Germs Make Us Proselytize

“Man is a form of expression who is traditionally expected to repeat himself…” ___Marshall McLuhan, “Understanding Media”

“Man” is actually a form of expression of muh smaller life forms, that use him to express themselves. Each person is a collective expression, and therefore a collective.

Richard Dawkins made the simple connection between germs and behavior by pointing out that when we have a cold germ, we sneeze. We sneeze because sneezing is the best process by which to spread airborne pathogens to other persons. A cold germ invokes behavior from us, and therefore we are the collective form of expression of our “creator” the germ and the genes.

If we are the behavioral expression of germs, then what we call mechanization, as McLuhan points out, is, “a translation of nature, and of our own natures, into amplified and specialized forms”.

We are, in fact, amplified and specialized forms of the germs and the genes, the tiny mocrorganisms that inhabot(I inadvertently created an interesting word there by my mispelling; “inhabot”, a robot that inhabits us, composed of “in” and “habit”) our bodies. That makes us, in essence, machines. But machines in amplified and specialized forms are not alive. What seems to separate life from non-life is the urge to reproduce at all levels, and to invoke behavior that ensures such reproduction is maximized if possible. Life not only reproduces, but it reproduces by strategy, and the strategy, from amoeba to civliizations, is not all that different.

Certainly genes influence behavior, and the limited number of genes in a cold germ can hi-jack our own bodies to invoke behavor of its own for reproduction. As long as a reproductive strategy works, there is no reason to alter it.

It’s not a grand stretch from that to propose that proselytizing, and the strong zeal we feel for conversion of others, comes from those microorganisms, or rather algorithms bred into us from our evolutionary past, causing us to seek not only those that are like us, but to create a larger pool of selection by making others more like us. The more people of the opposite sex who share our worldview and opinions, the more we can reproduce ourselves. “Ourselves” in this case is not an actual description of “me” specifically, but of a pool of similar “me’s” to maintain the same gene expression.

What the germ does to our bodies by invoking behaviors, the proselytizing meme does to our mind by invoking a similar strategy. For example, the religious person is not so much convinced by truth, but by the idea that “all those people can’t be wrong”. It becomes a statistical process by which we can eliminate enough differences within ourselves that we can sacrifice our individual self for the ‘greater good”. Anything that reproduces random individuality, therefore, is selected against, and behaviors that invoke cohesion and unity for reproductive purposes is selected for.

Religion, for example, does not seek individuality, but ecumenicism, the process by which differences can be tolerated for a greater reproductive unity. The question is, toward what end? There seems to be no answer, except that unity allows more people to live, while individuality provides less certainty for reproduction.

The strategy for reproduction, however, can follow strange destructive behaviors, with a reproductive algorithm becoming of less and less use for reproductive emnlargment, often resulting in self termination, like those religions who take poisons because they are convinced that they will get their reward only by the sacrifice of their lives.

Religions, like viruses, will select strategies that allow them to live as parasites, only affecting behavior to the degree that it maximizes reproduction, while minimizing the possibility of the death of its host. In this sense, church and state are alike. Government and religion takes as much as it can safely take from you while allowing you enough to survive reproductively as an individual for the greater good.

Church anbd state, like the human body, will select and maintain a library of different members for future reference, as “junk DNA” is stored for future reference tro similar attacks. Conversion of many members, therefore, serves as a reference a junk DNA collection, Borg-like(from Star Trek) to select the best strategy for a new attack.

The language reflects this need. “I was once just like you”, “I was lost, but now am found”. Found by whom? The new collective that closely resembles the reproductive needs of that individual.

A s Hoffer points out in “The True Believer”, mass movements are interchangeable. We can select new movements that better fit our reproductrive needs and provide adaptive strategies that may create modified versions in new forms.

As Hoffer writes:

“Since all mass movements draw their adherents from the same types of humanity, and appeal to the same types of mind, it follows that (a)all mass movements are competitive, and the gain of one in adherents is the loss of all the others.(b)all mass movements are interchangea ble. One mass movement readily transforms itself into a nother. A religious movement may develop into a social revolution or a nationalist movement; a nationalist movement into a social reviolution or a religious movement.”.

Hoffer writrs that while the content of various movements are different. the actual causes of the proselytizing zeal that drives them to unite are basically the same. Another way of putting it is that if the purpose of life is to reproduce, the algorithms driving the decision -making process of life will follow a similar strategy that selects for certainty and minimizes uncertainty. The more available in the pool, the less need for careful consideration of the effects of loss. The strategy becomes tautological: “that survives is that which survives”.

