If you care to find out what the Bible says about the Ahmed Arbery case, the case of Michael Brown from several years ago is a good comparison. Bojidar Marinov gave an excellent, and thorough application of biblical case laws to that situation. Here’s the article in pdf format. You can download it and read it in whatever format you prefer.
Tag Archives: Bojidar Marinov
Uncle Tom on Amazon Prime
My friend recommended I watch “Uncle Tom” on Amazon Prime. It makes a lot of good points, and some that I disagree with. I think Larry Elder misses the point and isn’t thinking clearly on some things.
Before that, I will say, I love Herman Cain and his attitude and stories. If someone is a racist, that is their problem. It sucks and I acknowledge that it can and has been costly to people, but we are all responsible to God for what we do with our lives. America has a lot of problems, but there are still a lot of opportunities.
Larry Elder, just to give an example of his erroneous thinking, talks about how immigration should be controlled by government, because immigrants shouldn’t be getting welfare. So, without realizing it, he’s defending the integrity of the welfare system of a nearly-bankrupt, evil government. Why not let the government and the unbiblical welfare system die? He ends up advocating unjust, unamerican, big-government, socialist border policies to protect the unjust, unamerican, big-government, socialist welfare system. Retarded.
But that was all just an aside to the point of the movie. At one point, a guy points out that cops are more likely to kill black people. Elder spouts off a bunch of statistics that were beside the point. Police are a big-government, standing army, funded by socialism. They should be opposed by all conservatives. You can disagree over whether police are systemically racist, but don’t pretend to be a conservative and support the existence of police. Larry Elder repeatedly shows himself to be a fake conservative.
The solution is not to lecture people about racism like liberals, or defend cops at all costs like conservatives, but to end all socialist programs (like police) and let the free market dole out consequences to racists. The color that speaks in the free market is green.
Here’s Bojidar Marinov’s explanation of how individual cops may not be racist while still taking part in a racist system. The rest of this post is his words.
Most people, especially white people, do not understand how institutional (systemic) racism works. They think it is white cops hating black men. But that would be individual, not institutional racism. Institutional/systemic is when the very institution/system is geared so that it targets certain racial group.
Here’s how it works:
All government agencies are under constant pressure to justify their existence and budgets. They need to show some activity that the majority of constituents would deem “necessary.” Police is not an exception. They need to show arrests. More precisely, a GROWING number of arrests to justify their growing force and budgets. But in a world of declining crime figures, that is a challenge.
It is an even greater challenge in a society of increasing wealth, where more and more people can afford good lawyers. Especially in the white neighborhoods or in white-collar areas like Downtown Manhattan. The cost of making arrests there is too high.
Where the cost is low is the black neighborhoods. The probability of a black man to be well-connected and affluent enough to cause legal trouble is very low. Thus, patrolling black neighborhoods is like shooting fish in a barrel for cops. They can make their quotas easily, at a low cost, without any hate to any black man. (That includes black cops.) And indeed, there have been multiple testimonies by cops themselves that this is a regular policy.
There’s something more, and this is the really inconvenient truth: This practice is encouraged by racism in the general public that is not self-conscious but still real. Most people react differently to a white man being arrested and a black man being arrested. And in the latter, it is always assumed that he must have done something. That’s why Chauvin was not concerned that he was on camera; in his eyes, he was doing a service to the society. That has always been the perception. The black man must have done something, and the cop is there to protect us all. He meets his quota, and the society has a “proof” that police protects us against dangerous criminals.
Thus, in order to have institutional/systemic racism, you don’t have to prove that any particular cop is necessarily a racist. You just need to understand how the institution/system works.
And if you want an analogy, no socialist self-consciously hates successful people. It’s when the system is applied, it destroys success by its own operation. Same with systemic racism.
That’s why police needs to go. It will always target the weakest minorities in order to justify its existence. The only solution to it is a return to an America without a standing army on home soil.
Vaccine Passports
Here’s a great post from Bojidar Marinov:
“Many of the same people who today complain about vaccination passports are also the kind of people who would complain about “illegal” immigrants, insisting that everyone must go through the government process of getting a visa.”
“Ironically, however, an immigration visa is, among other things, also a vaccination passport itself. One can’t apply for it unless they present a proof of having been vaccinated. We are talking about 6 to 10 different mandatory vaccines, depending on the country of origin. That is a mandatory part of the legal immigration process.”
“I have said it many times before: Whatever you want the government to do to the stranger, it will eventually do it to you. There is no escape from this rule.”
“Enjoy your vaccination passports. And remember: you asked for them.”
defeat
There was an interesting discussion on Bojidar Marinov’s Facebook post. Here it is:
Bojidar’s Post:”Everybody’s ballistic about Big Tech censoring Trumpists. Nobody is asking the real question: How did Christians and conservatives in general end up so culturally and economically powerless to be at the mercy of a few CEOs?”
Commenter: “Lack of embracing alternative sources for the sake of ease of use?”
Bojidar: “That’s too easy and self serving.”
Commenter: “So instead of beating around the bush for an answer you are searching for… what is YOUR answer?”
Bojidar: “I am sure that when you search your Bible for reasons why God delivers a people in the hands of their enemies, “failure to embrace alternative sources” is not on the list.”
Commenter: “So your answer is that this is a judgement against trumpists?”
Bojidar: “Or against all of God’s people in America.”
