founding Fathers do show generosity on freedom of religion with the no-test-required clause, but no one can find in the Constitution that they pre-condition the freedom with any “constitutional” persecution against their own faith, such as forcing the Christianity teaching out of the American public schools, in the name of the US Constitution.  Indeed, the Founders pre-condition the freedom with a declaration in the Constitution that their own faith must be singly defended by the government against any attack from any source, including secularism and atheism. 


The second evidence serving the secularists and atheists is thus self-defeated.  


(3)   Here is the statement of Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796:


As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion… it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


Clearly, this article is specifying the religious (or non-religious) character of the government of the USA, but absolutely not the character of America as a nation.  Even so, the Congress at the time still felt that the word “not founded on the Christian religion” was not exactly proper in qualifying the US government, as this government is an employee of a nation whose Constitution exclusively respects the spiritual reign of Christianity.  Only six years later, a second similar treaty that superseded the first one deleted the wording concerning the religious character of the US government and correspondingly presented the following statement: 


As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen,…It is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations; And the Consuls and Agents of both Nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his Religion in his own house… 

Common sense in law must dictate that government is merely an employee of AMERICA as a nation, and the employment relationship is bound by a contract called the Constitution.  The US government is thus inferior to the nation and the Constitution. Its structure that is free of religious hierarchy can never decide the spiritual nature of either AMERICA as a nation nor the US Constitution. As an employee, the US government is obliged to defend Christianity against any attack launched by any source according to the employment prerequisite stipulated in the Constitution! 


People hijacking the Treaty of Tripoli of 1796 for their secular scheme must defeat themselves as no one can castrate the words “the government of” from the treaty and logically applying it to describe the spiritual nature of the entire nation. In their so contorting, the same people never mention the existence of the second Treaty, as if they did not know the first one had been superseded by the second one.  What they do know, however, is that, if Americans learn the existence of the second but superseding one, the first one would become powerless in influencing any of the secularists’ listeners. So, their avoiding the second treaty just reveals to us their timidity that is caused by the awareness of the self-defeated fate of their third evidence.


What most fatally to the secularists’ strategy of employing the Treaty of Tripoli is that both Treaties have died.  One of the only two beneficiaries of this Treaty has vanished long ago and thus this Treaty can no longer support or oblige anyone.      


(4)   Work regarding the religion devotion of the Founding Fathers has been overwhelming by various people in history.  The diligence put up by the secularists in corresponding work is of course for them to formulate an opinion that the Founders are not coherently from Christianity and therefore they could not have established a Constitution respecting Christianity.  To dispute against such opinion, there is not even a need of putting up personal effort to verify the religious background of each signatory of the Constitution, the worldwide historical sentiment has been disagreed with them for nearly two and half centuries.  It is because of the tracked record of worshiping Christianity shown by the overwhelming majority of the Founders, everyone in this world has an impression, either as acknowledgement or prejudice, that this country and the religion of Christianity intertwines and mutually supports each other.   Friends feeling Christianity benevolent to them are delighted for that, and foes feeling Christianity repellent put themselves in guard of caution because of the same when dealing with America.  Cautious guard from power disagreeing Christianity in dealing with America can be well witnessed by the following statement found in the Treaty of Tripoli: 


…no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations; And the Consuls and Agents of both Nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his Religion in his own house…        


     These words tell people that religious opinions can be so utmost influential from each house that the harmony between the two nations may face the danger of interruption.  Why?  As far as America is concerned, religious opinions have always enjoyed spiritual privileges bestowed by its Constitution.  Could these religious opinions indicated in the Treaty be of any secular nature in America?  In case it could, the consequence would be (1) the above words will find no necessity to enter the Treaty.  Otherwise the Musselmen will find they are insulting themselves by showing worrisome that the harmony they expect could be interrupted by the then trivial secular population in America. It was the pronouncedly popular Christians in America that made them feel the need of guard of caution.   (2) The American senate would also feel self-insulting that they could be pivoted so much as to agonize another nation by a trivial population, whose opinion is nowhere found favored by the Constitution. So, trying to refute the Christianity respecting nature of the US Constitution by blemishing the Founders’ religious background must also fail its purpose.  Secularists’ fourth evidence ends up self-defeated.


Secularists, actually Socialists in essence, never intend to respect this Constitution no matter what they have found.  Their asking other people to abide to the Constitution is only to serve their conspiracy of having the Constitution crumbled. In case they succeeded in blemishing the Founders’ religion background, they would not ask people to respect the Constitution that they assert as being secular.  Instead, they just tell people they found how and why this Constitution violating secularism and should be removed.  No more typical example of this conclusion on their hostile hypocrisy against the Constitution can be found with their attitude towards Thomas Jefferson.  When they feel they need to attack the wickedness that they claim to have found with the Constitution, they would put up how Jefferson had been a slave owner with debatable double personality.   When they need a heavy weight politician to support their secular contortion on the Constitution, they also constantly quote what Jefferson said, as if Jefferson had been their indisputable and irreplaceable mentor. Ironically, they maximally exploit the freedom they take it for granted from the Constitution to which Jefferson is one of the chief drafters, but their exploitation is for a purpose to trash it.


Now, enough evidence has convinced us that the US Constitution spiritually enthrones the respect of Christianity in this nation, and that the US government is obliged by the Constitution to defend Christianity against any attack.   This article has collected positive evidence from the text of the US Constitution for the support, and has also collected the anti-Christian people’s negative “evidence” to expose how fallacious their arguments are.   All popular arguments against the Christianity nature of this nation and of this nation’s Constitution are proven baseless, self-defeated by any measure.  Subsequently, all “legal” decisions drawn based on these arguments are simply in violation of the Constitution of The United States of America.   

PDF copy also available