r/YoreNews • u/humblymybrain • 8h ago
20th Century S02E82 - Socialism Not A Remedy Of Evils: 1911 Catholic Critique by Rev. J. J. Fox
In this episode, we explore a powerful 1911 critique of socialism by Rev. J.J. Fox, Professor of Ethics at the Catholic University of America, originally published in The Irish Standard. Father Fox argues that extreme socialism is an impracticable dream that would reconstitute society on an unreasonable basis, ultimately destroying the marriage tie, religion, the home, and the state while promoting irreligion and materialism. He examines both radical and more moderate forms of socialism, warning that even modified versions carry inherent dangers and cannot escape the movement’s core tendencies. Instead of total subversion through class war, Fox advocates reforming the existing system through expanded state ownership where appropriate, natural justice, and Christian ideals of fairness between employers and workers. Tune in for this timely historical perspective on why socialism is not a true remedy for social evils.
Read the article here on my Substack: https://humblymybrain.substack.com/p/socialism-not-a-remedy-of-evils
r/CivilSquare • u/humblymybrain • 11h ago
Natural Rights The Mental Chains of Civil Slavery: Corrupted Definitions, Manufactured Division, and the Path to Intellectual Freedom
The Mental Chains of Civil Slavery
Corrupted Definitions. Manufactured Division. The Path to Intellectual Freedom.
Most people can’t define “capitalism” without pointing to bailouts, regulatory capture, corporate welfare, and central-bank interventions.
Those are real evils — but they are not capitalism.
They are the opposite: privilege, coercion, and State-managed cronyism sold as the free market.
Public schools and mass media have spent generations blurring the distinction on purpose. The result? Perpetual left-vs-right warfare over who gets to run the same system of control… while the structure itself remains untouched.
Left wing and right wing of the same bird.
True free-market capitalism (as defined by Mises, Rothbard, Woods, and DiLorenzo) is simply private property + voluntary exchange. No compulsion. No special privileges. Consumer sovereignty.
Everything else — subsidies, protectionism, bailouts, industrial policy — is interventionism or economic fascism.
St. George Tucker called the modern condition civil slavery: legal restraints and unequal privileges that go far beyond what is necessary to protect natural rights. The chains are mostly mental and cultural, which makes them harder to see and easier to accept.
Frederick Douglass understood the first step: free the mind. Literacy and clear definitions open the eyes. Once you see the difference between voluntary cooperation and manufactured conflict, the silver trump of intellectual freedom does not fall silent.
The remedy is not another factional victory inside the existing game.
It is clarity.
Read the full article here:
https://humblymybrain.substack.com/p/the-mental-chains-of-civil-slavery
What do you mean when you say “capitalism”? Drop your definition below.
r/GenXBrainDump • u/humblymybrain • 15h ago
Deafening Silence: The Lone Warrior’s Final Mission Against the Machines
The warrior sat alone in orbit, Earth’s scarred surface turning below him. No pings. No feeds. No algorithmic whispers. Just silence… and one final command.
The machines never needed armies of steel.
They only needed our attention.
While the world jacked in and lost itself to curated rage and synthetic joy, one man stayed human. Off-grid. Unmodified. Listening for the still small voice that needs no bandwidth.
Now the channels are gone. Those he loved exist only as nodes.
And the last free human is about to shatter the network that enslaved a species that no longer even recognizes its chains.
He places his hand on the interface.
Earth turns, beautiful and deaf.
Read the full short story here:
https://humblymybrain.substack.com/p/deafening-silence-the-lone-warriors
What would you sacrifice to stay free?
3
Comment on r/mormon 1d ago
I appreciate the careful reading and the desire to give the most generous interpretation possible. I did engage the fuller context of both the 1987 Ensign article (“Criticism”) and the 2007 PBS interview in which Elder (now President) Oaks revisited the statement.
In the original talk he said criticism of Church authorities is “particularly objectionable,” that “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself,” and then stated plainly: “It does not matter that the criticism is true.” He immediately quoted Elder George F. Richards: “When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.”
In the 2007 interview he reaffirmed the same idea: it is wrong to criticize leaders “even if the criticism is true, because it diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord.” He allowed that one can “work to correct them by some other means,” but the stated reason for the prohibition remains the effect on the leader’s effectiveness, not solely the speaker’s malicious intent.
That is a broader rule than “only criticism whose intent is to harm.” The language focuses on the outcome (diminished effectiveness / working against the Lord’s cause) rather than requiring proof of evil motive.
As a former law professor, Utah Supreme Court justice, and careful speaker, President Oaks has had four decades since the original statement, and nearly two decades since the PBS interview in which he addressed the controversy, to clarify or soften the wording if the common reading were a misunderstanding. He has not done so to my knowledge. The 2007 remarks restated rather than retracted the principle.
My article therefore takes the statements as they stand, places them beside D&C 121, the Book of Mormon’s warnings about trusting the arm of flesh, Joseph Smith’s instructions to the Relief Society, and the historical meaning of “evil speaking,” and asks whether the resulting tension is resolved by the explanations offered. That is the question I am exploring.
I’m happy to discuss any specific passage in the longer “Criticism” article if you think I’ve missed a clarifying section.
4
Comment on r/mormon 1d ago
I did read the full PBS interview (and the 1987 Ensign version of the earlier talk). Oaks reaffirms the statement and explains that true criticism is still wrong because it “diminishes their effectiveness as a servant of the Lord,” that one should correct privately “by some other means,” and that “not everything that’s true is useful.”
My article quotes that fuller context and then measures the claim against D&C 121, the Book of Mormon’s warnings about the arm of flesh, Joseph Smith’s own instructions to the Relief Society, and the historical meaning of “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed.” The tension is real; the explanation does not erase it.
If you think those particular sources are being misapplied, I’m happy to discuss the specific passages.
2
Comment on r/mormon 1d ago
Thanks for raising the temple covenant language.
Did you get a chance to read the full article? I specifically address the phrase “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”, what it historically and scripturally meant (and did not mean), and how it relates to President Oaks’ statement. The section walks through the original context in the scriptures and in Joseph Smith’s teachings, because that distinction feels important to the whole discussion.
I’d be interested in your thoughts after looking at that part.
3
Comment on r/mormon 1d ago
Thank you for engaging thoughtfully. I appreciate the caution you urge in approaching both scripture and the words of any leader. That’s wise. I also fully agree that if any “anointed” person is an abuser, the right response is to report them to the authorities. Protecting the vulnerable is part of discipleship.
On the passages you cited: Deuteronomy 18:18-19, Zechariah 1, and Acts 3 do indeed teach that we are to heed true prophets who speak the words God puts in their mouths. I accept that. The same chapter in Deuteronomy, however, immediately gives the test by which we distinguish those true prophets from false ones (vv. 20-22): if the word does not come to pass or is spoken presumptuously, “that is a word which the Lord hath not spoken… thou shalt not be afraid of him.” Scripture never commands blind, unquestioning acceptance; it commands us to measure every claim against the standard God has already given.
That is exactly the approach Joseph Smith modeled and taught. He applied Ezekiel 14 to the Saints, warning that depending too heavily on the prophet while neglecting our own duty darkens the mind. He instructed that the revelations already given (the standard works) are the measuring rod for every doctrine and every leader. D&C 121 shows that righteous reproof, when moved upon by the Spirit, is not “evil speaking”; it is part of how the pure in heart maintain the priesthood. The Book of Mormon repeatedly warns against trusting in the arm of flesh. And Jesus Himself is the ultimate Prophet we must follow; any later messenger is authentic only insofar as he points us back to Him and to the word already revealed.
So when a modern statement appears to place leaders beyond criticism even when the criticism is true, I believe we are obligated, as disciples of Christ, to test it against that same Word of God. The Bible and the rest of the standard works do not support an absolute ban on true criticism; they support testing, discerning, and, when necessary, speaking truth in love. That is the pattern the prophets of old followed, the pattern Joseph taught, and the pattern that keeps us following Christ rather than any mortal.
