Archive for the ‘becky akers’ Tag

Biblical Anarchy   23 comments

LELA: Becky Akers is kindly continuing her conversation with me about anarchy. Last week, we ended with me asking a question –

How can anarchy be consistent with Christianity when Romans 13-:1-7 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 say Christians are to obey government authority?

BECKY: Lela, a Christian whose family abused her throughout her childhood recently wrote me that she’s heard plenty of sermons about honoring parents but seldom if ever one on Ephesians 6:4, “And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath…”

We can draw a multitude of analogies between abusive parents and the abusive State, but I’ll concentrate on the selective quoting of Scripture my friend raises.

For centuries, Christians have justified their silence toward or even enthusiastic cooperation with the State’s evil by citing Romans 13 (which begins, “Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God…”). If that doesn’t cow their siblings in Christ into kissing the government’s butt, they add I Peter 2:13-17 (“Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors…”).

So exclusively do Christians rely on these two passages that we might assume the Bible otherwise ignores both the State and believers’ proper response to it.

LELA: So you’re saying there is another side to the story? Scripture is often balanced, in my experience. What’s the full Biblical message?

BECKY: Actually, I’m not so sure it’s balanced in this case! Far from condoning or even approving the State, God’s Word is rife with warnings against political government and its evil, descriptions of the Lord’s disgust with each, advice on mitigating their harm, and our duty to eschew violence, including that which the State sanctions.

So, just as my friend longs to hear a sermon on Ephesians 6:4, I’m craving one on Judges 9. This “Parable of the Trees” is the Bible’s first allegorical story; as such, you’d think it would merit close attention. Yet most Christians have neither heard of nor read this cautionary tale against the State. In it, one of Gideon’s sons compares government to the worthless bramble when the trees decide they want a king (i.e., a government. Monarchy was the usual if not the only form the State assumed then).

LELA – So, Gideon, it’s the time of the Judges. The Judges were wise guides as God spoke through them, not leaders or rulers. People were organized in family and tribal units. That sounds like de facto anarchy. So tell the story.

BECKY – The trees approach the olive, the fig and the grapevine in turn, asking each to rule them. And all three respond that they are too busy with productive pursuits, with providing oil, fruit, and wine, to waste their time. But the bramble, which infests fields and crops and is fit only for destruction, not only eagerly accepts the invitation to rule, it also immediately threatens the trees first with dominance and then with violence: “If in truth you anoint me as king over you, then come and take shelter in my shade,” – note that most trees weaken and die in shade –“But if not, let fire come out of the bramble 
and devour the cedars of Lebanon!”

LELA – I’ve read that passage and never actually saw the meaning though it is plain.

BECKY: And quite an expose of government! Shouldn’t Bible-believing Christians, preachers and scholars avidly heed this parable?

LELA – We should take the entire Bible into context with itself and not ignore those passages we disagree with.

BECKY – Indeed! Another passage I’ve never heard expounded from the pulpit comes from I Samuel 8. Here, God admonishes the Israelites about the greedy tyranny of human government: “[A king] will take your sons [for war]… He will take your daughters [to labor for him]… And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants.” Today we call that “eminent domain” and “cronyism.” “He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage,”―would that it were only a tenth!―“and give it to his officers and servants. … you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves…”

I don’t read ancient Hebrew, but I daresay the word for “cry out” in the original does not mean, “Wildly cheer your fellow congregants who volunteer as killers for the armed forces while the pastor equates protecting your wealth from the IRS with cheating and lying.”

LELA: I take it to mean a speech.

BECKY:  There are scores, perhaps hundreds, of further passages. Some are as obvious as Psalm 2, when the Lord tells us He “laughs” and “holds in derision” the “kings of the earth … And the rulers” because they “take counsel together,
 against the Lord and against His Anointed…” Others are subtler. I Peter 4:15 says, “But let none of you suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as a busybody in other people’s matters.” And what are the State’s primary occupations? Murder (though politicians call such slaughter “war”), theft (which they euphemize as “taxation”), and evildoing (just ask any victims of war or of the IRS). Meanwhile, bureaucrats do nothing but busy themselves in other people’s matters (OK, they also take very long breaks for coffee).

LELA – How else are they going to have the energy to meddle? So we’ve been talking about the Old Testament, but the two passages we’re discussing are New Testament. What did Jesus have to say about it?