If a machine-like ehavior in the face of danger had no value until men began to make war on each other, it is easy to see how a reproductive algorithm can become stressed to the point that it focuses on reproduction of one set of traits at the expense of all others. The greater the army of machines, the greater the chances of reproduction of related traits, which will be modified and selected in future generations, etc.

It boils down to algorithms, patterns of decision-making that become statistical and operate according to the same general principles. Terms like “greater good” make sense to us because we are programmed to think that way at the most basic levels.

The amplified extensions of ourselves, even computers, have no need to reproduce themselves, so we seek to reproduce ourselves through them. They are extensions of us, even to the point that we plan on “uploading” ourselves in to them at some future date.

Church and state were merely the process of “uploading” ourselves into a greater system, but now the algorithms themselves can be the driving force of a machine which is the full extension of ourselves. If “narcissus” comes from the same root as “narcosis”, the final uploading of ourselves into machines is the complete narcosis, the numbing of all response to our environement for the applications of algorithms that represent the environment to us. no more need of life, no more need of reproduction.

The IRS And Self Incrimination

Respected legal hstorian Leonard Levy writes in Origins of The Fifth Amendment that:

“…In 1774, the legislature(in the colonies)…passed a liquor excise requiring consumers to give an account to tax collectors, on oath, if necessary, concerning the amount spent by them for liquor.”

A group including Sam Adams and John Hancock, supported the efforts of Boston schoolmaster John Lovell that its practice would enslave the country. Samuel Cooper, minister of the Brattle Church, pointed out that if an accounting of any part of one’s innocent conduct could be so “extorted”, then “every other part will with equal reason be required, and a political inquisition, severe as that in Catholic countries, may inspect and control every step of his private conduct”.

The complaint centered around the right against incrimination, going to ancient times, and part of the protection of man’s conscience against human authority. No man can be forced to accuse himself. “Taxation without representation” therefore, was more than just getting the approval of your representative in the legislature, but even the legislature could compel no man to give personal accounting of the money he spent, if that same compulsion was used to incriminate him.

Taxes are, as admitted recently by a IRS official, voluntary. We know this because no man can be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself. If any person is held criminally accountable for not reporting taxes, then the report itself becomes the basis for in criminal action, which is not allowed by the 5th Amendment.

This was understood as part of the Bill of Rights itself. The 4th Amendment was not considered seriously unil Madison pointed out that the power of the federal government to tax was plenary, but suppose, said Madison, the government wanted to look into our accounts witout warrant? The result immediately was the 4th Amendment.

Levy writes in Origins Of The Bill Of Rights that:

“James Madison…recalled that the legislative powe constituted a great danger to liberty; in Britain, he noted, ‘they have gone no further than to raise a barrier agains the power of the Crown. The power of the legislature is left altogether indefinite’. ”

The 4th Amendment, therefore, was intended as a protection against the federal legislature. But it is the wording of that amendment that needs to be examined:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”.

Notice that the amendment does not estabish such a right. It acknwledged that such a right already existed, and would not be violated. The people had a right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. So, what was “unreasonable” as they understood it?

We know that taxes could be collected, but the taxes could not be based on compelled testimony from the people. The right against self incrimination prohibited it. While the power of the federal governmen to tax was admittedly plenary, the right to collect those taxes could not violate pre-existing rights of securiy against unreasonable search and seizure.

What did the law say was unreasonable? The definition for that came from English common law, decided by Lord Camden, in a case called ” Entick v Carrington”. Camden stated that the law required no one to incriminate himself, for that would be ‘cruel and unjust’ to the innocent and guilty alike. “And it should seem, that search for evidence is disallowed upon the same principle“.

If the right against unreassonable search and seizure already existed, it was based on the 5th amendment right that no person, in any criminal case, can be compelled to be a witness against himself.

What we are not told is that there is a distinction between the “right against self in crimination” and the right against being a witness against yourself. The right agains self incrimination assumes that a person can be a witness in any case as long as that person is not the accused. At any point in testimony under oath, the witness may “plead the Fifth” on the grounds that an answer may tend to incriminate him. That is, the person may answer all questions except those questions that may incriminate him/her.

But the 5th Amendment declares that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”. The principle goes back to ancient times, and says that no man may be forced to accuse himself. If your punishment, therefore, is based on your voluntary compliance to report your taxes, there can be no prosecution against you if you fail to report them, because no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself.