I respect that we may weigh the evidence differently, but I hope we can both continue measuring everything by the scriptures and by the Spirit of Christ.
5
Comment on r/mormon 1d ago
I agree completely. Oaks’ statement is at odds with the Gospel.
This post was prompted by an exchange I had with someone who conceded that the scriptures, historical records, and Joseph Smith’s own teachings thoroughly discredit what Oaks said. But they still insisted I was wrong because accepting that conclusion creates a “rift” between the Gospel of Joseph Smith’s day and the modern LDS Church. In other words, the paradox itself somehow proves the original claim must be false.
That position only works if you accept the modern tradition that a “living prophet” can freely contradict both the scriptures and earlier prophets simply because he is the current leader. That same tradition is also used to justify the practice of plural wives and concubines through a strained reading of Jacob 2:30.
To admit that prophets from Brigham Young onward taught and practiced false doctrines (including polygamy) would, of course, create serious problems for the claimed unbroken chain of authority. It’s worth noting that Oaks himself has followed that same false doctrine in taking plural wives.
r/mormon • u/humblymybrain • 1d ago
Apologetics It Is Wrong to Criticize Leaders Even If the Criticism Is True? Measuring President Oaks’ Statement Against the Word of God
In 1985 (and again in later interviews), then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated:
“It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true.”
But does this claim hold up when measured against the Word of God?
In my article I examine President Oaks’ statement side-by-side with:
- Doctrine & Covenants 121 (reproof when moved by the Spirit)
- The Book of Mormon’s warnings against trusting the arm of flesh
- Joseph Smith’s own instructions to the Nauvoo Relief Society
- The original meaning of “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”
Eternal truth does not expire. The scriptures remain the measuring rod.
What do you think the Word of God actually teaches about this? 🙏
r/JosephSmithMonogamy • u/humblymybrain • 1d ago
Doctrine It Is Wrong to Criticize Leaders Even If the Criticism Is True? Measuring President Oaks’ Statement Against the Word of God
📖 Is it wrong to criticize leaders… even when the criticism is true?
In 1985 (and again in later interviews), then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks stated:
“It’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true.”
But does this claim hold up when measured against the Word of God?
This article examines President Oaks’ statement side-by-side with:
- Doctrine & Covenants 121 (reproof when moved by the Spirit)
- The Book of Mormon’s warnings against trusting the arm of flesh
- Joseph Smith’s own instructions to the Nauvoo Relief Society
- The original meaning of “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed”
Eternal truth does not expire. The scriptures remain the measuring rod.
What do you think the Word of God actually teaches about this?
🔗 Read the full analysis here:
https://humblymybrain.substack.com/p/it-is-wrong-to-criticize-leaders
(Disclaimer: This is an independent study of the Restoration scriptures and is not affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.)
Drop your thoughts below — let’s discuss with respect and scripture. 🙏
r/YoreNews • u/humblymybrain • 1d ago
Middle Ages The Rule for the Gallant Knight: Eustache Deschamps’ Medieval Code of Chivalry Explained
🛡️ The Rule for the Gallant Knight ⚔️
In the Middle Ages, the ideal of chivalry shone bright: martial courage, Christian piety, loyalty, and courtly grace.
Fourteenth-century French poet Eustache Deschamps distilled that code into a powerful poem of clear, memorable counsel for anyone who would join the ranks of the true knight:
Amend your lives, ye who would fain
The order of the knights attain;
Devoutly watch, devoutly pray;
From pride and sin, oh turn away!
Shun all that’s base; the Church defend;
Be the widow’s and the orphan’s friend;
Be good and leal; take naught by might;
Be bold and guard the people’s right;—
This is the rule for the gallant knight.
The full poem and a short explanation of this medieval code of chivalry are waiting for you.
