Member training from November 24th 2025.

Tonight, we walk through the real story of the Pilgrims—not the polished myth pushed by so-called conservative outlets—and shows how their early failures had nothing to do with “socialism” and everything to do with banker-controlled indentured servitude imposed by London investors. I explain how this false narrative is intentionally used by CFR-approved organizations to make the public distrust any form of voluntary, faith-based communal living while nudging us toward the managed, globalist economic system they actually want. By contrasting the Pilgrims’ imposed system with successful voluntary communities like the Amish and Hutterites—and by grounding the discussion in scripture, natural law, and the writings of Bradford and Pufendorf—I show how unity of faith, purpose, and social expectations determines whether a community thrives or collapses, and how the real enemy is not cooperation, but the naked capitalist conspiracy masking itself as our only path to prosperity.

Help support ad free content with a one time donation or becoming a member today.

TRANSCRIPT

Heavenly Father, we’re grateful to meet together once again tonight to discuss the
things of truth and liberty, and we pray for the Holy Ghost to be with us to
attend our discussion here. Please open our minds and our hearts, help us to learn
new things, and to find ways to apply them in our lives, help us to find people
that we can share this information with and to help to spread this knowledge far
and wide. We pray for those who are not with us yet, that they’ll be able to join
us before this evening is over. We say it’s the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
We have the
rebranding of killing no murder, the righteous sword against tyranny. And it argues
the government exists as a covenant with the people in God, and that when rulers
break that trust and destroy liberty, obedience to God may require resistance to men.
The author’s reasoning drawn from scripture, natural law, and the moral duties of
conscience later echoed in the thought of the American founders. So this new edition
that we’ve got is different than the one that we had published before in a couple
of major ways. The first one is the branding because we are launching this new
Liberty Classics series where we are reprinting books that are the type of materials
that helped guide the founding fathers away from the idea of the divine rights of
kings into what we see as where government’s role is to be a servant of God and
that the people’s job is to resist government when they get outside of those bounds.
And so this is the first one in the series. We We have several more that will be,
just next week, I think we’ll be having another one that we’ll be able to announce,
and then a couple weeks after that. And I think either by the end of the year or
by early January, we’ll probably have a half a dozen in this Liberty Classics series
available for you to be able to get. And so with this, you can
the branding or the um i don’t know what you would call the stylized and so that
way it’ll look really nice on your shelf you’ll be able to identify the series of
books easily like okay there’s my liberty classics and you’ll be able to go right
to it and you’ll know that it’s all part of that series and and so we’re really
thinking it’ll be really helpful for you as well and it’ll be something that you’ll
be proud to share with others others. I really appreciate Samantha for her efforts
and designing the covers and and working with us on that. Some really neat things
that we’ve got with that. It’s going to be it’s in paperback. It’s an e -book and
an audiobook. So we have at the Tree of Liberty Society at our website at our
shop, you can buy it directly there and you can get any one of those mediums.
Right now at Barnes and Noble, you can get the Nook version, so like their e -book
version or the paperback version. And then currently on Amazon, only the Kindle
edition is available. But shortly the physical as well as the an audible version
will be available soon as well. And when the audible version is available, it will
also be available on what
Apple’s version of that as well. And so being able to get a good distribution of
the multiple formats of this book.
And so whatever, however you like to read books, if you’re like me, where I get
all three versions for different reasons, or if there’s just one of those, you’re
like, I’m never going to read it, so I just want to listen to it. Whatever it is.
I hope that there is a version for you so that you will consume the information in
this because this book is really paradigm shifting and it is vital for us to be
able to read and to really internalize. And so encourage folks to for all of us to
be able to get a copy as well as to share it with with others.
And so we’re going to be putting up a bundle deal where as new books,
you know, you’ll bundle it with invasion right now or when additional parts of the
Liberty Classics Library comes out, you’ll be able to bundle them together as well.
And so just to encourage folks to be able to get copies of these and get copies
for others. It’s important that we don’t just forward this information to ourselves,
that we are actively engaged in helping others to understand this through
distribution. And so I’m just going to play a real short clip from the introduction
of the audiobook, just so you have an idea. So you’re like just kind of a sample,
just so you know what it sounds like and what to expect. Foreword by Ben Clintock,
treason when written, killing no murder, is treason against any tyrant of any age,
as it clearly lays out the duty of any God -fearing person, not only living under a
tyrant, but the duty even under a would -be tyrant. So just as a FYI on what it
sounds like and what you’ll be expecting. Does anybody have any questions on the
book?
Ben, can you talk a little bit more about how different it is from killing the
word? Is there chapters or completely? Oh, sorry.
So besides the cover, I forgot about that other change. So it has the original
wording. So it’s written in the 1600s English. So we found that it is,
that is a little bit difficult for people to get used to. And so we have the
original wording. And then we have a new modern translation, kind of a more modern
English, make it easier to understand. We’ve also put together a glossary of key
words, as well as appendices, where there are the stories that are referenced in the
book, though we’ve put those stories in, you know, the scripture stories,
scriptures from the Old Testament and the, from the Bible. And so we put there in
there as a reference and so with the original with the modern translation in those
appendices there’s a lot of meat and a lot of good stuff to be able to not only
be able to internalize it but really get a bigger picture of what’s going on so in
summer you’re not changing the message you’re just making the message easier to
understand exactly
easier to dig into and I encourage you know if if the first time that you read it
you’re like okay I need to read the the modern translation totally fine you know
whatever gets you to consume it but I would hope I would encourage you to work
towards being able to internalize the original wording just you know there’s you just
you can’t get you You can’t it the full picture without reading the original.
