Are Children Property of Their Parents?

When discussing the issue of slavery with a modern American, the first issue that should be dealt with is the issue of human property. How can being a slave master be wrong but being a parent ok? Both involve owning another human being as property. Or do we take the Communist position and say children belong to the State? You think it’s crazy that people today still think slavery is ok? Hey..I think it’s crazy people still think Communism is ok. The death toll of slavery doesn’t even come close to the Communist massacres.

Immediately, the ignorant know nothing modern liberal or libertarian is going to virtue signal and demand,

“they aren’t property at all; why do children have to be someone’s property?!”

So who has dominion over them, the parents or the state? Or do you maintain that children are sovereigns with rights to drive, to own a gun or to vote?

Well no, the Parents have authority over the children of course. 

Well, you know-nothing mental disease; you human tumor; you toad eating fawner, the word property means dominion or authority over something else.





So let’s start over,

How can being a slave master be wrong but being a parent ok?

Wait………….where are you going?




Item List on Modern Theory of Human Rights(MTHR)

13 Reasons Why You Should Not Believe the Modern Theory of Human Rights:

1. The MTHR fundamentally makes a conflation of equality, and in this context equality under the law not equality of ability or equality of outcome, of penal justice with an equality of privilege and franchise.

2. Equality of Opportunity cannot be distinguished from Equality of Outcome. Money is an opportunity, in esse and simpliciter. If one does not have money, ipso facto, he has no opportunities.

3. Making humanity, in abstracto, the basis for equality of privilege and franchise, is literally impossible in Human Civilization seeing infant children are fully human.

4. Making a base standard intelligence/knowledge accumulation, the basis for equality of privilege and franchise, contradicts the liberal idea of relativism, nihilism and subjectivism where there is no objective knowledge.

5. Making an abstract theory of human value, the basis for equality of privilege and franchise, assumes the word value has an objective monolithic meaning which it doesn’t. The word is loaded with a mountain of controversies. What theory of value? The Marxist Labor theory? The Austrian Subjective theory? The Aristotelian Utility theory? Appealing to religion at this point and the Image of God will not work either seeing the Bible denotes man, not woman, as the image of God. Gen. 1:27, 1 Cor. 11:7. Appealing to the Soul will not work either as neither Science nor Scripture has discovered any such Dark Age

6. The MTHR view of Human Property necessitates the Communist view of children and the family. The traditional view is that children are the Personal Human Property of their Parents. Thus, if one denies Human Property, the Communist idea that the children become Public Property of the State necessarily follows.

7. The MTHR cannot justify or explain what a right is. How do we know about rights? Are rights things I can see, touch, smell, hear or taste? If not how do I know about it? Empiricists cannot appeal to innate forms because they believe all knowledge begins with sensation and thus Locke’s Tabula Rasa follows necessarily.

8. The MTHR denies the idea of hereditary imputation yet the advocates of MTHR use the concept of hereditary imputation often when holding white people accountable for their ancestors actions.

9. The MTHR assumes that choices I make cannot harm another person as long as I am not Physically attacking the man. This is an ignorance of basic economics and the Principle of Opportunity Cost. To forego is the same as to disenfranchise. One is either with or against another. There is no neutrality.

10. The MTHR states that, “Law is the expression of the general will.” This is Utilitarianism and has been shot full of so many holes you can drive a Mack Truck through them. On this theory of Law and Morality seeing Nazism was the general will in Germany beginning sometime in the 1930s and following, then ipso facto, being a Nazi was the right thing to do. There are many other examples but I think the intelligent reader can grasp my objection. Moreover, does the general will have to be unanimous? If so, good luck with that one. If not, where does a Government or anyone get the authority to coerce someone else? By what right does a majority coerce a minority? Is the majority decision distinct from common good? If so what is the distinction? Thus, on the MTHR it is impossible to judge another nation because that’s Fascism but then the MTHR turns around and does exactly that in its judgment on Nazi Germany, the Antebellum South, etc.

11. The MTHR view of Freedom of Speech is simply Nihilism and as I already proved, if one takes a Skeptic or Nihilistic position of Philosophy, then he cannot distinguish Rights between and adult and a Child and his entire theory of Society and Humanity comes falling down.

