Skip to main content

Setting Up My Autonomous Zone

In the interest of personal independence, I set up an autonomous zone on Fazebook all by my lonesome. I can do whatever I want and am answerable to nobody. How good is that? What I did was simply set up shop and declare it my own and nobody can question it or disagree.


So I set up an autonomous zone. What right do I have, and where do rights come from?
The actual image is of the Oklahoma Territory flatlands, North West Round Pond, 1894
Let me rephrase my earlier question: How stupid is that? While Facebook allows people some latitude (especially leftists, atheists, and anti-Semites) we're at their mercy. They are also supposed to follow laws, and so are users of their platform. Page owners and other users can be shut down (my own profile was shut down illegally and I was not told why "for security reasons"). They delete the account if I do the usual things that get accounts deleted.

My assertions are worthless. I can say "Mine!" until the cows come home, but that doesn't make anything mine. People can declare that they have rights, but cannot make up rights out of their imaginations. When legal systems make declarations when actually following the law, they are giving some rights, but ultimately, they are endowed by our Creator. Make up your own rules, take land by force, and you have to face the consequences for your actions.

As a Christian and an American, I know that I am responsible for my own sins. Not the sins of my forefathers (real or imagined), nor the trespasses of my neighbors.


Lyrics available in the description at YouTube

Popular posts from this blog

Four-Legged Snake in the News Again

Writing about sciency things can be both fascinating and exasperating. The fascinating part is for those of us who like science, but the exasperating part is doing updates. New discoveries are a part of science, especially regarding origins. Darwin's disciples are continually attempting to rewrite history to accommodate observed evidence and still preserve their narrative of atheistic naturalism. Excitement over a supposed four-legged snake fossil slithered back ( which I posted about earlier ) and disputes continue. Tetrapodophis amplectus , Wikimedia Commons / Ghedoghedo  ( CC BY-SA 4.0 ) This whole thing was sensationalized from the get-go to promote fish-to-fool evolution and millions of years. Indeed, some important facts about the fossil were not even discussed. It "sheds light" on evolution. Secularists think it would be (insert mouth click here like Cousin Eddie) really nice, but they still have nothing upon which to base that claim. Mayhaps if they realized that

The Secular Science Industry Propagandizes Same-Sex Attraction

We are told that the peer review process in the secular science industry is a method of providing truth and accuracy, and ensuring correct procedures were followed in submitted papers. That sounds like a mighty good idea, but peer-reviewed papers are often bad,  downright fraudulent, or hoaxes . Homosexual activists passed a peer-reviewed paper in  Science  magazine, but that should not have happened. It was fake science research, and  Science  was embarrassed by the fraudulent tactics. The secular science industry did not seem to learn from this. Assembled with images from Open Clipart After the Science  humiliation and the "We're so sorry if we've caused you any pain, Uncle Albert, and boy, does this hurt the credibility of science itself in the public eye" schtick, the disastrous Obergefell decision by the US Supreme Court struck. (That is one reason I believe we're under divine Judgment .) After that ruling, the militant Gaystapo cut loose with harassing peopl

Doing Evil in the Name of Science

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen (Material added 24 February 2024.) When Christians point out that the mass murderers of the 20th century were atheists (Hitler was a pantheist who believed nature was "god"), misotheists with things like, "Prove to me that Stalin said he did atrocities in the name of atheism!" Not in those words, but they hated the God of the Bible and had no consistent moral foundation to inconvenience their consciences. In a similar way, one would have a difficult time finding a scientist who says, "I am using science for evil!" Scientists are not blank slates driven by data. They are as corrupt or virtuous as everyone else, subject to operating within their worldviews. Open Clipart / Olga Bikmullina Professing Christians should be honoring God and following what he has revealed in the Bible. Those who are unregenerate (John 3:6-7, 2 Cor. 5:17) are unable to discern the things of God (John 8:44, 1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 4:4, Rom. 12:2). We cannot expect