BECKY: Many things. Let’s start with His direct order to His disciples not to “lord it over” their fellows, as the “Gentiles” do, nor to “exercise authority over them.” Yet throughout history, from Constantine to Jimmy Carter, politicians have called themselves Christians while deliberately flouting this behest. How many Christians today “lord it over” us as politicians, bureaucrats, cops or another of the State’s henchmen? Do these people think Christ was only kidding? Do we? If not, if you take Jesus’ words seriously, do you forbid your kids from watching movies or TV shows that glorify cops? Do you scotch any ambition they have of joining those gangs of official thugs? When a brother in the Lord says he’s thinking of hiring on with the TSA, do you tell him Christ forbids it?

LELA – In a town where active-duty military families are 15% of the population and 50% of the residents work for government in one capacity or another – not often, because those would be a lot of very uncomfortable conversations. Maybe more now that I have some passages to counter the standard ones.

BECKY: Lela, we could survey the Bible book by book for verses like these, whether it’s the Egyptian government’s utter wickedness in Genesis (and God’s hardening Pharaoh’s heart for His purposes does not excuse that wickedness, any more than His using David’s adultery to write Psalm 51 condones the sin with Bathsheba) or the final triumph of Christ’s kingdom over the idolatrous usurpers here on earth in Revelation. But that requires two things: removing the biases and blinders that result from concentrating on Romans 13 and I Peter 2, and far more space than we have here!

Yet those passages in Romans and I Peter remain troubling, don’t they? They seem to defend, even advocate, the State; if in fact they do, they negate the other verses I’ve cited. Yet as sinners saved by faith alone in Christ’s blood alone through His grace alone, we know the Bible is Almighty God’s inspired Word. Therefore, it does not and cannot contradict itself.

LELA – So what gives? How do you reconcile that seeming contradiction?

BECKY: Alas, I see our time is up, Lela. May I answer that next week?

LELA:  You certainly may. Stay tuned for next week, folks! The topic will continue.

Posted February 17, 2015 by aurorawatcherak in Anarchy

Tagged with , , , , ,

Stay Tuned for A Little Anarchy   3 comments

When Becky Akers and I met to talk about her books — Abducting Arnold and Halestorm, we touched on subjects of political philosophy. Becky is an anarcho-capitalist, whom I stalked after hearing her on local talk radio.

It should not surprise regular readers of this blog that Alaskans tend to be enamored with the idea that government — especially the federal government — gets in the way more often than it helps us. I’ve always had anarchist flickerings in my soul. At the same time, I grew up in a state that is government heavy. Alaska is a deep scarlet state with a huge government apparatus. I don’t think I can imagine a future with No government, but I think I would like to try.

Thom Stark and I are having a wonderfully fun debate across the progressive-small government divide, but Becky and I are going to have a conversation in which I hope to show you what I find attractive about the anarchist philosophy and also answer some of my own questions to see if it’s a bridge too far or right up my alley.

So, hang on! Tuesday Coffee with Becky starts tomorrow.

Another Record Day on the Blog   Leave a comment

https://wordpress.com/my-stats/

Earlier this week, I could attribute the visitors to Becky Akers, but today’s interest spike seems to be more diffuse than my interview with Becky. I want to thank everyone who took the time to read my blog. I am always grateful for the visitors.

I’d give you real roses if I could.

Becky Akers Announces Sale   Leave a comment

FirestormHalestorm       $1.50 on Kindle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ArnoldAbducting Armold  $1.50 on Kindle

http://www.amazon.com/Becky-Akers/e/B00DOZU8UU/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1421445596&sr=1-1

 

And check out Becky’s thoughts on many subjects on LewRockwell.com

http://www.lewrockwell.com/author/becky-akers/?ptype=lrc-blog

I want to thank Becky Akers for visiting the blog, where my stats are booming, all surrounding her interview and a lot coming from Lew Rockwell’s site.

Interview with Becky Akers   1 comment

Today’s interview is with Becky Akers, author of Halestorm and Abducting Arnold, two works of fiction based on a refreshingly different take on American history. I heard Becky interview on Patriot’s Lament, a Saturday morning radio program on KFAR AM 660 (Fairbanks Alaska) that explores anarcho-capitalism and a lot of other liberty subjects. I liked what she had to say so much that I tracked her down and asked her if she would let me interview her.

 

Tell us something about yourself, Becky.

For starters, Lela, I’m honored to talk with you today! Thanks so much.

As for the salient facts, my favorite meal is dessert and my favorite sport, reading; I adore storms—meteorological ones, that is; you can usually find me at either my computer’s keyboard or a piano’s; and if we could choose where and when we’re born, I’d have picked Boston in 1758.