12. The Social contract Theory cannot justify or explain what a “State of Nature” means, promotes a society with the ends being mere Commerce and thus is inherently Nihilistic and Corporatist; the Social Contract states that Civil Government is a deterrent from War, when the exact opposite affirmation is the basis of Anarchism(Strange that Anarchists are usually the biggest promoters of MTHR), which states that Civil Governments are designed primarily to make the rich richer through war and the powerful more powerful; the Social Contract is contradictory in its explanation on the origin of Human Rights. Do rights derive from the Social Contract or are they alienated and surrendered to the contract? Rousseau said both. Moreover, how does one derive the concept of a Moral Person, from Empiricism?

The Ultimate Guide Against Libertarianism

American Patriotism is Anarchist Atheism; You Cannot believe in Jesus and Libertarianism.

1.Subjective Value is nihilistic, makes man God and denies the authority of the Bible.

2. Libertarianism promotes a laissez-faire policy of the state toward the market. The principle of opportunity cost precludes the idea of neutrality. There is no neutrality in this world. You are either with or against. Mat. 12: 30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

3. Hierarchy and Authority is grounded in the family. Every argument Libertarians make against Statism and Slavery can all equally apply to the human family. Moreover, there is a Government among the unfallen angels in Scripture. Government is not a result of sin.

4. Both Biology(Haplogroups) and Scripture(Rom. 9:1-3, Rom. 11[Jews, Gentiles]) denotes
collective identities not merely individuals.

5. Capitalism is Darwinism pace Darwin’s emphasis on Competition which he alludes to in Origen of Species in discussion of Herbert Spencer.

6. Ayn Rand was an Inspiration to the Church of Satan:

7. The Libertarian distinction between Ethics and Economics is meaningless.

8. Private Property just means Individual Sovereignty/Satanism; Judges 17:5 every man did what was right in his own eyes.

9. The Bible’s prohibition against Usury is a prima facie denial of the entire system of Capitalism and the modern Banking industry. John Calvin’s distinction between Business loans and charity is refuted by Neh. 5.

10. Since the Bible forbids usury it ipso facto forbids the Gold Standard

11. The rich are generally demonized as immoral people in the Bible. Mark 10:25 “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

12. Free Trade is a method used by the Satanic rich to make money for themselves at the expense of their countrymen’s poverty and misery.

13. The Economic consequences of letting people do what they want are disastrous in the light of comparative advantage and opportunity cost. The financial and physical strength of our people is wasted on their atheist and nihilistic pursuits such as sports, abortions, STDs, degenerate entertainment etc.

14. Libertarian Christians say sins are not crimes necessarily. They will say the sin is a crime only if the OT law demands a penalty, but then they turn around and say the penalties are ceremonial: i.e. Jubilee-remittance of debt, is ceremonial. They use sophistry to make the law powerless and meaningless. Disgusting!

15. The US Constitution is betrayal to the Protestant Solemn League and Covenant, and is Satanic and Counter Reformation. Article 6 clause 3 of the US Constitution:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

16. Communists are not Darwinists; they are Pantheistic Buddhist Mystics.

Taking Jordan B Peterson To Task: Augustinianism Vs. Maximianism and SJW

So let’s see if he deletes it or faces it.


Hail the Augustinian tradition and its teachings of natural compulsion against the SJW Marxist Theology of the Eastern Church. Hail Gregor Mendel and the Augustinian anti Eastern orthodox anthropology that founded genetics which you stupid men are still obstinately refusing to face. Nature compels the identity. The Seven Councils were wrong. Augustine was right.

The Sixth Council/Pelgianism/Maximus the Confessor/Social Justice Marxism Refuted


12:10 Oh but your theology says the gnomic will cannot be compelled by nature. What in effect your theology is is ipso facto SJW. I made a video about this 4 days before you uploaded this!

I have mastered you people. All of you.

29:08 Oh but the Logos/Form is not going to give you escape from the SJW narrative seeing the Logos/form is abstract not concrete and biological.



Libertine/Libertarians Chief Opponents of Calvin in Geneva

“The word “Libertine” was originally coined by John Calvin to negatively describe opponents of his policies in Geneva, Switzerland. This group, led by Ami Perrin, argued against Calvin’s “insistence that church discipline should be enforced uniformly against all members of Genevan society”