Commenter: “Quite possible. I have been consistently critical of basically an absent church.”
Bojidar: “Now’s the time to turn up the heat on the church.”
Commenter: “Well, right now, many “Christians” are essentially tone deaf to hear reasonable criticisms, being very focused on their “losses”. My wife and I listened to what amounts to an apostate minister, trying to go all “end times” on his congregation.
Bojidar: “That’s OK. There’s always a remnant. Read “Isaiah’s Job.” Then read “Isaiah’s Digital Job.” The tone-deaf will never recover from their losses. The remnant will triumph.”
Here are the links to the articles he talks about. I read the first one and it’s a little long winded for a simple point. https://mises.org/library/isaiahs-job
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2000/07/gary-north/isaiahs-digital-job/
But You Should Be Afraid of Illegals!
One of the newer tactics of socialists clamoring for a border wall is to cite examples of people who have been harmed by illegal aliens. Of course, there are illegals who do bad things. If that’s the standard you are going to use, you must be consistent, and apply that standard consistently to all groups. Here’s an example of someone who did just that.
The previous commenter had cited 3 or 4 cases of people who had been murdered, and this was Bo’s response.
Would Abolishing Police Lead to Anarchy?
Bo Marinov answers that question:
We have anarchy WITH police. When a certain class of people are given executive privilege to harass other people and even murder on the streets, this is anarchy. Right now, 800,000 police murder and rob more than all the private criminals in this country. And crime committed by cops is the only category of crime that is on the rise.
Cops don’t have an “impossible job.” Facts and figures clearly show that they have one of the easiest and safest jobs in the country. And in addition, they have the privilege to murder and rob with impunity. A cop can kill a person for any reason whatsoever; on the other hand, private citizens can’t defend themselves against rogue cops. Which is the opposite to what the Founding Fathers believed.
America had no police for the first several generations of its existence. And it was a well-ordered country. Police was introduced by corrupt Democrat politicians in the 1840s. Ever since, police has never, for a single moment, been an instrument for fighting crime. It has always been an instrument for protecting corrupt politicians from the population. And for collecting revenue for the government.
Tips For Young Women
I have two little girls, a 3-year old and one whose due date is tomorrow. I definitely feel unqualified to advise them as they grow up. I guess I haven’t prepared for that, but I have a few years, and things like this will catch my eye.
This is advice from Bojidar Marinov that sounds pretty good.
That’s why I tell single girls (including my own): As a general rule, stay away from these three groups of men: (1) statists and government employees (socialists, Communists, cops, bureaucrats, etc.), (2) institutional church leaders (pastors, youth pastors, worship leaders, teachers in seminaries, etc.), and (3) patriarchalists. There may be individual exceptions among them, but in general, all these people have the mentality of exploiting you as a weaker vessel, always under the disguise of “exercising authority” over you. And you will eventually end up exploited, no matter how glorious the beginning may be.
Find a man who is focused not on finding a wife but on serving others – whether business, work, art, finances, charity, etc. A man who has a field of work that doesn’t depend on you and doesn’t include ruling over you as a source for his sense of “manhood.”. That’s the man you want. If he is interested in you, great. If not, use your female charm to make him interested in you. And then, when you marry him, keep him focused on his work, so that he give you the freedom to be a true wife, not a concubine of the sort the patriarchalists want you to be.
The Relationship Between Libertarianism and Theonomy
Maximum freedom is found in God’s law.
Here’s what Bo Marinov has to say:
The libertarian presuppositions are Biblical presuppositions. Where the libertarian presuppositions deviate from the Bible, they also deviate from libertarianism. Theocracy is the closest thing to radical libertarianism that can be had. Anything short of theocracy is short of libertarianism as well. Thus, if you don’t have libertarian presuppositions, you are not a real theonomist. If you think that there is anything closer to radical libertarianism than theonomy, you don’t understand theonomy, and you don’t understand libertarianism.
Question and Answer Time
Someone asked Bojidar Marinov about whether local church membership is the decentralized solution we hope for, and that speaking of the universal church and downplaying the local church is more of a collectivist (bad) way of thinking.
Bojidar’s Answer:
The argument here is not between the local church and the universal church. The argument here is between the individual and the local church. Notice how no one argues against local ACTION. We are arguing against MANDATORY “local church membership.” If a group of people got together and decided, “We will act locally,” this is one thing. When a group of people got together and said, “No one is legitimate unless they submit to us,” this is another thing altogether.
It is like the clan of which I wrote in my article in clan society. Yes, the clan may act locally, but the ideology of the clan is just as collectivist as that of the totalitarian state. Our argument against the clan is the nuclear family. In the same way, the “local church membership” is where collectivism is. Our argument is: the individual doesn’t need that “membership” in order to be a Christian.
Besides, “local church membership” is never used to ACT locally. It is always used to NOT act at all. No group needs formal membership to act. The very purpose of formal membership is to limit action.
The concept of the universal church here is invoked not to replace the local church as a bureaucracy with the universal church as a bureaucracy. The universal church as defined by the Reformed Confessions is not an organization. It is only used to oppose a different concept of membership to the bureaucratic concept. It is not that an individual “joins” a church. It is that in baptism, an individual becomes part of the Church, and therefore the Church goes with him when he goes out in the world.
To use the example of the clan again, we do not replace the clan with a bigger clan, the state. We oppose the clan with Christendom.
This Is Music to My Ears
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tlgqlb_AGE