While SCOTUS has ruled in “Miranda” that you must be informed of such rights upon arrest, the right always exists, whether you are arrested or not.

So, what is an arrest? By law, an arrest is any process by which you are detained by law enforcement with a warrant. Any detainment, including license checks, is a violation of “seizure” as SCOTUS clearly ruled in “Delaware v Prouse”. There can be no general warrant to stop or “seize” people. If people are stopped, then by law, no criminal penalties can be enforced, because no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself. No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, and “due process’ means courtroom time. The instant any deprivation comes into the courts, all evidence is disallowed(Entick v Carrington) because the accused was compelled to provide the evidence.

How does the government get around this? The government is not required to inform you of your rights unless you are arrested. That’s “Miranda”. Notice that, when you are given a traffic ticket, there is no arrest. If there were, the officer would be required to inform you of your rights. But when you do get a ticket/citation, notice that you can waive your rights and simply send payment in to he courts! The government avoids due process with your permission! It does the same when you fill out a 1040 form!

But, can we consider a taxpayer a “witness” under the terms of tax payment? In fact, we can.

In “Miranda”, the courts have staed that “The Fifth Amendment provision that the indiidual cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself cannot be abridged”.
Further, the court ruled that: “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation which would abrogate them”.

The legislature, therefore, cannot compel any person to report taxes, and then hold them criminally liable for not doing so! How do they get away with it? They don’t have to inform you of your rights unless you are arrested. If you are not arrested, they can do anything by statutory(not common law) law that you do not challenge. If the IRS says “WE can do this by statutory law”, they are correct, but statutory law does not override common law rights guaranteed by the Constitution!

Notice further, in “Sullivan v. United States”, that :
“There can be no question that one who files a tax return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment“.

That is the ruling of SCOTUS! In 1976, SCOTUS further ruled:

“The information revealed in the prparation and filing of an income tax return is, for Fifth Amendment analysis, the testimony of a ‘witness’ as that term is used herein”.

SCOTUS has clearly verified the right against self incriminatin regarding a 1040 form! No person, in ANY criminal case, can be compelled to be a witness against himself! There can be no criminal penalty for refusing to fill out a 1040 form!

I recently had a conversation with a North Carolina Department of Revenue official who was careful to tell me that, by statutory law, I could be penalized for not filliing out an income tax form. But he knew I could NOT be penalized by constitutional law, either the NC Constitution or the US Constitution!

How do they get away with it? First, because a large number of people are convinced they should report taxes, and second, because it simply costs more than it’s worth to fight them! They are happy to quote statutory law, and the people are too ignorant to know better!

But let’s look at the “Sullivan” case from which I quoted earlier. Manley Sullivan was an auto dealer who supplemented his income by selling moonshine during prohibition. Since he could not report illegal income, he simpy did not file a tax return. He was charged with willfully failing to file a tax return. He was convicted by a lower court, but the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the conviction, rulng that:
1. Requiring Sullivan to file a tax return would be “in conflict with the Fifth Amendment”.
2.The language of the Fifth Amendment must “receive a liberal interpretation by the courts”
3.No one can be compelled “in any procedings to make disclosure or guive evidence which would tend to incriminate him, or subject him to fines, penalties, or forfeitures”
4.The Fifth Amendment “aplies alike to civil and criminal proceedings”
5. “There can be no question that one who files a return under oath is a witness within the meaning of the Amendment”.

The Court of Appeals understood it correctly. They recognized “Entick v Carrington” and the complete protection against self incrimination!
But notice, Sullivan did not file under the Fifth Amendment protection of being a witness against himself, but under the right against self incrimination. That technciality is exactly how SCOTUS overturned the Appeals Court decision! By filing his defense under the right again st self in crimin ation, Sullivan had implied that he WAS required to be a witness, not havig been yet accused, but that he only had to refuse certain information! The right against self incrimination does permit compelled testiomny, up to the point that the witness might incriminate himself. From that point, the witness may selectively answer questions that will not tend to incriminate him/her.

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr penned the response, and notice how he worded it:
“If the form of return provided called for answers that the defendant was privileged from making he could have raised the objection in the return, but could not on that account refuse to make any return at all.”

Notice that Holmes ruled on the right against self in crimination, saying specifically that the defendant could not simply refuse to file a tax form based on the right against self incrimination. Sullivan had used the wrong defense! He should have declared that no person can be compelled to be a witness against himself! Since he had based his defense on the right against self incrimination, he was admitting that he should have filled out the form EXCEPT for certain information that would tend to incriminate him!

Notice further what Holmes stated:

“We are not called on to decide what, if a nything, he might have withheld. Most of the items warranted no complaint. It would be an extreme if not extravagant application of the Fifth Amendment to say that it authorized a man to refuse to state the amount of his income because it had been made in crime.”

Strictly and tehnically, based on above information I have provided, Holmes was correct! The right not to be a witness a gainst one’s self did NOT include the point of self-incrimination, but was, as Lord Camden had said, a protection against BOTH innocent and guilty!
Holmes admitted as much!

“But if the defendant desired to test that or any other point he should have tested it in the return so that it could be passed upon”.

Sullivan had misapplied his defense! Crime can not be used as a defense in regard to the Fifth Amendment! Holmes correctly asserted that the 5th Amendment was never intended as the specific protection of crime. It was intended as a complete protection of both innocent and guilty, with the weight of evidence being provided by the goverment itself! That is precisely what Holmes said! The court therefore applied his defense as if he were a subpoenaed witness who failed to appear. But Sullivan was NOT a subpoenaed witness who had failed to appear, because a filer CANNOT be subpoenaed to be a witness against himself!

The Court of Appeals had given Sullivan a “break” by admitting that the Fifth Amendment demanded a liberal interpretation, but Holmes had techically and legally forced Sullivan to correctly state his defense, which he had not. He was not allowed to use the amendment in protection of crime.

“Sullivan” therefore, was NOT the test case for the 5th Amedment right againast being a witness against one’s self, but against the right against self incrimination concerning a subpoenaed witness.

On such technicalities, the American people are enslaved.

Where Is This “True Church”?

Every preacher has his own version. You can go to any number of them, and they will all tell you “this is the one”, but when it comes down to proof, they don’t have it.

Oh sure, they can quote Matthew 16:18:
“And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

But what does that tell us, really? Assuming there is a true church, where the hell is it? And if there is one, why the hell shouldn’t it be obvious to all? In my last essay, I pointed out that deliberate deception has occurred, even to the point where Paul states in Romans 11:7 that “the elect hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded”.

Elect? Are these the same as the “true church”? And if so, can they be deceived? I already quoted Matthew 24;23, but look at the next verse, Matthew 24:24:
“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect”.

So, there’s an “elect” that apparently cannot be deceived, and they’ve got “something(Romans 11:7)” that sets them apart.

At this point, we come to a principle in science called “Occam’s Razor”, from Wikipedia, we see this definition:

“Occam’s razor (also written as Ockham’s razor, Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in logic and problem-solving. It states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions should be selected“.

Further, the article states:

“The application of the principle often shifts the burden of proof in a discussion.[a] The razor states that oneĀ should proceed to simpler theories until simplicity can be traded for greater explanatory power. The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. Philosophers also point out that the exact meaning of simplest may be nuanced”.[b]

Taking these ideas, if we look at the various scriptures already offered, in combination with Matthew 24:23, we can now use Occam’s razor and apply it to test where is the “true church”. Since we see from Isaiah 55:8, Proverbs 16:25,Proverbs 3:5 and Romans 8:7 that it is impossible to decide on a set of “works” or decisions, or algorithms that get us from “here to God”, how can we escape deception?

We simply use Occam’s razor! What is the very simplest theory we can use to see how to avoid deception?
1.If we can’t discover it by reason or logic
2.If we cannot determine it by “works”
3.If we cannot prove whether a “man of God” is telling us the truth

Then, we have the very simplest conclusion to reach: don’t follow or believe any of them!

If we look at Matthew 24:23, we see that none other than Jesus has used Occam’s razor to tell us the only logical truth!
“Then if any man says to you, Lo, here is Christ or there, believe it not”. How do we know Jesus was telling us the truth? First, he used a standard consistent with Occam’s razor, and second, he gave us a statement consistent with Romans 8:7, Isaiah 55:8, and the two scriptures from Proverbs.

But if I tell you what is the most logical argument according to Occam’s razor, and further point out that Jesus himself told us this very same thing, you will “naturally” tend to reject it!
Your mind will crave to discover some “way”, some “path” some process by which you may find special recognition, yet Paul himself went to great lengths in Romans 9:16-22 to show that it simply cannot be done! Now, if you’re one of those people who wish to condemn Paul, remember that Jesus made a very similar statement in John 6:44!