 

How long have you been writing and what was the first story you wrote?

When I was 8 or 9, I sobbed my way through Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings’ The Yearling. I then baldly and boldly plagiarized it to write my first story. I learned later that authors call this “inspiration.”

 

Yeah, fan fiction at the behest of my bored friends was where I honed my early writing skills. What are you passionate about in life?

Chocolate and Chinese food!

I’m down with both of those, but …

Oh, wait: you mean something inedible, don’t you? Of lasting value, even eternal significance?

 

FirestormDefinitely!

In that case, I am most passionate about Christianity—the Biblical version, thank you, not the man-made knock-off that presents God as a sort of celestial vending machine: “Insert prayers and good deeds, receive that new car.”

Because I am a sinner Christ saved via His infinite grace and mercy, gratitude alone compels me to obey Him. Politically, that translates to anarchism, by which I mean there should be no State, no government, no political class of sinful, fallen men thumbing their noses at the Almighty while lording it over the rest of us.

 

Having listened to Patriot’s Lament for two years now, I know the answer to this question, but I have to ask it anyway for readers’ benefit —

Aren’t anarchists all Marxists?

To be precise, I am an anarcho-capitalist. Anarcho-capitalists are true anarchists, as distinguished from the communists the American government mislabelled “anarchists” in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Communists cannot be anarchists: they need a strong central government, so strong it’s totalitarian, since their philosophy compels citizens to sacrifice their own interests to the “common good.” No one voluntarily does that, hence the armies and wholesale slaughter that ever attend Marxism.

By contrast, anarcho-capitalists do not go around blowing things up, nor do we wear red berets. We uphold the individual and his inalienable rights; the free market—a truly free one, with no regulations but its own, self-correcting ones; voluntary interactions and transactions; peace. We love liberty, just as the Bible does: “Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free…

 

Are you saying that the Bible supports anarchy?

Any Christian who loves his Lord must abide by the Ten Commandments—and that perforce makes us anarchists since the Law prohibits two of government’s essential hallmarks: stealing (even if we rename it “taxation”) and murder, which remains murder even if we call it “war.” Nor do I note any exemption in Holy Writ for those wearing badges or merely following orders. If you worship Jesus Christ, you had better be serious about your morality and about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. And since none of us want others to steal from or murder us, how can we support government when it routinely commits both crimes?

Finally, the State is Satan’s citadel – I’ve written about this extensively; those whom this concept intrigues may want to start here or here – so I oppose it in its entirety. I’m not interested in “reforming” or “limiting” government, any more than I would be interested in reforming or limiting cancer. I want to abolish human government because it directly opposes itself to Almighty God, vying with Him for our devotion.

 

 

Talk about Halestorm.

Halestorm is the first novel for adults to follow the adventures of Captain Nathan Hale, the American Revolutionary (and devout Christian!) who supposedly said, “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country” before the British Empire hanged him for espionage.

It’s an utterly thrilling story, full of suspense, breathtaking drama, and even humor—not because I’m such an enthralling writer but because Nathan was such an enthralling guy. Yet most historians dismiss him as a failure, a bumbling amateur, or, at best, a children’s hero. I’m not sure whether they do so because he was only 21 when he hanged or because of his wholehearted commitment to liberty—in other words, his idealism and integrity. Apparently, to earn historians’ favor, you have to be a power-hungry cynic and sociopath like the average politician.

I was indeed a child when I first learned about Nathan—so young, in fact, that I can’t remember whether I read his story for myself or whether someone told me of him. But his courage and defiance of tyranny captivated me. I’ve loved him ever since. And I hope other adults who pick up my novel because it’s exciting will come away from it admiring Nathan and his principles, too.

 

 

ArnoldNow, let’s get to the meat of the matter. Abducting Arnold takes an alternative view of the Benedict Arnold treason incident. You don’t see Arnold as a traitor, but actually cast him as a hero. That’s certainly not what I learned in high school.

No, I daresay it isn’t!

When I started the massive research for Abducting Arnold, I held the conventional view of him as an irredeemably wicked traitor; I figured that my novel would exhaust the list of synonyms for “dastardly” and “coward.” But within a few months, I had to radically change my view –and my plot’s outline!—, based on the evidence.

My first inkling that everything we “know” about Arnold is wrong came when I understood the scope of his career. During the war’s first two years, Arnold won astounding victories against huge odds for the Patriots: he was a hero’s hero who succeeded at the impossible time after time. He froze, starved and bled for the Cause, even sustaining a wound that crippled him for life. He was completely devoted to the principles of liberty.