So, you know,
don’t, don’t not read it because it’s harder to understand, but at the same time,
work towards making it so it is something that you can’t understand. Anything else?
Okay. Appreciate that. Let’s just get into what we’re going to be covering in
training tonight. So the question is, are pilgrims really an example of the failures
of socialism? This is, you know, then we’ve got Thanksgiving coming up this week. I
thought this would be a good timing to cover that because this is something that,
so -called conservative outlets have published about a lot over the years.
Lots of, and I’m going to cover that right here, but everything that we do, of
course, is to be able to overcome our lack of knowledge. And I was just meeting
with someone this week, actually, this last week where they, you know, they were,
they’re, they’re into liberty and they’re told by others that, you know, there’s,
that, that they don’t know anybody that knows more than them about the principles of
liberty. And then I shared with them some of these books. And they went through it
and they’re like, holy cow, you know, I don’t know anything about liberty now. You
know, they realized how much they didn’t know. And so it’s important that we are
always working to make sure that we are increasing our knowledge and then we’re not
perishing because of our lack of knowledge. And then, of course, what we’re doing is
we are building the understanding of and adherence to the principles that have built
pre -nations, exposing the satanic conspiracy and building effective resistance to that
conspiracy okay
just checking the phones because i thought i heard some
some noise so if you’ve got some background noise make sure you mute your uh your
computer
okay so with this we have the heritage foundation had an article called uh pilgrims
beat communism with the free market. Yeah, the daily economy, the Pilgrims tried
socialism and it failed. And then you have another publication called The Stand. The
Pilgrims tried socialism. It didn’t work. Cato Institute, how capitalism saved the
Pilgrims. The New York Post, how socialism nearly killed the pilgrims. And so,
you know, if you just do a search for the word pilgrims and socialism, you’ll come
up with just an infinite amount of articles that cover this topic, okay? And as we
go through, though, that, you know, the Council and Form Relations has people on the
board of these organizations. They have individual, well, and their sister
organization, the American Institute, the American Committees for Foreign Relations,
approve these organizations as organizations that they can have speak to them.
And so these are groups of people that are promoting the internationalist and
globalist agenda. They are the acceptable narrative from the so -called conservative
side of the issue. And so they’re out there spouting the CFR -approved line.
So that seems right here we have the New York Post. Their article says that they
made, the pilgrims made things even possible. They left the old world to escape
religious persecution. They imagined a new society where everyone worked together and
shared everything. In other words, they dreamed of socialism. Socialism then almost
killed them. Then Cato, when the pilgrims first arrived, they tried to live
communally, according to the spirit of the Mayflower Compact. What crops they grew
were put into common storehouse, and then apportioned according to each. So they’re
telling a very similar story. And we have the Heritage Foundation. On the brink of
extermination, the colony’s leaders changed course and allotted a parcel of land to
each settler, hoping the private ownership of farmland would encourage self -sufficiency
and lead to cultivation of more corn and other foodstuffs. And Cato says Bradford
had decided that each household should be assigned its own plot to cultivate with
the understanding that each family kept whatever it grew. The change in attitude was
stemming. Okay. So just going through very similar narrative, telling the very same,
very similar stories.
And so, you know, it’s a very unified message on what they’re saying,
what happened and what led to a change of fortune. You know,
what went from, hey, we’re about to starve to, hey, we’ve got a very different
change in attitude that is allowing more food to grow, okay?
So why would CFR outlets, why are they pushing so -called anti -communist narratives?
Right? Why would they be doing this? Why would they put out articles that are
supposedly saying, look how bad communism is and look how good the free market is
and how we need to move in that direction because that’s saved the pilgrims. Why
would they do that? Mark, go ahead. Because it helps the act as cover that they
support capitalism freedom when they support Marxism on a consistent basis through
their candidates and through the policies. So whether, so I,
and that’s the number one disinformation tactic they use. Opposition, loyal,
opposition as you talk about. Yeah, so for cover, I think that’s, that’s a, that’s
a good option in there. But I also think, and I think we’ll be able to to show
that it’s actually much deeper than that. But definitely think that that is a
definitely part of it for sure because of being anti -communists, you know, now they
can be trusted as so -called conservative liberty -minded organizations. So that
definitely is part of it, but it’s actually much deeper than that as we’re going to
get into. So as we look at the Council on Formal Relations, their official
publication, foreign affairs, even going back to the 1940s, where they had articles
that were anti -Soviet Union, anti -communism, pro -capitalism.
You have in the 60s, the same thing, the rise and fall of scientific socialism. And
then even more recently in 2020, they had an article that argues that capitalism is
enduring, despite the revived threat of socialism. And so they themselves,
not only amongst their controlled publications, but they themselves are writing
publications and articles that are supposedly anti -communism.
Okay.
So now, you know, that doesn’t mean trying to show you that the globalists or anti
-communists, I’m not, that doesn’t make me some secret communist revolutionary, right?
I think it’s pretty safe. I’ve got a good reputation for not being pro -communist.
And so by exposing the internationalists, the conspiracy, as writing articles that are
supposedly anti -communist does not make me pro -communist. Ben, I’ll be right back.
Okay. Mike’s here. So we have Carol Quigley’s tragedy and hope, very important book
as an admission from an insider, Professor Carol Quigley, wrote this book and said,
you know, I was able to study the writings of the conspiracy. And the only thing I
disagreed with them on was that they wished to remain a secret. And he talks about
communism as well. The goal was never communism. He says in the book,
he says, in the Soviet Union especially, the high speed of industrialization in the
period of 1926 to 1940 was achieved by a merciless oppression of the rural community
in which millions of peasants lost their lives. The effort to copy the Soviet method
in Communist China in the 1950s brought that area to the out to the verge of
disaster okay so this conspirator that is writing about the benefits of the
conspiracy is saying that communism doesn’t work that communism brought the area to
the verge of disaster and that it you know it was a very it was it was a it was
a it was a lot it led to massive loss of lives and that it was mercy it was
without mercy and oppressive
and in the context he’s not saying this is a good thing he was genuinely saying
that it was a bad thing but then later on the book we read that there does exist
and has existed for a generation an internal anglophile network which operates to
some extent in the way the radical right believes the Communists Act. So they’re
saying that their, his network that he’s talking about is these roundtable groups,
they operate in the way that the radical rights, so called radical right, believes
the Communist Act. So they’re like, yeah, we operate in that way. In fact, this
network, which we may identify as the Roundtable Groups, has no aversion to
cooperating with the communists or in the other groups and frequently does so.
So they’ll work with anyone to get their agenda accomplished.
Okay. He’s not pro -communist. You go through the book and he is not pro -communist.
He talks about how oppressive it is. But he admits that, yes, they work with the
communists. And he’s got no problem with that. Mark, go ahead. Yes. When I read
that, I thought that maybe he didn’t have it completely figured out because there’s
a tremendous amount of evidence. The communists is just a wing of the grand
conspiracy. And it’s not just they’re working with them as though there’s an outside
entities, two entities, but they really are the same entity. One is just part of
the greater conspiracy. What are your thoughts I got you to this one. I was going
to print you a green a little. I’m going to get my commuted here. Let’s see here.
Okay. So, yeah, that’s, yes. And I know that there are, that is a popular idea.
It’s not an idea that I, that I subscribe to. I think that the communists are a
lower level of the conspiracy, that they are a tentacle of the conspiracy, as he
says here, that they use them, But they are not a high up part of the conspiracy,
though that they are a tentacle that the conspiracy uses to get their programs
implemented, if that makes sense. But most of them, as you get like the testimonies
of, what’s her name, Brown and Manning Johnson, how,
you know, the regular on the street communists don’t know that the upper levels are
actually in league with the capitalist like the Rockefellers. And so to me,
those just lend more to what he’s saying here as it’s a tool for them to use,
but it’s not the same thing. Go ahead. Mark. Yeah. If that’s true,
we need to acknowledge that the communist has done in the 20th century did the
heavy lifting for the conspiracy conspiracy. The indications are they murdered over
200 million people enslaved at one time half the population of the world.
So they were the doers of the evil whether they’re just the minions carrying out
the orders of people higher above and I believe that’s true but we can’t understate
the evil that came from communist oh 100 percent absolutely and i think that they
recognize that and i think and i’m going to get to a little bit later but just to
touch up on it since you bring it up um they recognize that that kind of
oppression leads to too much opposition um and so that they they know they can’t
you know we know from their unESCO documents that they want to kill you know
several hundred thousand people every single day and so but to outright just do that
through just you know concentration camps you know prison camps um work camps that
kind of a thing it leads to too much opposition and so to be able to implement
their programs they’re developing um ways that the that make us more docile and less
likely to want to resist so We’ll get into that in a little bit.
But so their goal was never common is, and we’re going to look at that again a
little bit further. In the book, the Parastroika deception,
Antony Antony, Anatoly Golitsin, he wrote another book, New Lies for Old.
He’s got, and then the Anglo -American estate, no, I’m sorry, that’s Carol Quigley,
but New Lies for Old and the circuit deception are really important to be able to
understand Antonolone Anatoli Galitzin. He was a defector of the Soviet Union,
and he wrote these books that showed what the program of the upper echelon of the
communist were, because as I just laid out, is that it wasn’t about building a
world government under the Soviet Union. He says in here what was told in by the
H. Rowan gather to the Congressional Committee with Mr.
with what’s his name, Dodd, having a blank on his first. Norman. Norman. Norman
Dodd, yes. He says, Mr. Dodd, all of us who have a hand in the making of policies
here have had experience operating under directives, the substance of which that we
use our grant making power so as to alter life in the United States that it can
be comfortably merged with the Soviet Union. Okay. So their role in Anatoli Golitsin
says virtually the same exact thing in the perestroika deception that what Gorbachev
was doing in the 80s of this perestroika of this relaxing of the tyranny in the
Soviet Union was really a ploy that and he even said that they would actually
pretend to fall and that communism would go away in Russia and and so that they
could provide for the roadmap and pave the way for what is said here in the 50s
to a congressional committee by the head of the Ford Foundation of what their job
is. So this wasn’t something that just came out in the 80s. This was part of their
long -term plan was not to build global communism on the Soviet Union,
but to be able to build a system where we became more and more a centralized
power, and then the Soviet Union became supposedly free enough.
And so we come to a point where we have supposedly enough freedom where we’re like,
where we don’t think that it’s worth resisting. But it’s also the conspiracy has,
in effect, total power over our lives. Okay.
So the goal was never really communism. And so when we see the CFR putting out
articles that are anti communism it’s because they don’t they didn’t really want us
to merge wholly under you know with the soviet union under global communism they
didn’t want that they never had that as their plan okay because the conspiracy knows
that communism doesn’t work yeah mark well you say the goal is in communism but
everywhere you read in the books you even cited the the goals one goal is clearly
clearly totalitarianism. Totalitarian is ownership and control of the means of
production and all resources, including human beings, which will be controlled and
will be slaves. So doesn’t that pretty much amount to communism?
It affected. So it’s what they, it’s what, and I think that’s really what they’re
saying there, is that it’s a, It’s a version of it that is not the,
you know, what’s it called, where the, it’s not like Mao or it’s not like Stalin,
where because that leads that they found those were test cases to see how much
resistance that they would get. And they recognize that they could not maintain their
authority with that kind of authoritarianism being trying to control and outright fear
tactics to get people to be in compliance. But they had to appear to be softer,
whereas, but the end result is exactly the same, but we feel like the oppression is
more voluntary and so that we are less likely to resist. So they implement the same
programs where we, but in a way that we don’t resist. Yes, that seems to make
sense to me. another way of saying that there the means to the ends
to prosper, that there is something that they can do. They don’t feel like that
they’re in this mundane life where there is no hope for them to be able to get
out of their poverty. They see a class of people that are able to work their way
up. And so the people in the lower classes feel like that there is hope for them
to make their way up and be successful as well. And so they implant this system of
hopium where they believe, you know, this constant hamster wheel where they get the
people to believe that there is something that is going, or even, you know, that
there have been people that have gone from poverty to having money.
But it is still under this totalitarian system, but that they’re okay with it
because they’re able to have the fun toys you know they’re able to have their big
house and maybe not their big houses but they’re fancy houses and they’re um you
know they’re fancy cars and the things the fancy things that they can fill their
home with and so they they have this belief of um they’re you know they’re fat
dumb and happy where they as long as there’s the beer in their fridge they’re okay
and so they’re managed economies with semi -private profits. It’s almost like fascist,
it’s more, it’s almost closer to fascism than it would be to communism itself.
Because, yes, you know, you, you are told who you can hire and who you can fire,
what kind of, you know, building you can have or how to build your building. But,
you know, you’re allowed to innovate and find new ways to make money. And so you
feel like, hey, you know, this is just like dealing with the mafia. It’s just the
price of doing business. And as long as the price is cheaper than the profits that
you make, then you’re willing to put up with it. And so that’s something that the
conspiracy is always toying with and messing around with. What can they get away
with without you resisting? And so they’ll go two steps forward and then one step
back and so that they can find out what it is that you will be upset with and so
that they can say, okay, we’ll just, we’ll put in our tyranny as long as, you
know, and then, but you and you’ll accept it because we’re giving you X amount of
freedom still. You’re able to feed your family. You’re able to put a roof over your
head. And so you’re, you’re okay with the other tyrannies that we put out there.
And so that’s really, this is, these places are, I believe,
the example that we are looking to of what they want to really eventually do in
the United States, even though it’s not really fully implemented. In these areas,
they are further ahead in the implementation of the tyranny than we are in some
ways.
So, also, they’re lying about the pilgrims, right? Because the pilgrims didn’t really
have socialism and communism. Because socialism and communism is first and foremost
anti -God. And the pilgrims were the antithesis of anti -God.
They could not have done to the pilgrims that they were able to do in China or
the Soviet Union or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia could never have happened with the
Pilgrims because they were not anti -God. The next thing is,
in communism, there’s no leaving, right? They build up walls like you saw in Berlin.
You’re not allowed to escape North Korea. The travel out of China is heavily
regulated. You know, Cuba, you’re not allowed to leave. In communism,
there is no leaving. The pilgrims always had the, they was voluntary, always
voluntary.
Under communism also, you have the ruling elite versus everyone else. With the
pilgrims, you did not have Brad, William Bradford, living in the lap of luxury while
the rest of the pilgrims were living in squalor. And so to compare what the
pilgrims did to communism is a lie. And it’s a lie because for a very clear reason
that I’m going to get into as we get further on. But I want to make it clear
that by linking what the pilgrims did to socialism and communism is an intentional
lie to get us to reject leaving the system.
Okay. So what was the real cause for the Pilgrim’s failures? If they weren’t really
communists, really socialists, then why did they have their failures and why did they
need to be saved by the Indians and by a change of the way that they did things?
Because they did. It is true that they started off with one system. And when it
wasn’t working, they had to change to another system. So if it, but if it wasn’t
communism, wasn’t socialism, what was it? And so really it was indentured servitude.
That’s really what it comes down to. And this is a part of the pilgrim story that
you don’t really, you’re not, you’re not told in the Charlie Brown Thanksgiving
special, it’s not something that was talked about in any of these articles about the
failings of the pilgrims, okay? So the, it didn’t,
it’s not free to just, you know, grab a boat that is going to be seaworthy to go
from the old world, from Europe, to New England. And so you had to have wealthy
merchants that were willing to sponsor trips. And there was an organization called
the Company of Merchant Adventures of London. And this basically what would be today
may be considered venture capitalists, your Goldman Sachs of the 1600s or,
you know, 1 ,500s is basically what they were. And so they were the ones that made
it, uh, fronted the capital to be able to bring these,
uh, the pilgrims, what we think of as the pilgrims, uh, to New England. Okay.
So they funded the voyage. And they put over certain requirements over the pilgrims
for repayment of the debt of getting getting them to New England.
The first one was that all land, labor, and products belonged to this venture
capitalist organization for seven years. So everything that they did was completely
under the ownership of this, of this company, of this business, okay?
Next, Pilgrims received equal shares regardless of the work that they did. And so
that’s, this is, I think, the part of where they get confused with, where they,
where they start equating it with communism. So no matter how much work you did or
did not do, you still received equal shares with everybody else.
Private gardens, private trading, and private property were forbidden.
And So here we have the ability to be able to feed yourself. The ability to trade
with others was completely prohibited because, why? Because everything belonged,
not to this cooperative, but it belonged to this venture capitalist organization.
And so you were not allowed to, because you didn’t have anything. Everything was,
everything belonged to this company. And the pilgrims were expected to work for the
benefit of the investors, not for themselves. So all of their labor was not to say
to really feed themselves. All of their labor went to this company over back in
England. And so this is not, you know, I’m not defend, you know,
I am the last person to defend communism, but this is not communism, and this isn’t
free market capitalism, right? This is what we would compare to what Cleon Scalzen
talks about in the naked capitalist. This is what the conspiracy. This is what, this
is the roundtable groups, and this is the bankers. This is the system that they
promote. This is the system that they’re trying to implement worldwide and a
variation of it where they get to control everything, they get the benefits, they
get the profits from everything, while everyone else gets their universal basic income
and owns nothing and is happy about it. So, right, that is not,
this is not, this is not what is promoted in any of these supposed arguments of
why the pilgrims failed. This is something completely different.
And what they’re trying to do is they’re trying to poo -poo the idea of cooperation
and communalism and getting out of the system that they are creating.
So We’re going to look to, in fact, the history of the Plymouth Fem Plantation by
William Bradford. What was his angle? What did he say led to this success? Was it
actually this, you know, just free market capitalism that led to it? Um,
or was it something else? Okay. He says, quote, at length, after much debate of
things, the governor with the advice of the cheapest among them, gave way that they
should set calm every man for a should set corn sorry that set corn uh every man
for his own particular and in that regard trust to themselves in all other things
to go on in the general way as before and so assigned to every family a parcel of
land according to the proportion of their number For that end, only for present use,
but made no division or inheritance, and ranged all boys and youth under some
family.
This had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more
corn was planted than otherwise, would have been, by any means the governor or any
other could use, and saved him a great deal of trouble and gave far better content.
The women now went willingly into the field and took their little ones with them to
set corn, which before would allege weakness and inability, whom to have compelled,
would have been thought great tyranny and oppression. Okay.
So this is not like some turnaround from this Soviet -style communism into this
early, late 1700s, early 1800s,
American free market capitalism. This is something, this was still in the realm of
communalism, where You still didn’t, you know, you were given a home to live in,
but it was not for inheritance. You didn’t give it to give it to your kids. It
was still owned by this mercantile company.
And so they’re, they just kind of move things around a little more.
And so that they, Everybody was given an incentive or, you know, they weren’t,
they didn’t feel oppressed anymore to go to work. They willingly went to work, which
what they did before would have, he says here, would have been brought through great
tyranny and oppression to get these people that wouldn’t work to get them to start
working again. Okay, so what actually happened before, as we um the this private
corporation was forcing them to say okay no matter how much work you did you got
um the same amount of uh of of of fruit or you know of income out of this
whatever that income was whether it was food or money or whatever it was um it was
the same but we had here the ability to be able to have more innovation and choice
and so that they were willingly doing things, but it still wasn’t this idea of free
market ownership of property where you were able to pass it on to future
generations. It was still owned by this outside corporation.
Okay, so I think that that lays out really well that what is being sold to us
about what fixed the situation was something that it wasn’t. Okay.
So what were other issues faced by the pilgrims that led to the problems that they
had? Okay. And Simon, yeah, go ahead.
Real quick. You mentioned that there was a seven -year period in which they didn’t
own anything. Was there a point where they paid it off or was this kind of a
lease to own agreement? Or was this just, Was I mistaken? So for that seven years,
everything that they gathered and that they built was belong to that company.
So after that seven year period, they didn’t own those houses. Those were still,
they were able to move on. So what they were doing was they were building this
community and setting up this, basically the ability of this land to grow food.
So then somebody else could come in and have it already be established, but they
didn’t get to own it afterwards. It wasn’t theirs after the seven years. They just,
after the seven years, didn’t have to work for it any, they didn’t have to work
for the corporation anymore. Does that make sense? Yeah, thank you. Yep. Mark,
go ahead. Yes, on indentured servitude. Some of them are various slakes. Maybe they
were all seven years there among the pilgrims. Some were four years, some were six
years, some were seven. I think they were eight and eight years. But the question I
had, because my reading of this history, they weren’t all indentured servants,
only some. And I didn’t, I don’t know what the percentage was, but I was led to
believe it wasn’t all or maybe most of them. Do you have any idea what percentage
of the indentured?
Just, it was, I don’t know the exact percentage, but it was those that couldn’t
afford it. It was the vast majority of them couldn’t afford it. That’s why they
had, they were all in this community that was owned by this mercantile company, even
William Bradford, you know, as being in charge of it, he had to be there because
he was working for that corporation. Yeah, and it is a contract that they sign.
And you lose a great deal of your freedom, not all of them, you still have some
rights. But this is really a condemnation of indentured servitude.
But the individual had to decide it was better to be enslaved to some extent for a
period of time to make it to America than it was to remain where they were. Sure,
yeah. But they had to change things because what they were doing didn’t work.
Even if it was under a contract, they couldn’t do what the corporation was telling
them to do and still live. They would have died if they kept doing the things the
way that the corporation told them to do it. Does that make sense? And I like your
point about bringing to our attention. It was partial freedom they were given,
very much like Red China, where you’re still living under fascism, the still
totalitarian system, and any time they can take away any kind of economic liberties
they have, but they did. So it’s a partial implementation of liberty,
and that partialness was a, the benefit was great enough to lead to the profit
motive. And that’s what he created is the profit motive of a free market system,
which caused the motivation to change. And I’m going to get to that because it
didn’t it didn’t actually need to be that way which i’m going to i hope to to
convince you of that um but simon you had your hand up for a second yeah i just
i forgot what i was going to ask sorry oh that’s okay just if you if you remember
go ahead and raise your hand so the things that the other the other issues that
caused the problems that we’re talking about was that they were not unified in
faith. We had some that were separatists and others that were not. So you had this
amalgamation, not amalgamation. You had this melting pot, right? This balkanization of
individuals coming together into one place being forced to live together and they
didn’t have a unified religion. Yes, Simon. I don’t know I I remember,
sorry, it seemed like the quote from William Bradford said that at one point they
nullified to some extent the contract to say, we have to be able to survive and
they allotted some land amongst themselves and trusted each other not to turn each
other in. Am I hearing that correct? Not really a full nullification because they
still didn’t own it, and they still had to give it over to the corporation once
the seven years was up. But basically they were like, hey, we’re X amount of months
away from anybody. If we’re going to live, we’re going to adjust this to be able
to make this into a way that we will be able to survive. Otherwise, we’re all
dead. So in some sense, it was a nullification because they didn’t go exactly
according to the rules of the contract that were set forward, but at the same time
they didn’t,
they were still having to give all of the profits to the corporation at the end of
the seasons.
Does that make sense? Yeah, thank you. Okay. So the first thing was they were not
unified in faith. They had separate cultures. It wasn’t, you know, it wasn’t like
some, wasn’t just one church community coming together. But these people had different
culture. They had different customs amongst each other. And they had different family
structures amongst themselves. Another problem is that they had different social
expectations. You had the separatists who worked for their own mutual benefit and you
had others that would only work for profit motive that you had a you did have a
segment of the population that needed to say okay i’m you know i don’t care about
you i’m not going to work to help you i’m only going to work if i’m benefited for
it and so you had that these you had a clash of different values and And so,
you know, if you have a group of people that are all for the profit motive,
that would work really well together. Everybody profit motive working together would
work. And I’m going to get into the same thing. If you have a group of people
where they’re all motivated by mutual benefit, if they’re all together on that,
that will work very well. But when you have a mixture of people where you have
some of them that want to work for the mutual benefit, and you have others that
will only work for their own benefit, that is going to be a problem. That does not
work. And so you have these three were the main cultural issues that they had
amongst themselves that led to the disaster that they had that Samuel Pufendorf
predicted. This is, or just natural law that says this is what will happen,
as laid out by Samuel Puvendor, by recognized by Samuio. He says, among those which
joined together to form a government in a country, it is absolutely requisite that
there be a perfect consent and agreement concerning the use of the means of
government. If they do not agree with themselves but are divided and separated in
their opinions, they will be divided into parties and will clash. And then you have
Orson Spencer, who said men of congenial interests should separate themselves from
those of adverse interests and pair off each to each. The promiscuous intermixture of
heterogeneous bodies for the purpose of unity and strength is alike distant, both
from pure religion and sound philosophy. So right here, this is laying out exactly
the main underlying principle of why they had the problems that they had is because
they were not unified in these things. They had key distinguishing differences in
different areas, not just religion, but in their motive in doing effort and in what
they expected from their neighbor. All of these differences made it, and so they
could not be successful because you had these different cultural ideas coming together
and clashing as all of these people that know natural law said would happen.
Mark? Yes, I can understand religious clashing philosophical to some extent,
but my big question is why. They’re making an assertion here, but I don’t see the
reasoning behind it. If only part of the people are operating by profit motive than
part of the communities kind of benefit from profit motive because in profit motive
marks capitalism it only benefits the people because the motive is to produce
something whether it’s a good or service for the others to purchase that meaning
that’s what they purchase and create that which people want. And so it benefits the
community. So partial profit motive benefits partially, a complete profit motive
benefits more, generally speaking. So I don’t need to understand how that could be
harmful because some people don’t like the profit motive. Well, so in the beginning
it was harmful because there was no profit motive whatsoever. And so you can see
that Now, when the profit motive was added, those that were motivated by profit
motive were then motivated to do work, right? Right. So when you have a group of
people that find that to be religiously objectionable, trying to work together with
that, it would cause other problems that led, you know, it wasn’t just the
religious, it was the other motives as well. But could the problem be they won’t
want a purchase for the people that are working for profit, you know, bully caught
him. I can’t understand how they would try to hurt the profit motive person.
They wouldn’t hurt them. They just, they, they couldn’t, it was harder just to work
together. It was, it was like a societal clash as opposed to something that led,
because obviously it improved things once they got people that wouldn’t work before
to start working. But when you have these societal clashes, it just causes for an
overall problem when they’re forced to work together. When you’ve got, you know,
people that find this one thing morally objectionable, and then the other person says
that it is morally objectionable to do what the other person’s doing, they both find
each other’s activities morally objectionable. You’re going to have a societal problem,
not just an economical. Yeah. Oh, I’m sorry. I should have raised my hand. I’m
sorry. Yep.
Just take your turn. We’re going to go to Simon. Simon. Go ahead. You’re next.
Well, I’ve seen this in my own life in the community I live in. There’s a there’s
some people that want to start growing or start using
correct principles to create large profits. And then there’s a large, it was founded
upon the idea of mutual growth. And it,
what it does is as one person starts to get wealthy because that’s his motive.
You have looking across the aisle and a lot of people just giving up and or
jumping ship to one other side and you have jealousies massive amounts of
backstabbing people looking like why should I why should I help so and so they’re
they’re not really on my side it creates a whole lot of personality conflicts as
well as principally it just it doesn’t work to mix the two together yeah absolutely
yeah my thought thought is boycott is probably the only realistic way they could
harm each other. But that underlies what we see in today’s society. Many Americans
are socialism and believe that capitalism profit motive is a bad thing. So that’s an
ideological thing. But my point is nobody hurts is harmed by capitalism because the
capitalist is producing that which what people want so so yeah a person has a large
profit say they get wealthy they don’t hide their money under the mattress they
invested so people more and more people can benefit more jobs more industry i mean
i can’t see any downside if you really understand where you get the Rockefellers
where they create monopolies after they get their wealth they use right but that’s
not capitalism is it well Well, but it’s using capitalism to get to that point,
it’s the naked capitalism. No, but it’s really important that people know that it’s
the antithesis of capitalism, what the Rockefellers did. They monopolized using
government, using force. In capitalism, there is no force. It’s voluntary exchange.
Micah.
Me. Micah’s next to then, Carmen. Oh. So I know Mark is saying that there’s like,
you know, the capitalist economic system that,
you know, you can only produce goods and services that you want. I believe that I’m
paraphrasing what you said.
You know, it’s only a market driver. But I really don’t agree with that,
even for they being like the Rockefeller monopoly and stuff and you know they’ll get
me wrong I’d like you know if I had to choose between capitalism and you know
rabies communism and socialism I don’t know I’m going to capitalists but I think
they all go over the same place and the thing is is you know like let’s take Jay
Branson so the guy is a billion and what does he say on all this podcast it’s
like we pay you know uh above market rate and like all his employees got 1100 and
so i go he’s like you know and his old thing he’s like well you can’t like that
house like you’re like you’re like you’re literally a billion like what do you mean
you give around that house and so the question so in script there’s limits because
then the scripture says that the earth is here, you know, for the service of God’s
children, you know, service of us all. And so and I’m not like, I don’t really
want to like fade on favor of him. I think he’s done a lot of great things and
stuff. But the reality is, is you come down and you go, you know, what does
somebody do with a billion dollars? I go, well, there’s only one thing you can do
with a billion dollars and that’s make more money well like you could sure i could
you could give me a billion dollars and i could figure out how to spend it all in
a year but i could not ever use all of that stuff i spent i could i could not
use a billion dollars worth of jets fees like it’s impossible like literally the
only thing you can actually use that much money for it is just to make more money
and so i don’t
And when you add a profit motive to it, somebody’s got to be boss.
And not everybody likes that. Not everybody can work for anybody else. So,
you know, you got problems there that are built in that,
you know, they just come with the territory and you got to deal with them. But,
you know, I didn’t hear the rest of it. I was a little indisposed for a little
while there.
But I think of that because I know people who are much better at being their own
boss. And you put them in a situation where they have to work under somebody else
and follow orders and stuff like that. That is. That’s not going to wash. Yeah.
Yeah. Okay. Hey, Mark. Yes. Oh, I put it. Hold on. Hold on.
Wait, wait. We are over our time. And so I just want to make sure if you have
something that is kind of like just going back and defending the original position,
let’s save that for the open form. Okay. That’s okay. Let’s do that. And then I’m
just going to just the way we can get through this instead of just doing the same
over and over again, so. Can I go back to another subject then? Real quick, yeah.
Now, Trump, I’ll say this for the Q &A or afterwards. But Galenzi,
by the way, was the highest level defector from the KGB to the matter. He was
really, it’s really important to take seriously what he’s saying. He knew the plans.
He was at the highest level of any defector from the Soviet Union.
Yep, absolutely. Thank you. Okay, so what’s the Christian economic ideal?
What do we learn from the scriptures regarding economics? Especially with, you know,
in this context. So we go to Acts chapter 2, verse 44.
It says, and all that believed were together and have all things common. And sold
their possessions possessions and goods and parted them to all men as every man had
need. We go to Acts 4 says that neither was there any among them that lacked for
as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them and brought the prices of
the things that were sold and laid them down at the apostles’ feet and distribution
was made unto every man according as he had need. And we go to Acts 5.
It says, but a certain man. So this is now getting into an account of an
individual or a couple. Anayas and Sapphira. Safira,
um,
were,
that had entered into this agreement to be a part of this community. And they sold
their possessions. but they kept back a part of the price of what they sold, his
wife also being privy to it, so she knew about it, and brought a certain part and
laid it at the apostles’ feet. Okay, so he sold this stuff to be able to care for
others and be a part of this community, but he didn’t give everything to the
apostles that he earned from selling those goods. But Peter said,
Ananias, why hath Satan fill thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost and to keep back
part of the price of the land? While it remained, was it not thine own?
And after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? Why hast thou conceived this
thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. So Ananias had
his agency. He had the liberty to be able to sell it and keep it all for himself
or to not sell it and just not to be a part of this, but he pretended to be a
part of it and sold it and then gave part of it. So he lied, and he did not
comply with the covenant that he made to give up everything.
And so as a result of that, him and his wife died.