If men try to organize in God’s name, therefore, their only accomplishment will be to splinter into more and more churches infinitely, and that is precisely what we’re seeing today! This, therefore, makes the third scientific “proof” that I am telling you the truth: if any statement proves consistent with what we see from observation, and it is the simplest possible explanation offered, it must be correct!

Therefore, the first “sign” of the ‘elect” will be that they are doing exactly the opposite of what the “natural” mind assumes is correct! They will be ignoring all religions! Give this simple statement to “religious minded’ people, and they will argue with you from now on, even in disagreement with the plain and simple statement of Jesus himself!

So we have Jesus’ statement of Matthew 7:14:
“Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it“. It can be found, and by the simplest of logical methods, yet the millions will never accept it! It runs contrary to their “natural” minds!

But wouldn’t that include atheists? They don’t believe in the churches, so wouldn’t they be included in the “elect”? No, because the standard is specifically defined in both the Old and New Testaments.

The process is very simple. God made two basic “covenants” the first directly with Abraham, and then about four hundred years later with the nation of Israel at Sinai. The first covenant with Abraham is referred to repeatedly by Paul as the “promise”, and the second as the “law”.

Jesus explained to Nicodemus that there are two births, one of ‘flesh’ and one of ‘spirit’. Many christians assume that you “accept Christ”, get baptized, and you are “born again”. Not exactly. The phrase “Born again” is actually translated from the Greek “anothen” which means “from above”. The actual word for “born again” in Greek is “annagennao” literally meaning “again born”, which is used in 1 Peter 1:3:

“…hath begotten us again…unto a lively hope”.

Who is “begotten again”? Verse 2:

“Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father…”.

That is, there are those who are “elect” and are foreknown by God. This can be examined in Romans 8:29-30:

“For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his son…”.

If we compare 1 Peter 1:3 and John 3 with Romans 8:29-30, we see first that there are those who are literally born of God, foreknown, and later “born again” with a “lively hope”.

They are born “from above(anothen) and then they are “born again”, actually made aware of a special relationship.

Go back to Romans 8:29-30. We see that these folk are foreknown and predestined, to become the image of God’s sons. We see further that these same people are also ‘called’, receive an understanding which they out of many will recognize. That is when they are “born again(annagennao, 1 Peter 1:3) with a “lively hope”.

To be “elect, therefore, you should:
1. Not be following the various religions
2. Understanding the difference in the two covenants, the one of “promise” and the one of “law”.

What did Paul say about it? First, we know from Romans 9:8 that the birth of flesh(Israel the law at Sinai) is different from the birth of “spirit” which is the promise made to Abraham. A s Paul point out(Galatians 3:17), the birth of “promise” came four hundred thirty years before the law at Sinai, so the law at Sinai cannot “dsannul” the promise !

If you are “of Christ”, therefore, you are born of “promise”. Galatians 3:29:
“And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise“. Not of law, not of “works”, but of promise. Paul states this more directly in Galatians 4:28:

“Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise“.
Wat are the conditions of Isaac’s birth? He was foreknown, actually named, and called. Isaac fulfilled the description in Romans 8:29-30, which means all those truly “of Christ” will be born of the same conditions!
God already knows them, knows who they are, and will call them, as he did with Isaac. Al those who are “Christ’s” are heirs according to that very promise!
By freewill choice? No, you cannot choose it. The very best you can choose is confusion, deceit, division, hatred, and prejudice among those who claim closeness to God.

You can choose to be free from all the power structures of men, because there is no human authority over you as long as you harm no one. So, the ‘elect” are identified by certain standards:
1.They will not be part of any religious organization at all
2. They will understand the difference in the “promise” and the “law”
3. They will know that God has already predestined certain individuals to be His children
4. They will know that this very knowledge sets them free from all human authority systems

How many religions will teach you that? None of them. If they taught this simple truth, they would be out of business. Both church and state would be destroyed. “You shall know the truth” said Jesus, “and the truth shall make you free”.

To know the truth is to be free from all powers of men, both church and state. To truly serve God is to know that you are the equal of any human authority, and you have the right to face all accusers(Isaiah 50:8) and you are justified in doing so before God(Isaiah 54:17).

“Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth(Romans 8:33)”

You have been set free of all human authority, but the masses will never accept this. Only a few will. They will follow their “natural” conclusions, and they will be deceived. Do they go to hell? No. That will be covered later.