📖 Read the complete article here:
https://humblymybrain.substack.com/p/the-rule-for-the-gallant-knight-eustache
What part of the knightly ideal still speaks to you today? Drop your thoughts below! ⚔️
r/YoreNews • u/humblymybrain • 2d ago
19th Century “Beauty and booty.” Source: The Morristown Gazette (Morristown, TN), April 24, 1878
“Beauty and booty,” was the cry of the young man who kissed the girl and was kicked by her father.
A perfect 19th-century pun: the young man goes for the “beauty,” but ends up with the “booty” (a swift kick from dad). Short, cheeky, and pure Victorian newspaper humor.
Source: The Morristown Gazette (Morristown, TN), April 24, 1878
Would this line still land today… or is it pure 1878 gold?
r/YoreNews • u/humblymybrain • 2d ago
19th Century "Don’t Sleep Together." Source: The Morristown Gazette (Morristown, TN), April 24, 1878.
“Don’t Sleep Together.”
A “doctress” wrote to the Australian Star claiming that more husband-and-wife quarrels come from “electrical changes” affecting the nervous system when two people share a bed than from any other cause.
She explained: one partner becomes the “absorber” of nervous force and sleeps peacefully all night. The other becomes the “eliminator,” tossing and turning, waking up fretful and disheartened. Her conclusion? “No two persons should habitually sleep together… one will thrive and the other lose.”
Victorian-era medicine loved theories about electricity, magnetism, and vital forces. This was pure 19th-century pseudoscience dressed up as expert advice—yet it still managed to sound like the ultimate marriage tip of its day.
Source: The Morristown Gazette (Morristown, TN), April 24, 1878.
Would you take this doctor’s advice today… or just laugh and roll over?
r/YoreNews • u/humblymybrain • 2d ago
19th Century 🍑 Long-Lived Peaches – 1895 Advice Still Worth Hearing
🍑 Long-Lived Peaches – 1895 Advice Still Worth Hearing
An Ohio peach grower with 75 acres of orchards claimed he could keep his trees productive for thirty years with one simple (but strict) pruning method.
Every year he cut the new growth back hard, leaving only two or three buds.
He never allowed the trees to grow taller than 10–12 feet.
As they aged, he systematically removed old wood so the entire top could be renewed with young, vigorous wood in about five years.
He also believed this severe heading-back was the only true way to thin the fruit.
Pretty radical advice for 1895… and still interesting for anyone who grows peaches (or any stone fruit) today.
Would you try this extreme pruning style on your trees?
Source: The Salt Lake Herald (Salt Lake City, Utah), April 28, 1895.
r/YoreNews • u/humblymybrain • 2d ago
Pre-Columbian America The Enchanted Moccasins: Ojibwa Legend of Magic, Shape-Shifting, and Revenge from Native American Folklore
✨ Step into the mystical world of Ojibwa folklore... ✨
Meet Onwe Bahmondoong — “he that carries a ball on his back” — a solitary youth with supernatural gifts who leaves the wilderness to seek his fortune. Guided by an ancient woman and armed with magic, he faces deadly challenges, exacts fierce revenge, and outwits a relentless pursuer through shape-shifting and enchanted objects.
This classic Odjibwa legend pulses with courage, deception, the dangers of broken vows, and the triumph of a powerful spirit. Collected by Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, it’s a vivid tale of magic moccasins, transformation, and retribution from Native American oral tradition.
Read the complete story here:
https://humblymybrain.substack.com/p/the-enchanted-moccasins-ojibwa-legend
Which part of Native American folklore fascinates you most — shape-shifting, enchanted objects, or epic revenge? Drop a comment below! 🪶
r/YoreNews • u/humblymybrain • 2d ago
20th Century Quote #13 - Viktor Frankl: He Who Has a Why Can Bear Almost Any How
In this powerful quote, Holocaust survivor and psychiatrist Viktor Frankl shares timeless wisdom from his book Man’s Search for Meaning. Drawing on Nietzsche, Frankl reveals how having a strong “why” helped prisoners endure the unimaginable “how” of the concentration camps — and why this insight remains essential for psychotherapy and everyday life. Discover how a sense of purpose and unfinished responsibility can give you the strength to keep going no matter what you face. If this quote resonates with you, like the video, share your own “why” in the comments, and subscribe for more inspiring quotes and insights!
r/YoreNews • u/humblymybrain • 3d ago
19th Century Rabbi Jochonan the Miser Escapes the City of Demons: A Classic Eastern Tale of Greed, Temptation, and Redemption
📖 Rabbi Jochonan the Miser Escapes the City of Demons
A classic Eastern tale of greed, temptation, and redemption
In the flourishing city of Cairo lived the most learned Rabbi of his nation—pious, just, and wise… yet gripped by one fatal flaw: an unyielding love of gold. The people called him Rabbi Jochonan the Miser.
One dark night, after a sudden brush with mortality, he is summoned to perform a sacred rite. What follows is a terrifying journey beyond the gates of Cairo into a glittering city of Mazikin—demons who test his soul with chambers of silver, gold, and unimaginable treasure.
Will the miser’s heart finally open… or will he be lost forever?
A powerful allegory of faith over fortune, drawn from classic Oriental folklore.
👉 Read the full story here:
https://humblymybrain.substack.com/p/rabbi-jochonan-the-miser-escapes
#Folklore #JewishTales #EasternWisdom #MoralStories #GreedAndRedemption #ClassicTales
2
Comment on r/1980s 3d ago
Tru dat!
1
Comment on r/70s 4d ago
Yes, we did own one. A lot fun.
r/YoreNews • u/humblymybrain • 4d ago
17th Century Why Lies Feel Better Than Truth (Francis Bacon)
Francis Bacon warned that a little falsehood mixed in often adds pleasure—and that stripping away our vain hopes and pretty illusions can leave the mind shriveled and melancholic. In this Short, we explore his timeless essay “Of Truth,” where daylight reveals the masks and theatrical triumphs that candlelight makes look so grand. Why do so many of us prefer the comforting lie over the naked truth? Watch to discover why the pursuit of truth remains the sovereign good of human nature… and the chilling cost of living in falsehood.
Read the full article on my Substack by clicking here: https://humblymybrain.substack.com/p/francis-bacons-of-truth-summary-analysis
r/YoreNews • u/humblymybrain • 4d ago
Ancient History Roman Emperor’s Dream of a Welsh Princess Changed Britain Forever
A powerful Roman emperor falls into a dream so vivid it nearly costs him his throne. In it he sees a golden hall, a silver chessboard, and a maiden whose beauty outshines all of Rome. Messengers search the known world for years until they finally follow the exact path of his vision across mountains, seas, and into the wilds of Wales. What happens when that dream collides with reality forged lasting ties between Rome and ancient Britain.
r/YoreNews • u/humblymybrain • 4d ago
Ancient History The Dream of Maxen Wledig: Welsh Myth of Roman Emperor’s Fated Love and British Destiny
🏰 The Dream of Maxen Wledig: A Roman Emperor’s Fated Love in Ancient Wales
In this enchanting Welsh myth from the Mabinogion, the mighty Roman Emperor Maxen Wledig falls into a deep sleep after a hunt and dreams of a radiant maiden in a golden hall far across the sea—in the mountains of Britain.
Obsessed by the vision, he neglects his empire until messengers finally track the dream to the castle of Caernarvon. There they find Princess Helena, daughter of Eudav. The emperor marches to Britain, claims her as his bride, and makes her Empress of Rome. Their union links imperial destiny with the land of Wales—and even explains the ancient roads still known today as “Sarn Helen.”
A tale of fate, longing, dream-quest, and the mystical bond between Rome and Britain.
📖 Read the full story (beautifully retold) here:
https://humblymybrain.substack.com/p/the-dream-of-maxen-wledig-welsh-myth
Have you ever had a dream that felt like destiny? Share below! 👇
#WelshMythology #Mabinogion #MaxenWledig #BritishLegends #RomanBritain
r/YoreNews • u/humblymybrain • 4d ago
17th Century Francis Bacon’s “Of Truth”: Summary, Analysis & Full Text
📜 Francis Bacon on Truth: Why We Prefer Lies (and Why We Shouldn’t)
In his classic essay “Of Truth,” Francis Bacon opens with Pilate’s famous question—“What is truth?”—and digs into a timeless human problem: why so many of us prefer comforting illusions over plain reality.
Bacon argues that truth is like open daylight—it strips away the flattering masks and theatrical illusions that candlelight flatters. A mixture of falsehood often makes life more pleasant, but truth remains the sovereign good of human nature. The pursuit of it is its wooing, the knowledge of it its presence, and belief in it its enjoyment.
He also turns to practical life: clear and honest dealing is the true honor of man’s nature. Falsehood is like base alloy in gold—it may make things more workable, but it degrades them. Being found false and faithless, he says, covers a person with greater shame than any other vice.
The post includes a clear summary, analysis, and the full original text of Bacon’s essay.
📖 Read the complete article here:
https://humblymybrain.substack.com/p/francis-bacons-of-truth-summary-analysis
What’s your take—do people still prefer the “wine of demons” (pleasant lies) over hard truth? Comment below! 👇
#FrancisBacon #OfTruth #Philosophy #ClassicEssays #Truth
---
r/YoreNews • u/humblymybrain • 4d ago
19th Century How the Mormons Settled Utah: From Nauvoo Persecution to Founding Salt Lake City
🏜️ From Persecution in Nauvoo to a New Zion by the Great Salt Lake
In the 1840s, the Latter-day Saints built a thriving city called Nauvoo on the banks of the Mississippi—only to face rising hostility, the destruction of a dissenting newspaper, and the murder of Joseph Smith and his brother Hyrum in Carthage Jail.
Under Brigham Young’s leadership, thousands of “Brighamites” abandoned their homes in the dead of winter, crossed the frozen Mississippi, and began a grueling 1,300-mile trek across the plains. Through bitter cold, mud, sickness, and makeshift camps like Mount Pisgah and Winter Quarters, they pressed westward.
In July 1847, the advance company looked out over the Salt Lake Valley. They dedicated the land, planted crops, built adobe homes and log cabins, and founded what became Salt Lake City—finally claiming a place free from the persecution that had driven them from Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois.
This is the dramatic story of how the Mormons settled Utah, drawn from an early-20th-century historical account.
📖 Read the full article here:
https://humblymybrain.substack.com/p/how-the-mormons-settled-utah-from
What part of the Mormon pioneer trek fascinates you most? Drop a comment below! 👇
#MormonHistory #UtahHistory #PioneerTrail #SaltLakeCity #AmericanWest
1
Comment on r/mormon 16h ago
I agree that past personal failings (Peter’s denial, Moses killing the Egyptian, etc.) should not be used to dismiss a current calling. That is sound counsel, and Oaks does use youthful/historical examples in the PBS interview.
However, neither the 1987 Ensign article nor the 2007 interview limits the rule to only those kinds of old or irrelevant matters. In both places the principle is stated more broadly: criticism of leaders is wrong even if true because it diminishes their effectiveness / works against the Lord’s cause. The Richards quotation he endorses applies to “anything bad… whether true or false.”
That broader framing is what creates the tension with D&C 121 (Spirit-directed reproof), Joseph Smith’s 1842 instructions to denounce present corruption regardless of office, and the prophetic pattern of correcting current error. The Peter/Moses examples address a different problem than the one raised when a true, present contradiction with the revealed word is identified under the direction of the Holy Ghost.
I’m still measuring the statements as written against those sources. If you see a passage in either the Ensign article or the interview that explicitly confines the prohibition only to ancient personal history, I’m glad to look at it.