Then we go to 2 Corinthians, for I mean not that other men be eased, and ye be
burdened. But by inequality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply
for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want,
and that there may be equality. As it is written, he that had gathered much had
nothing over, and he that had gathered little had no lack. Okay,
and then in Manatee Cal, a new book that we’re going to be releasing very soon,
it lays out these biblical principles as well when it says, by the law of God and
nature, the poor have a right to in our estates, and ought to be maintained and
not forced to beg or steal, as many thousands are at this day and for us to give
these men what they demand meaning the government to support their lusts if we can
tell how to avoid it is to deprive the poor of their right and so rob god of his
due under a pretense of giving caesar that which is not due to him so we have the
christian ideal found in the scriptures and so i really believe that this is kind
of like we have You know, there’s always the false dichotomy, Republican versus
Democrat. And I think that we have naked capitalism versus naked communism as another
example of a false dichotomy. Whereas, you know, as a in a society,
the founding fathers decided to establish the free market system started off as a
way to be able to sure the most prosperity until it got to a point where it came
to a point where we are today because of the conspiracy. But, you know, what
they’re trying to do with these articles about blaming or accusing the pilgrims of
being something that they were not is to get you to believe that anything that the
conspiracy doesn’t control fails. It fails. If the conspiracy doesn’t control it,
it’s a failure. And that anybody that tries to get you to do something,
the conspiracy isn’t backing is a cult leader, right? So they are pushing this
happiness and ease and security and of the digital ID and how the digital dollars,
the future of money and how isn’t this great. It’s going to make things so much
better, so much less fraud, so much less theft. People can’t steal from each other.
This is, so their system is what is going to be succeeding. And anything outside of
that is basically along the lines of Jim Jones, where, you know, you’re basically a
part of a cult and you’re trying to kill people because you don’t want to be a
part of the system. Those are the dichotomies that they’re selling us to. So they
don’t want you to think about successes of being apart from the system and of
people working together, as we see, to the best of their ability, whether you think
that it’s according to those scriptures or not, it’s what they felt was according to
those scriptures. And so I want to show you those successes of people that do
engage in this voluntary communalism that is very different than what the pilgrims
did in the very beginning, and then what it turned into. So we have groups like
the Mennonites, the Hutterites, the Amish, and Anabaptists. They succeeded for these
reasons. I’m going to explain to you why they succeeded where the early examples of
the pilgrims failed, right? So they succeed because they chose the communal living
for their religious reasons. It wasn’t imposed by them by bankers, and members
believed that communal labor fulfilled their scriptural obligation. So they were united
in this religious purpose in what they were doing economically, and that they had a
strong internal cohesion. They shared a theology, they shared their practices, they
shared a cultural identity. They were all, all these people, you know, the Amish and
the Hutterites, they’re not the same. They’re separate, but all the Hutterites are
the same. They have these cultural identities, their practices in a theology, and of
discipline, and of social expectations of each other. The social expectations in the
Mennonites is different from the Hutterites and different from the Amish. And also
the cohesion replaces external incentives. When you have these cohesion,
you no longer need those other things to motivate you to act.
Additionally, they owned their property collectively. There was no outside profit
extraction for it. They didn’t have the London investors. There was no seven -year
stock company in either of these things. They weren’t paying for somebody else to
own this property. They owned it together. It was theirs. Or it is theirs currently.
All benefits stayed within their community. All the benefits that they did, they
didn’t have a portion of it going back somewhere else. They weren’t having to send
a check to Goldman Sachs every month.
The next thing is they had well -defined roles and expectations. Everyone knew that
what the work that they were expected to, what they are expected to do, I should
say, how the resources are going to be shared, what the behavior is required,
and then the next thing is that they could expel members who didn’t pull their
weight. So in communism, right, if you don’t, in socialism and fascism, if you’re
not pulling your weight, you go to a work comp. You’re going to either, you’re
going to be executed. There is no escaping. There is no being cast out in these
communities if you don’t live up to the standards that are expected they’re not
going to kill you they’re not going to send you off to some work camp they’re just
say like hey you you’re not living up to the contract you can’t be a part of this
anymore go have fun somewhere else okay uh this is voluntary entry you nobody forced
you to do this and you could be expelled if you did not comply with the rules
that you agreed to in the very beginning. Okay. So those are some key differences
in what, uh, why we have because that the conspiracy wants you to think that
communal people working for each other’s benefit and not, not working for the profit
motive, um, not working for the system that they want you to work for because there
is a certain certain part of the, because under their system, a portion of it needs
to be based on the profit motive. Otherwise, you will not put up with their
enslavement. And so they need you to have a partly, you know,
a part desire to have profit motive so that you will accept the rest of the
tyranny. Whereas if you are going to find a people where you’re not going to be a
part of their tyranny, and you’re going to work with people where you have all of
these mutual,
cohesive, social, religious, and economic cohesion,
they’re not going to be able to control you. And you’re not going to have to be a
part of their enslavement. And so the pilgrims know they were not a part of an
example of failed communism. They were never even communist to begin with. And so
what they were an example of was the failures of naked capitalism.
And so with that, because we are over time, I am going to end the meeting.
And then we can do, if anybody has any comments, thoughts, questions, whatever you
want to discuss as we go through, we’ll do that in the open form. Let’s go ahead
and close up, though.
Father in heaven, thank you so much for this opportunity to gather. We’re so
grateful for the lessons that’s been prepared. Please go with us this evening.
Bless us with thy spirit. Thank you so much for the lessons that we’ve been taught.
Thank you so much for that goodness unto us. Because we watch over and protect us.
And we pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.