Then, eighteen months after his most outstanding victory, he had sided with his former enemy, the one he had fought so vehemently and successfully, an empire inimical to freedom. Why?

 

I always heard that the British paid him. Isn’t that the reason he turned his coat?

No – though, as you note, most historians either imply or state outright that Arnold profited handsomely from his treason. But he actually lost money: I added up his accounts and documented, as much as is possible two centuries later, that he forfeited a considerable amount. And he knew he would.

Arnold was also allegedly the touchiest, most vainglorious and egomaniacal general around: another extremely popular explanation for his treason is that he prized his own military brilliance even if an ungrateful country and Congress didn’t, and he craved revenge for their constant criticism and abuse.

Unlike the money motivation, which is flat-out wrong, this second explanation is a mixture of truth and fiction. Arnold was indeed brilliant—to my mind, the most brilliant tactician and commander on either side of the war. And without a doubt, neither his fellow Patriots nor Congress ever came close to appreciating his genius. But Arnold reacted the way other officers in his situation did – because surprise, surprise, he wasn’t the only general Congressional politics savaged. Nor were his responses unreasonable and hysterical, as so many historians insist.

 

So if Arnold didn’t commit treason to reap a fortune or out of pique, why did he?

Trying to answer that question led me to a set of politicians known as the Radical Patriots. Though they’re virtually forgotten today, the Radicals were extremely powerful during the Revolution, and they pulled a sort of coup d’état in Philadelphia, where they first seized power. Basically, they were Progressives—as communist in their economics and as humorless in their fanaticism as Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama today. They loved government, the bigger the better, which, of course, was precisely the opposite of other Patriots. Radicals weren’t fighting to live free; they were fighting to rule their fellows in place of King George III’s administration.

Arnold was one of the only real Patriots to understand what the Radicals were up to. He tried to thwart them, to save the Revolution for liberty from them. His failure at that led directly to his deal with the British, for reasons I dramatize in Abducting Arnold.

 

Why do you think we don’t learn this in school?

I’d say primarily for two reasons.

First, winners write history. Arnold’s side lost. Not only that, but though the Radical Patriots faded from power after the Revolution, much of their philosophy not only survived but triumphed. It continues to curse us today. Telling the true story of Arnold, of why and how he opposed the Radicals, would undermine the modern welfare-warfare state.

And second, Arnold enrages statists.

There is no greater crime to people who love the centralized American government than to question or mock it, refuse to take it as seriously as it decrees, or prefer a different one; look at the hatred heaped on Ed Snowden (who, by the way, is often compared with Arnold. As he should be: he’s intensely heroic and principled, like Arnold). Arnold “betrayed” America because his allegiance wasn’t to Congress or the Continental Army or his home state of Connecticut or George Washington or to anything but freedom. And when he saw the Radicals rising to power while imposing a dictatorship that put George III’s in the shade, he turned his back on the American government, such as it then was.

Statists must blacken Arnold’s name, must depict him as evil incarnate, lest kids learn to love liberty and recognize Arnold for what he was: one of freedom’s most magnificent champions.

 

To truly understand what Becky is discussing, read the book. It’s meticulously researched and an entertaining read.

 

Links – to books:

Halestorm– http://www.amazon.com/Halestorm-ebook/dp/B008YF7H9A/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1358872730&sr=8

 

Abducting Arnold — http://www.amazon.com/Abducting-Arnold-Becky-Akers-ebook/dp/B00H6J50T4/ref=zg_bs_6361463011_19

 

Websites:

https://beckyakers.wordpress.com/

 

Facebook, etc. 

 

Nope – eschew “social media” like the plague and NSA-infiltrated trap that it is.

 

Stay Tuned for Writing Wednesday   Leave a comment

Today’s interview will be with Becky Akers, author of Halestorm and Abducting Arnold, and purveyor of anarchist philosophy.

WordDreams...

Jacqui Murray's

Steven Smith

The website of an aspiring author

thebibliophagist

a voracious reader. | a book blogger.

cupidcupid999

adventure, art, nature, travel, photography, wildlife - animals, and funny stuff

Republic-MainStreet

The Peaceful Revolution Liberate Main Street

atleastihaveafrigginglass

What could possibly go wrong?

Who the Hell Knows?

The name says it all.

Rebellious Hazelnuts

Surreal Stories, Very Tall Tales

Adjusting My Sails

When the wind doesn't blow the way you want, adjust your sails

%d bloggers like this: