Thursday, November 26, 2015
Last Brain Cells Dying Off - Wiping Out The Founding Fathers
Now there is a movement on college campuses to remove anything related to America's founding fathers - because, according to them, they are racists - and now rapists to boot. This movement will naturally move from the campus into other areas of our lives. And removing the rememberences of the founders is only a step away from removing their positive values and ideas.
"What, people should be free? We should not meddle in other countries' business? We should be able to enjoy the fruits of our labor? Those are the crazy ideas of racists and rapists!"
The article below argues that Thomas Jefferson was not a rapist. As for being a racist, there is some evidence to support the charge. As a Christian and as a voluntaryist, I truly believe that all people are created equal and that all people own themselves. I believe that racism is morally wrong. (I also believe that all people should be personally responsible for themselves.) But can't we reject the flaws in people while acknowledging their strengths? Must we throw the baby out with the bath water?
Who among us is perfect? Who among us is worthy of casting the first stone? Not me. How about you? We all have our skeletons. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Every person needs a redeemer if he or she is to be redeemed. Every person - Thomas Jefferson, you, and me, must stand at the Judgement Seat of Christ and make account for our lives.
There should be no monuments to any man, because no man is good enough. But I don't see any problem with portraits or statues for context. The imperfect Jefferson gave us the Declaration of Independence and much of our ideas of human liberty. He helped launch the world forward, chipping away at tyranny and despotism. We should thank and remember him for that, even if he was flawed otherwise.
http://libertygoneviral.com/2015/11/26/college-of-william-mary-students-want-statue-of-incestuous-rapist-and-racist-thomas-jefferson-removed/
Wednesday, November 25, 2015
Bob Dylan and me
I always connected with Bob Dylan at some level - of course I heard and appreciated his songs since the early '60's, but the first Dylan album I bought was "Blood On The Tracks" in 1975 at the ripe old age of 18. This is where I really began to appreciate his genius. I bought albums on and off through the next 25 years, but it was about 1999 when I really became "attached" to Dylan. I saw him for the first time in concert that year, along with Van Morrison and Joni Mitchell. He totally rocked, way more than I expected.
Everything up to that point made me feel more and more like a kindred spirit with him. Me at 42, and at 38 years into his career, I finally felt that I was on a path that Dylan understood, and wrote about. I've bought every album and read every interview since. Bob is my brother. He just doesn't know me.
Today I read an old Rolling Stone interview of Dylan by Kurt Loder in 1984. You can find the whole interview here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/bob-dylan-recovering-christian-19840621
I'd like to share an excerpt - I could relate to everything he said. The interesting thing for me, is I think that in these past 31 years, even though Things Have Changed, and I have changed I don't think Bob Dylan has changed:
People have put various labels on you over the past several years: "He's a born-again Christian"; "he's an ultra-Orthodox Jew." Are any of those labels accurate?
Not really. People call you this or they call you that. But I can't respond to that, because then it seems like I'm defensive, and, you know, what does it matter, really?
But weren't three of your albums — Slow Train Coming, Saved and Shot of Love — inspired by some sort of born-again religious experience?
I would never call it that, I've never said I'm born again. That's just a media term. I don't think I've ever been an agnostic. I've always thought there's a superior power, that this is not the real world and that there's a world to come. That no soul has died, every soul is alive, either in holiness or in flames. And there's probably a lot of middle ground.
What is your spiritual stance, then?
Well, I don't think that this is it, you know — this life ain't nothin'. There's no way you're gonna convince me this is all there is to it. I never, ever believed that. I believe in the Book of Revelation. The leaders of this world are eventually going to play God, if they're not already playing God, and eventually a man will come that everybody will think is God. He'll do things, and they'll say, "Well, only God can do those things. It must be him."
You're a literal believer of the Bible?
Yeah. Sure, yeah. I am.
Are the Old and New Testaments equally valid?
To me.
Do you belong to any church or synagogue?
Not really. Uh, the Church of the Poison Mind [laughs].
Do you actually believe the end is at hand?
I don't think it's at hand. I think we'll have at least 200 years. And the new kingdom that comes in, I mean, people can't even imagine what it's gonna be like. There's a lot of people walkin' around who think the new kingdom's comin' next year and that they're gonna be right in there among the top guard. And they're wrong. I think when it comes in, there are people who'll be prepared for it, but if the new kingdom happened tomorrow and you were sitting there and I was sitting here, you wouldn't even remember me.
Can you converse and find agreement with Orthodox Jews?
Yeah, yeah.
And with Christians?
Oh, yeah. Yeah, with anybody.
Sounds like a new synthesis.
Well, no. If I thought the world needed a new religion, I would start one. But there are a lot of other religions, too. There's those Indian religions, Eastern religions, Buddhism, you know. They're happening, too.
When you meet up with Orthodox people, can you sit down with them and say, "Well, you should really check out Christianity"?
Well, yeah, if somebody asks me, I'll tell 'em. But, you know, I'm not gonna just offer my opinion. I'm more about playing music, you know?
Your views apparently seemed clear to many record buyers. Were you frustrated by the commercial resistance — both on record and on the road — to your fundamentalist-influenced music?
Well, after the '78 gospel tour, I wanted to keep touring in '79. But I knew that we'd gone everywhere in '78, so how you gonna play in '79? Go back to the same places? So, at that point, I figured, "Well, I don't care if I draw no crowds no more." And a lotta places we played on the last tour, we filled maybe half the hall.
And you don't think that was because of the material you were doing?
I don't think so. I don't think it had to do with anything. I think when your time is your time, it don't matter what you're doin'. It's either your time, or its not your time. And I didn't feel the last few years was really my time. But that's no reason for me to make any kinda judgment call on what it is I'm gonna be. The people who reacted to the gospel stuff would've reacted that way if I hadn't done, you know, "Song to Woody."
You think so?
Yeah, I know it. I can usually anticipate that stuff — what's going on, what's the mood. There's a lotta young performers around. And they look good and they move good, and they're sayin' stuff that is, uh, excitable, you know? Face it, a lotta that stuff is just made and geared for twelve-year-old kids. It's like baby food.
Your latest album, Infidels, is hardly subteen fodder. Some critics have even detected a new note of conservatism in some of the songs — even outright jingoism in "Neighborhood Bully," in which the metaphorical subject is said to be "just one man" whose "enemies say he's on their land." That's clearly a strong Zionist political statement, is it not?
You'd have to point that out to me, you know, what line is in it that spells that out. I'm not a political songwriter. Joe Hill was a political songwriter; uh, Merle Travis wrote some political songs. "Which Side Are You On?" is a political song. And "Neighborhood Bully," to me, is not a political song, because if it were, it would fall into a certain political party. If you're talkin' about it as an Israeli political song — even if it is an Israeli political song — in Israel alone, there's maybe twenty political parties. I don't know where that would fall, what party.
Well, would it be fair to call that song a heartfelt statement of belief?
Maybe it is, yeah. But just because somebody feels a certain way, you can't come around and stick some political-party slogan on it. If you listen closely, it really could be about other things. It's simple and easy to define it, so you got it pegged, and you can deal with it in that certain kinda way. However, I wouldn't do that, 'cause I don't know what the politics of Israel is. I just don't know.
So you haven't resolved for yourself, for instance, the Palestinian question?
Not really, because I live here.
Would you ever live in Israel?
I don't know. It's hard to speculate what tomorrow may bring. I kinda live where I find myself.
At another point in the song, you say, "He got no allies to really speak of," and while "he buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied . . . no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side." Do you feel that America should send troops over there?
No. The song doesn't say that. Who should, who shouldn't — who am I to say?
Well, do you think Israel should get more help from the American Jewish community? I don't want to push this too far, but it just seems so . . .
Well, you're not pushing it too far, you're just making it specific. And you're making it specific to what's going on today. But what's going on today isn't gonna last, you know? The battle of Armageddon is specifically spelled out: where it will be fought and, if you wanna get technical, when it will be fought. And the battle of Armageddon definitely will be fought in the Middle East.
Do you follow the political scene or have any sort of fix on what the politicians are talking about this election year?
I think politics is an instrument of the Devil. Just that clear. I think politics is what kills; it doesn't bring anything alive. Politics is corrupt; I mean, anybody knows that.
So you don't care who's president? It doesn't make any difference?
I don't think so. I mean, how long is Reagan gonna be president? I've seen like four or five of 'em myself, you know? And I've seen two of 'em die in office. How can you deal with Reagan and get so serious about that, when the man isn't even gonna be there when you get your thing together?
So you don't think there's any difference between, say, a Kennedy and a Nixon? It doesn't matter at all?
I don't know. It's very popular nowadays to think of yourself as a "liberal humanist." That's such a bullshit term. It means less than nothing. Who was a better president? Well, you got me. I don't know what people's errors are; nobody's perfect, for sure. But I thought Kennedy — both Kennedys — I just liked them. And I liked Martin . . . Martin Luther King. I thought those were people who were blessed and touched, you know? The fact that they all went out with bullets doesn't change nothin'. Because the good they do gets planted. And those seeds live on longer than that.
Do you still hope for peace?
There is not going to be any peace.
You don't think it's worth working for?
No. It's just gonna be a false peace. You can reload your rifle, and that moment you're reloading it, that's peace. It may last for a few years.
Isn't it worth fighting for that?
Nah, none of that matters. I heard somebody on the radio talkin' about what's happenin' in Haiti, you know? "We must be concerned about what's happening in Haiti. We're global people now." And they're gettin' everybody in that frame of mind — like, we're not just the United States anymore, we're global. We're thinkin' in terms of the whole world because communications come right into your house. Well, that's what the Book of Revelation is all about. And you can just about know that anybody who comes out for peace is not for peace.
But what if someone genuinely is for peace?
Well, you can't be for peace and be global, It's just like that song "Man of Peace." But none of this matters, if you believe in another world. If you believe in this world, you're stuck; you really don't have a chance. You'll go mad, 'cause you won't see the end of it. You may wanna stick around, but you won't be able to. On another level, though, you will be able to see this world. You'll look back and say, "Ah, that's what it was all about all the time. Wow, why didn't I get that?"
Everything up to that point made me feel more and more like a kindred spirit with him. Me at 42, and at 38 years into his career, I finally felt that I was on a path that Dylan understood, and wrote about. I've bought every album and read every interview since. Bob is my brother. He just doesn't know me.
Today I read an old Rolling Stone interview of Dylan by Kurt Loder in 1984. You can find the whole interview here:
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/bob-dylan-recovering-christian-19840621
I'd like to share an excerpt - I could relate to everything he said. The interesting thing for me, is I think that in these past 31 years, even though Things Have Changed, and I have changed I don't think Bob Dylan has changed:
People have put various labels on you over the past several years: "He's a born-again Christian"; "he's an ultra-Orthodox Jew." Are any of those labels accurate?
Not really. People call you this or they call you that. But I can't respond to that, because then it seems like I'm defensive, and, you know, what does it matter, really?
But weren't three of your albums — Slow Train Coming, Saved and Shot of Love — inspired by some sort of born-again religious experience?
I would never call it that, I've never said I'm born again. That's just a media term. I don't think I've ever been an agnostic. I've always thought there's a superior power, that this is not the real world and that there's a world to come. That no soul has died, every soul is alive, either in holiness or in flames. And there's probably a lot of middle ground.
What is your spiritual stance, then?
Well, I don't think that this is it, you know — this life ain't nothin'. There's no way you're gonna convince me this is all there is to it. I never, ever believed that. I believe in the Book of Revelation. The leaders of this world are eventually going to play God, if they're not already playing God, and eventually a man will come that everybody will think is God. He'll do things, and they'll say, "Well, only God can do those things. It must be him."
You're a literal believer of the Bible?
Yeah. Sure, yeah. I am.
Are the Old and New Testaments equally valid?
To me.
Do you belong to any church or synagogue?
Not really. Uh, the Church of the Poison Mind [laughs].
Do you actually believe the end is at hand?
I don't think it's at hand. I think we'll have at least 200 years. And the new kingdom that comes in, I mean, people can't even imagine what it's gonna be like. There's a lot of people walkin' around who think the new kingdom's comin' next year and that they're gonna be right in there among the top guard. And they're wrong. I think when it comes in, there are people who'll be prepared for it, but if the new kingdom happened tomorrow and you were sitting there and I was sitting here, you wouldn't even remember me.
Can you converse and find agreement with Orthodox Jews?
Yeah, yeah.
And with Christians?
Oh, yeah. Yeah, with anybody.
Sounds like a new synthesis.
Well, no. If I thought the world needed a new religion, I would start one. But there are a lot of other religions, too. There's those Indian religions, Eastern religions, Buddhism, you know. They're happening, too.
When you meet up with Orthodox people, can you sit down with them and say, "Well, you should really check out Christianity"?
Well, yeah, if somebody asks me, I'll tell 'em. But, you know, I'm not gonna just offer my opinion. I'm more about playing music, you know?
Your views apparently seemed clear to many record buyers. Were you frustrated by the commercial resistance — both on record and on the road — to your fundamentalist-influenced music?
Well, after the '78 gospel tour, I wanted to keep touring in '79. But I knew that we'd gone everywhere in '78, so how you gonna play in '79? Go back to the same places? So, at that point, I figured, "Well, I don't care if I draw no crowds no more." And a lotta places we played on the last tour, we filled maybe half the hall.
And you don't think that was because of the material you were doing?
I don't think so. I don't think it had to do with anything. I think when your time is your time, it don't matter what you're doin'. It's either your time, or its not your time. And I didn't feel the last few years was really my time. But that's no reason for me to make any kinda judgment call on what it is I'm gonna be. The people who reacted to the gospel stuff would've reacted that way if I hadn't done, you know, "Song to Woody."
You think so?
Yeah, I know it. I can usually anticipate that stuff — what's going on, what's the mood. There's a lotta young performers around. And they look good and they move good, and they're sayin' stuff that is, uh, excitable, you know? Face it, a lotta that stuff is just made and geared for twelve-year-old kids. It's like baby food.
Your latest album, Infidels, is hardly subteen fodder. Some critics have even detected a new note of conservatism in some of the songs — even outright jingoism in "Neighborhood Bully," in which the metaphorical subject is said to be "just one man" whose "enemies say he's on their land." That's clearly a strong Zionist political statement, is it not?
You'd have to point that out to me, you know, what line is in it that spells that out. I'm not a political songwriter. Joe Hill was a political songwriter; uh, Merle Travis wrote some political songs. "Which Side Are You On?" is a political song. And "Neighborhood Bully," to me, is not a political song, because if it were, it would fall into a certain political party. If you're talkin' about it as an Israeli political song — even if it is an Israeli political song — in Israel alone, there's maybe twenty political parties. I don't know where that would fall, what party.
Well, would it be fair to call that song a heartfelt statement of belief?
Maybe it is, yeah. But just because somebody feels a certain way, you can't come around and stick some political-party slogan on it. If you listen closely, it really could be about other things. It's simple and easy to define it, so you got it pegged, and you can deal with it in that certain kinda way. However, I wouldn't do that, 'cause I don't know what the politics of Israel is. I just don't know.
So you haven't resolved for yourself, for instance, the Palestinian question?
Not really, because I live here.
Would you ever live in Israel?
I don't know. It's hard to speculate what tomorrow may bring. I kinda live where I find myself.
At another point in the song, you say, "He got no allies to really speak of," and while "he buys obsolete weapons and he won't be denied . . . no one sends flesh and blood to fight by his side." Do you feel that America should send troops over there?
No. The song doesn't say that. Who should, who shouldn't — who am I to say?
Well, do you think Israel should get more help from the American Jewish community? I don't want to push this too far, but it just seems so . . .
Well, you're not pushing it too far, you're just making it specific. And you're making it specific to what's going on today. But what's going on today isn't gonna last, you know? The battle of Armageddon is specifically spelled out: where it will be fought and, if you wanna get technical, when it will be fought. And the battle of Armageddon definitely will be fought in the Middle East.
Do you follow the political scene or have any sort of fix on what the politicians are talking about this election year?
I think politics is an instrument of the Devil. Just that clear. I think politics is what kills; it doesn't bring anything alive. Politics is corrupt; I mean, anybody knows that.
So you don't care who's president? It doesn't make any difference?
I don't think so. I mean, how long is Reagan gonna be president? I've seen like four or five of 'em myself, you know? And I've seen two of 'em die in office. How can you deal with Reagan and get so serious about that, when the man isn't even gonna be there when you get your thing together?
So you don't think there's any difference between, say, a Kennedy and a Nixon? It doesn't matter at all?
I don't know. It's very popular nowadays to think of yourself as a "liberal humanist." That's such a bullshit term. It means less than nothing. Who was a better president? Well, you got me. I don't know what people's errors are; nobody's perfect, for sure. But I thought Kennedy — both Kennedys — I just liked them. And I liked Martin . . . Martin Luther King. I thought those were people who were blessed and touched, you know? The fact that they all went out with bullets doesn't change nothin'. Because the good they do gets planted. And those seeds live on longer than that.
Do you still hope for peace?
There is not going to be any peace.
You don't think it's worth working for?
No. It's just gonna be a false peace. You can reload your rifle, and that moment you're reloading it, that's peace. It may last for a few years.
Isn't it worth fighting for that?
Nah, none of that matters. I heard somebody on the radio talkin' about what's happenin' in Haiti, you know? "We must be concerned about what's happening in Haiti. We're global people now." And they're gettin' everybody in that frame of mind — like, we're not just the United States anymore, we're global. We're thinkin' in terms of the whole world because communications come right into your house. Well, that's what the Book of Revelation is all about. And you can just about know that anybody who comes out for peace is not for peace.
But what if someone genuinely is for peace?
Well, you can't be for peace and be global, It's just like that song "Man of Peace." But none of this matters, if you believe in another world. If you believe in this world, you're stuck; you really don't have a chance. You'll go mad, 'cause you won't see the end of it. You may wanna stick around, but you won't be able to. On another level, though, you will be able to see this world. You'll look back and say, "Ah, that's what it was all about all the time. Wow, why didn't I get that?"
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Sandy Hook Tragedy and Gun Control
For those who think that if guns are banned or further regulated these tragedies will end, consider this: 1) Prior to the 1980’s, in spite of the fact that most people had guns and there were very few gun laws, events such as Sandy Creek almost never occurred.
From the Wikipedia reference at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_shootings_in_the_United_States, “There are very seldom reports of mass or multiple school shootings during the first three decades of the 20th Century, with the three most violent attacks on schools involving either arson or explosions.”
The first mass school shooting occurred in 1966 at the University of Texas. The next one was at the end of 1974. Between 1974 and the early 1990s, more incidents began to occur but were still quite rare.
Beginning in 1995 multiple-victim school shootings began to become more frequent, and the introduction of gun control laws increased. But the shootings continued. The main question should be “why?”
2) In spite of gun control laws and “gun-free zones” such as schools, these events happen today with distressing regularity. If 1 and 2 are demonstrably true, we need to ask another question: What is different? What has changed in the last 20-30 years that has caused this violence to increase?
One thing that is different is that with news being instantly available, more people are aware of the media attention that such events get, similar to the increase in airplane hijackings in the 1970s. Desensitization via graphic violence in movies and video games may also play a role. These could be contributing elements to the increase, but I firmly believe this is what is really different (please watch it all):
The vast majority of Americans who own guns would never use them in violence except in self-defense of themselves and their families. The guns themselves pose no danger. No gun ever woke up one morning and decided to kill someone. It may sound trite by now, but it’s true: guns don’t kill people. People kill people.
The second amendment to the U.S. constitution is not only about sportsmen or well-regulated state militia. The amendment refers to the individual. The individual’s right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. If it was only about militia, the amendment would have clearly been a group, militia right. It is not, and the Supreme court has clearly said so in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570.
The court was affirming what was not even questioned by the founding fathers.
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334
The founders also were not only concerned about self-defense. They also insisted on the individual right to keep and bear arms to ward off tyranny. An armed citizenry is not easily subdued by despotism. An armed country is a free country:
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence ... From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . . . the very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good" (George Washington)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
"What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.)
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- (Thomas Jefferson)
It can convincingly be argued that the second amendment is necessary to uphold all the others. A stable, non-medicated person who owns a gun is a citizen. A stable, non-medicated person who has his gun taken away is a subject. Or worse, a potential victim, of both the criminal and the state.
Keeping a level head in discussing gun control is a difficult thing to do. Emotion jumps in quickly, especially in the aftermath of incidents such as Sandy Hook. But we would be much better off going after the real problem rather than going after an inanimate object that if taken away, everything else remaining the same would be replaced with something else, and our self-defense and the defense of our liberties would be irretrievably gone.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Keeping America Safe (Kinda Brings a Tear to Your Eye)
.
My wife left to visit her sister in Missouri this morning. On her way through Homeland Stupidity, she was told she could not carry her toothpaste on the plane. The toothpaste was in a 4.6 oz container, but was more than half EMPTY, leaving her with about 2 oz. of toothpaste. The container was clear and this was obvious. Since the limit is 3 oz, I told her she should be able to take it, since any idiot could see it wasn’t 3 oz. But the brave, non-producing tax-eater would have none of that.
My wife, a 53 year-old grandmother of nine, asked, “it’s half empty, why are you taking it?” Answer: “We don’t know what’s in it.” My wife: “Um… toothpaste?”
I know the people in the TSA needed jobs after they got fired from McDonald’s. Our compassionate government made sure that they were employed and secured the money (from actual productive people) to make it happen. Now we can all be proud that they are keeping America safe from toothpaste. And grandmothers.
.
My wife left to visit her sister in Missouri this morning. On her way through Homeland Stupidity, she was told she could not carry her toothpaste on the plane. The toothpaste was in a 4.6 oz container, but was more than half EMPTY, leaving her with about 2 oz. of toothpaste. The container was clear and this was obvious. Since the limit is 3 oz, I told her she should be able to take it, since any idiot could see it wasn’t 3 oz. But the brave, non-producing tax-eater would have none of that.
My wife, a 53 year-old grandmother of nine, asked, “it’s half empty, why are you taking it?” Answer: “We don’t know what’s in it.” My wife: “Um… toothpaste?”
I know the people in the TSA needed jobs after they got fired from McDonald’s. Our compassionate government made sure that they were employed and secured the money (from actual productive people) to make it happen. Now we can all be proud that they are keeping America safe from toothpaste. And grandmothers.
.
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
Unfortunately, We Still Have A Long Way To Go
.
Seems like the majority of the so-called "Tea Party" is populated with confused or ignorant "conservatives", still drinking the mainstream GOP Kool-Aid:
POLL SHOWS TEA PARTY WOULD RUN BIG BUDGET DEFICITS AND INCREASE THE NATIONAL DEBT
A post about the real Tea Party (of 1773) is coming up. Maybe LiberTea is a better name for the real movement.
.
Seems like the majority of the so-called "Tea Party" is populated with confused or ignorant "conservatives", still drinking the mainstream GOP Kool-Aid:
POLL SHOWS TEA PARTY WOULD RUN BIG BUDGET DEFICITS AND INCREASE THE NATIONAL DEBT
A post about the real Tea Party (of 1773) is coming up. Maybe LiberTea is a better name for the real movement.
.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?) Part 5
.
It is time we began raising our voices in a new way. In the last three years or so, the freedom movement has risen as a Phoenix from the ashes. Millions now believe that their governments, and their political parties, have long ceased looking out for their best interests, and are now riddled straight through with corruption, blood-thirst, and lust for power. But our efforts to date have been mostly defensive--we have rallied against things--new taxes, encroachments on our privacy and property, gun control, socialist health care, etc. We have stood against establishment and neo-con candidates, and have filled our representatives inboxes with our protests.
Meanwhile the runaway train of tyranny continues to careen towards the missing bridge over the chasm. The conductors, the Republican and Democrat puppets of our overlords, although somewhat irritated, are not overly concerned. Sure, they may lose a small battle here and there, but they are confident they are winning the war. Give a little lipservice to these insolent pests. Even back off on one or two of their newest schemes--like cap and trade or goverment health care--for a little while. No worries, they think, we'll slip it in under their noses later.
So far, our cries for justice have been faint and half-hearted. Like the young Oliver Twist, we want what we want, but our courage and our hearts have not yet caught up with the hunger in our bellies:
It isn't good enough. It's too little. Too late. As one, we need to rise up, and proclaim boldly:
We need to tell our "leaders" that the status quo is not acceptable under any circumstances. We refuse to be polite. No more, "Please sir," as if these criminals were our masters. We want our freedom, and we want it now. We will be heard. We demand the original promise of America. We will prevail. We are prepared to do what it takes.
He that dasheth in pieces is come up against thee: keep the fortress, watch the way, make thy loins strong, fortify thy power mightily. Nahum 2:1 American Standard Version
We will no longer be Oliver Twists, but rather William Wallaces:
Lest anyone misunderstand, we are not calling for violence. We do not believe in instigating violence. To become violent is to become THEM. Them, who have perverted liberty for 250 years, leaving trails of blood all along the way. We do not wish to be painted with a brush dipped in blood. We can reclaim our freedom through peaceful means. It starts with putting our foot down. NO MORE.
We should immediately begin demanding the entire geographic area of the United States become, for the first time, the land of the free. The entire United States is of course, our first choice. But if we cannot have it all, if there are too many of those who wish to remain in chains, then we cannot compel them to be free. But we must demand for ourselves a place beyond the control of the present oppresors, a place to be free.
It seems unlikely that the dark ones would willingly cede land to people who will not bow to their authority. So how are we to get our place? Note: I will talk about some criteria and possible places in Part 6.
One option is secession. If enough of us in one geographical area demand our freedom, we could draw our like-minded bretheren from other regions to ours. Through strength in numbers, we could, like the Declaration of Independence proclaims,
"dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
They would be powerless to stop us.
Of course, they might be foolish and try. They could attack, for force is all they know--in which case we would have no choice but to defend ourselves and our loved ones. When, not if, we prevailed, we could negotiate to draw borders for both camps. Our new, armed-to-the-teeth territory would never again face threat of invasion. Switzerland with an American attitude.
So first, peaceful separation. All would be welcome. All races, creeds, colors, and religions. The only requirement is that the rights and property of others are inviolable. Any designs on the liberty or property of others earns a one-way exile back to the "old" country.
However, I do not think secession or self-defense will be necessary. I think the US will collapse upon itself, and in the not-too-distant future. To me, it looks inevitable. What is not inevitable is what happens next. It is up to us.
At that point, and before a military or foreign power can seek to replace the present regime with a new one, we can claim the territory of the free. And it will be as large as the people support, even from sea to shining sea.
.
It is time we began raising our voices in a new way. In the last three years or so, the freedom movement has risen as a Phoenix from the ashes. Millions now believe that their governments, and their political parties, have long ceased looking out for their best interests, and are now riddled straight through with corruption, blood-thirst, and lust for power. But our efforts to date have been mostly defensive--we have rallied against things--new taxes, encroachments on our privacy and property, gun control, socialist health care, etc. We have stood against establishment and neo-con candidates, and have filled our representatives inboxes with our protests.
Meanwhile the runaway train of tyranny continues to careen towards the missing bridge over the chasm. The conductors, the Republican and Democrat puppets of our overlords, although somewhat irritated, are not overly concerned. Sure, they may lose a small battle here and there, but they are confident they are winning the war. Give a little lipservice to these insolent pests. Even back off on one or two of their newest schemes--like cap and trade or goverment health care--for a little while. No worries, they think, we'll slip it in under their noses later.
So far, our cries for justice have been faint and half-hearted. Like the young Oliver Twist, we want what we want, but our courage and our hearts have not yet caught up with the hunger in our bellies:
It isn't good enough. It's too little. Too late. As one, we need to rise up, and proclaim boldly:
WE. WANT. OUR. FREEDOM.
We need to tell our "leaders" that the status quo is not acceptable under any circumstances. We refuse to be polite. No more, "Please sir," as if these criminals were our masters. We want our freedom, and we want it now. We will be heard. We demand the original promise of America. We will prevail. We are prepared to do what it takes.
He that dasheth in pieces is come up against thee: keep the fortress, watch the way, make thy loins strong, fortify thy power mightily. Nahum 2:1 American Standard Version
We will no longer be Oliver Twists, but rather William Wallaces:
Lest anyone misunderstand, we are not calling for violence. We do not believe in instigating violence. To become violent is to become THEM. Them, who have perverted liberty for 250 years, leaving trails of blood all along the way. We do not wish to be painted with a brush dipped in blood. We can reclaim our freedom through peaceful means. It starts with putting our foot down. NO MORE.
We should immediately begin demanding the entire geographic area of the United States become, for the first time, the land of the free. The entire United States is of course, our first choice. But if we cannot have it all, if there are too many of those who wish to remain in chains, then we cannot compel them to be free. But we must demand for ourselves a place beyond the control of the present oppresors, a place to be free.
It seems unlikely that the dark ones would willingly cede land to people who will not bow to their authority. So how are we to get our place? Note: I will talk about some criteria and possible places in Part 6.
One option is secession. If enough of us in one geographical area demand our freedom, we could draw our like-minded bretheren from other regions to ours. Through strength in numbers, we could, like the Declaration of Independence proclaims,
"dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"
They would be powerless to stop us.
Of course, they might be foolish and try. They could attack, for force is all they know--in which case we would have no choice but to defend ourselves and our loved ones. When, not if, we prevailed, we could negotiate to draw borders for both camps. Our new, armed-to-the-teeth territory would never again face threat of invasion. Switzerland with an American attitude.
So first, peaceful separation. All would be welcome. All races, creeds, colors, and religions. The only requirement is that the rights and property of others are inviolable. Any designs on the liberty or property of others earns a one-way exile back to the "old" country.
However, I do not think secession or self-defense will be necessary. I think the US will collapse upon itself, and in the not-too-distant future. To me, it looks inevitable. What is not inevitable is what happens next. It is up to us.
At that point, and before a military or foreign power can seek to replace the present regime with a new one, we can claim the territory of the free. And it will be as large as the people support, even from sea to shining sea.
.
Saturday, February 27, 2010
Tell-Tale Signs
.
Well, I was supposed to be in Israel by now. Instead, I've been stranded in Minneapolis for two days by two feet of global warming in New York City.
So what do you do when there's three feet of snow on the ground on a winter's day in Minneapolis? All the hotels near the airport have hourly shuttles to the Mall of America. I went over there tonight to grab a bite, and while waiting for the shuttle to return I saw this sign:
So nice to know that you are forbidden by law to defend yourself in the Mall of America. This iconic building, filled with thousands of people, some unarmed security guards and perhaps some police (I didn't see any, but they must be there somewhere) is one of those famous "soft targets" for terrorists and crazies.
But it's OK, because guns are forbidden. Bad guys would certainly read the sign and leave their weapons in the car. Right?
.
Well, I was supposed to be in Israel by now. Instead, I've been stranded in Minneapolis for two days by two feet of global warming in New York City.
So what do you do when there's three feet of snow on the ground on a winter's day in Minneapolis? All the hotels near the airport have hourly shuttles to the Mall of America. I went over there tonight to grab a bite, and while waiting for the shuttle to return I saw this sign:
But it's OK, because guns are forbidden. Bad guys would certainly read the sign and leave their weapons in the car. Right?
.
This Is What I Believe
.
There's a great article on Lew Rockwell today about Jim Rogers predicting the imminent collapse of the British Pound, creating a global chain reaction, pulling down fiat currencies and creating a crisis that makes the last one look tame.
Here's an excerpt, which is actually what I believe, and is what actually gives me hope. By hope, of course, I mean the regional breakup of the Empire and free zones created on American soil. Yes, I know, Part 5 of "Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?) is coming soon (emphasis mine):
Now some of the savvier cynics among us will claim that this is just what has been "planned." That those who are driving the world toward an ever-more perfect union, want to create this sort of crisis, with an eye toward implementing an ever-more centralized solution. We can believe this may have been the plan, but if so, we also believe it's spinning out of control. We don't believe, for instance, the elite wants to lose the European Union or the euro anymore than it wants its painstakingly created global warming promotion to go belly up. We think events are driving the elite for once, rather than the other way round. The combination of bad economic times and the socio-political education available on the Internet itself is proving lethal to many elite promotions, including central banking and fiat money.
It all comes down to what you believe, dear reader. If you believe that the EU and global warming were just way-stations on the road to world government, then you will likely believe that the current chaotic climate is purposeful and that what emerges hews to a long-term plan. If you believe as the Bell does, then you will likely take the position that what is occurring today is out of anyone's control, and that it is a kind of perfect storm, or as Anthony Wile wrote in High Alert in 2003, a financial hurricane – one the power elite never expected. It is, in fact, a confluence of a ruinous global economy and the educative effects of the Internet. The former the elite may have foreseen and advanced. The latter, we believe, was something the elite never imagined.
See you all soon in Montana/Wyoming/Idaho, etc.?
.
There's a great article on Lew Rockwell today about Jim Rogers predicting the imminent collapse of the British Pound, creating a global chain reaction, pulling down fiat currencies and creating a crisis that makes the last one look tame.
Here's an excerpt, which is actually what I believe, and is what actually gives me hope. By hope, of course, I mean the regional breakup of the Empire and free zones created on American soil. Yes, I know, Part 5 of "Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?) is coming soon (emphasis mine):
Now some of the savvier cynics among us will claim that this is just what has been "planned." That those who are driving the world toward an ever-more perfect union, want to create this sort of crisis, with an eye toward implementing an ever-more centralized solution. We can believe this may have been the plan, but if so, we also believe it's spinning out of control. We don't believe, for instance, the elite wants to lose the European Union or the euro anymore than it wants its painstakingly created global warming promotion to go belly up. We think events are driving the elite for once, rather than the other way round. The combination of bad economic times and the socio-political education available on the Internet itself is proving lethal to many elite promotions, including central banking and fiat money.
It all comes down to what you believe, dear reader. If you believe that the EU and global warming were just way-stations on the road to world government, then you will likely believe that the current chaotic climate is purposeful and that what emerges hews to a long-term plan. If you believe as the Bell does, then you will likely take the position that what is occurring today is out of anyone's control, and that it is a kind of perfect storm, or as Anthony Wile wrote in High Alert in 2003, a financial hurricane – one the power elite never expected. It is, in fact, a confluence of a ruinous global economy and the educative effects of the Internet. The former the elite may have foreseen and advanced. The latter, we believe, was something the elite never imagined.
See you all soon in Montana/Wyoming/Idaho, etc.?
.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Mission Accomplished!
.
The Bush/Obama war machine has nearly wiped out Christianity in Iraq:
http://www.catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=35553
.
Keeping up
.
I know I have not posted in a while. I've been getting ready for five weeks of travel, beginning tomorrow with two weeks in Israel. Should be able to blog more regularly while on the road.
But here are a couple of tidbits that interested me:
Seems that John McCain, the "true conservative" who wanted to bring you amnesty and an ever bigger Leviathan, is getting, to quote Tina Fey as Sarah Palin, "all mavericky" again. This bastion of "libbertee" wants more regulation and control on what you put into your own body, further insuring that it is nothing but big-Agri food-like products and officially-sanctioned big-Pharma poison.
Read about this psychopathic monster's latest grab at your rights here. The powers that be deceptively put the word "Safety" into the title of every one of their tyranical bills. Really, do we need the federal governement to tell us what to eat/drink/smoke? This bill is so heavy on regulation it would put many supplement companies right out of business. Those who remained could only produce "FDA-approved" supplements.
Next, it appears the bankrupt city of Los Angeles is trying to ramp up "code enforcement" to raise money. To do so one of the things they're "cracking down" on is unlicensed dogs.
Wouldn't our Founders be proud? Don't you agree their greatest desire was for legions of regulators and enforcers to drive around town in cars or fly around in helicopters just looking for something for which they could fine/fee/tax someone?
Once again from the Declaration of Independence:
They have erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
Doesn't it make you proud to be an Amerikan?
.
I know I have not posted in a while. I've been getting ready for five weeks of travel, beginning tomorrow with two weeks in Israel. Should be able to blog more regularly while on the road.
But here are a couple of tidbits that interested me:
Seems that John McCain, the "true conservative" who wanted to bring you amnesty and an ever bigger Leviathan, is getting, to quote Tina Fey as Sarah Palin, "all mavericky" again. This bastion of "libbertee" wants more regulation and control on what you put into your own body, further insuring that it is nothing but big-Agri food-like products and officially-sanctioned big-Pharma poison.
Read about this psychopathic monster's latest grab at your rights here. The powers that be deceptively put the word "Safety" into the title of every one of their tyranical bills. Really, do we need the federal governement to tell us what to eat/drink/smoke? This bill is so heavy on regulation it would put many supplement companies right out of business. Those who remained could only produce "FDA-approved" supplements.
Next, it appears the bankrupt city of Los Angeles is trying to ramp up "code enforcement" to raise money. To do so one of the things they're "cracking down" on is unlicensed dogs.
Wouldn't our Founders be proud? Don't you agree their greatest desire was for legions of regulators and enforcers to drive around town in cars or fly around in helicopters just looking for something for which they could fine/fee/tax someone?
Once again from the Declaration of Independence:
They have erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
Doesn't it make you proud to be an Amerikan?
.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Stormy March Approaching?
.
I am often asked my opinion on when the economy is going to do its next swan dive. Given persistent, wrong-headed monetary policy, and the extreme unlikelihood that the US will ever have the political will (or even basic intelligence) to perform the necessary emergency amputations of the warfare and welfare states, I believe that the next swan dive may be the last.
Nothing is certain, and our "Three Stooges" overlords may come up with yet one more temporary gimmick to prop up the economy with toothpicks and bubble gum, but it looks like a "perfect storm" may be brewing. And it could come in the next 30-60 days.
First comes word that printing money endlessly may indeed lead to unbearable inflation. Wholesale prices are taking off as unemployment continues to grow at faster than predicted rates, putting the squeeze on more and more lower and middle income families, sending more of us every day to Uncle Sam for food stamp, welfare and health care handouts.
As if spooked by the new inflation numbers, the Fed has begun to gradually increase some key interest rates. In hopes that a gradual approach (which even the Fed governors can't honestly believe will work) will reign in inflation, they quickly approach the proberbial rock and hard place. Or the devil and the deep blue sea (see below).
Finally, it is becoming clear that the rest of the world, and particularly China, is no longer willing to buy our T-bills, which has allowed us to spend like drunken sailors, finance our wars and our welfare, and create an ever larger and larger federal deficit.
These three factors coming together at once are creating a "Perfect Storm," that will sooner or later sink the Andrea Gail... er, I mean the good ship USA. How long they will be able to will keep at bay total collapse is based on 1) the longsuffering but increasingly tenuous public faith in Obama and the Fed, and 2) the ability of Obama and the Fed to apply yet one more band-aid to cancerous fiscal and monetary polices.
Good luck with both of these.
The Fed is finally reaching the self-created, predicted fork in the road, one branch marked "perdition" and the other marked "hell."
On one hand, they can keep the facade of "recovery" going by continuing to inflate the money supply, leading to greater and greater price inflation. This will guarantee the flight of other nations from our treasury bills, at last making Federal Reserve Notes nothing but "paper with ink on it."
On the other hand, they can agressively raise interest rates, which will plunge the country further into the abyss, destroy any illusion of an economic recovery, increase unemployment and even ensure the Obama and Bernanke will start calling this a depression.
What I can almost guarantee the government will not do--heck, forget the almost--is to take its hands off the economy entirely and let it correct itself. Yes, it would be painful. But we would eventually recover, much sooner than if they keep tinkering.
It's what we should have done in 2008. If we had let the market handle the crisis, the pain would have been deep but relatively short. We would be well on the road to real recovery by now. But because of bailouts and "stimulus" spending, the pain will be extended. Every day we wait now, and every additional fiat dollar we spend, extends the pain further and further.
What we really should do now is put an end to the Fed and its "notes," allow the market to decide what money is (most likely gold and/or silver), immediately cut the warfare state to true defense only, and more gradually eliminate the welfare state. This would bring true prosperity back to our land.
(And while we're at it, do away with central government altogether. Oh, to dream...)
But you and I both know we won't do what we should do. I believe the government will choose the road to perdition (priniting more money) because they don't have the political will to cut spending. This will bring about hyperinflation, the collapse of the dollar, and chaos in the land.
When that happens, all bets are off. No one knows what will happen, but it won't be pretty. Worst case is we jump over to the road to hell, with blood in the streets, totalitarian government and global, total war finally yielding an unknown (maybe not so nice) victor.*
Best case, and the one I'm hoping for, is the complete collapse of the United States and the breakup of the country into like-minded regions, at least one of which will be like-minded in the philosophy of true liberty and self-government. I will be talking more about this in part 5 of "Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?)"
At any rate, the fork in the road is here. There is no doubt in my mind the powers that be will be forced to make the no-win decision in the next three or four years. And based on the criteria I outlined above, it could very well come as early as the next 30-60 days.
*The wild card is the Great Tribulation, the return of Christ and the judging of the nations, but no one knows the day nor the hour, nor the year nor the century that will happen, and dark times alone do not mean this is the end. There have been many dark times in the past, and this could very well not be the last one. "Even so, come Lord Jesus!" Revelation 22:12-20
.
I am often asked my opinion on when the economy is going to do its next swan dive. Given persistent, wrong-headed monetary policy, and the extreme unlikelihood that the US will ever have the political will (or even basic intelligence) to perform the necessary emergency amputations of the warfare and welfare states, I believe that the next swan dive may be the last.
Nothing is certain, and our "Three Stooges" overlords may come up with yet one more temporary gimmick to prop up the economy with toothpicks and bubble gum, but it looks like a "perfect storm" may be brewing. And it could come in the next 30-60 days.
First comes word that printing money endlessly may indeed lead to unbearable inflation. Wholesale prices are taking off as unemployment continues to grow at faster than predicted rates, putting the squeeze on more and more lower and middle income families, sending more of us every day to Uncle Sam for food stamp, welfare and health care handouts.
As if spooked by the new inflation numbers, the Fed has begun to gradually increase some key interest rates. In hopes that a gradual approach (which even the Fed governors can't honestly believe will work) will reign in inflation, they quickly approach the proberbial rock and hard place. Or the devil and the deep blue sea (see below).
Finally, it is becoming clear that the rest of the world, and particularly China, is no longer willing to buy our T-bills, which has allowed us to spend like drunken sailors, finance our wars and our welfare, and create an ever larger and larger federal deficit.
These three factors coming together at once are creating a "Perfect Storm," that will sooner or later sink the Andrea Gail... er, I mean the good ship USA. How long they will be able to will keep at bay total collapse is based on 1) the longsuffering but increasingly tenuous public faith in Obama and the Fed, and 2) the ability of Obama and the Fed to apply yet one more band-aid to cancerous fiscal and monetary polices.
Good luck with both of these.
The Fed is finally reaching the self-created, predicted fork in the road, one branch marked "perdition" and the other marked "hell."
On one hand, they can keep the facade of "recovery" going by continuing to inflate the money supply, leading to greater and greater price inflation. This will guarantee the flight of other nations from our treasury bills, at last making Federal Reserve Notes nothing but "paper with ink on it."
On the other hand, they can agressively raise interest rates, which will plunge the country further into the abyss, destroy any illusion of an economic recovery, increase unemployment and even ensure the Obama and Bernanke will start calling this a depression.
What I can almost guarantee the government will not do--heck, forget the almost--is to take its hands off the economy entirely and let it correct itself. Yes, it would be painful. But we would eventually recover, much sooner than if they keep tinkering.
It's what we should have done in 2008. If we had let the market handle the crisis, the pain would have been deep but relatively short. We would be well on the road to real recovery by now. But because of bailouts and "stimulus" spending, the pain will be extended. Every day we wait now, and every additional fiat dollar we spend, extends the pain further and further.
What we really should do now is put an end to the Fed and its "notes," allow the market to decide what money is (most likely gold and/or silver), immediately cut the warfare state to true defense only, and more gradually eliminate the welfare state. This would bring true prosperity back to our land.
(And while we're at it, do away with central government altogether. Oh, to dream...)
But you and I both know we won't do what we should do. I believe the government will choose the road to perdition (priniting more money) because they don't have the political will to cut spending. This will bring about hyperinflation, the collapse of the dollar, and chaos in the land.
When that happens, all bets are off. No one knows what will happen, but it won't be pretty. Worst case is we jump over to the road to hell, with blood in the streets, totalitarian government and global, total war finally yielding an unknown (maybe not so nice) victor.*
Best case, and the one I'm hoping for, is the complete collapse of the United States and the breakup of the country into like-minded regions, at least one of which will be like-minded in the philosophy of true liberty and self-government. I will be talking more about this in part 5 of "Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?)"
At any rate, the fork in the road is here. There is no doubt in my mind the powers that be will be forced to make the no-win decision in the next three or four years. And based on the criteria I outlined above, it could very well come as early as the next 30-60 days.
*The wild card is the Great Tribulation, the return of Christ and the judging of the nations, but no one knows the day nor the hour, nor the year nor the century that will happen, and dark times alone do not mean this is the end. There have been many dark times in the past, and this could very well not be the last one. "Even so, come Lord Jesus!" Revelation 22:12-20
.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Christian Voluntaryist Reading
.
I received a letter from a reader asking about reading recommendations for Christian Voluntaryists. My knowledge of such material is limited, so if anyone knows of sources, please comment. But for now, and for everyone's benefit, here is my reply:
I'm thrilled that you're enjoying the blog. I hope to write much, much more on Christianity and freedom now and in the future. I think you are correct that there aren't many Christians who are voluntaryists these days. I believe in the past there were many more, particularly in the late 18th century.
Unfortunately too many Christians have bought into the neocon propaganda that while killing most people is wrong, the major exception is Muslims. There are too many flags and military-worship "events" in too many churches. Too much approval of and prayer for the Israeli regime, rather than for the Israeli people. I know many Israelis and Muslims personally, and I know God loves them all. This does not mean their leaders are righteous or deserving of our blood and treasure.
It's also too bad that there doesn't appear to be a lot of reading material for Christian voluntaryists. I do recommend "America's God and Country" that I wrote about in the blog. In addition, although I haven't read much of them yet, I recommend William Johnson, Frank Chodorov, and the 1950's magazine "Faith and Freedom," available at the Mises Institute website www.mises.org.
Of course I hope I can help fill the void. I feel very deeply that Christ is indeed the Prince of Peace, and hope to spread the message of God's love to whomever has an ear to hear.
May God bless you and your family,
Publius
.
I received a letter from a reader asking about reading recommendations for Christian Voluntaryists. My knowledge of such material is limited, so if anyone knows of sources, please comment. But for now, and for everyone's benefit, here is my reply:
I'm thrilled that you're enjoying the blog. I hope to write much, much more on Christianity and freedom now and in the future. I think you are correct that there aren't many Christians who are voluntaryists these days. I believe in the past there were many more, particularly in the late 18th century.
Unfortunately too many Christians have bought into the neocon propaganda that while killing most people is wrong, the major exception is Muslims. There are too many flags and military-worship "events" in too many churches. Too much approval of and prayer for the Israeli regime, rather than for the Israeli people. I know many Israelis and Muslims personally, and I know God loves them all. This does not mean their leaders are righteous or deserving of our blood and treasure.
It's also too bad that there doesn't appear to be a lot of reading material for Christian voluntaryists. I do recommend "America's God and Country" that I wrote about in the blog. In addition, although I haven't read much of them yet, I recommend William Johnson, Frank Chodorov, and the 1950's magazine "Faith and Freedom," available at the Mises Institute website www.mises.org.
Of course I hope I can help fill the void. I feel very deeply that Christ is indeed the Prince of Peace, and hope to spread the message of God's love to whomever has an ear to hear.
May God bless you and your family,
Publius
.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Tea Party Danger
.
I encourage everyone to read Pastor Chuck Baldwin's latest editorial concerning the establishment takeover of the so-called "Tea Party". As I have done here, he warns about establishment candidates being paraded as "mavericks." Here's a taste of his article:
"But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you're in danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994."
The whole article is here.
And to remind you where the modern Tea Party comes from, and what it represents, I take you back to December 16, 2007--the 234th anniversary of the original Tea Party. And did I donate $100 on December 16th? You bet I did.
.
I encourage everyone to read Pastor Chuck Baldwin's latest editorial concerning the establishment takeover of the so-called "Tea Party". As I have done here, he warns about establishment candidates being paraded as "mavericks." Here's a taste of his article:
"But now many of the Tea Parties are distancing themselves from Dr. Paul and embracing establishment players such as Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck. Even Newt Gingrich is being courted. Watch out, Tea Party Nation: you're in danger of losing your soul! Newt Gingrich is not one of you. He is not your friend. He is an imposter. He will destroy you just like he almost single-handedly destroyed the Conservative Revolution of 1994."
The whole article is here.
And to remind you where the modern Tea Party comes from, and what it represents, I take you back to December 16, 2007--the 234th anniversary of the original Tea Party. And did I donate $100 on December 16th? You bet I did.
.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Please sir, may I have some more (freedom?) Part 4
.
In the first post in this series I argued that we are no longer in any way truly free. There is literally no part of our lives or interactions with others left to our total discretion. We are regulated and legislated to the nth degree, by federal, state, and local governments. Any way we try to turn, any action we wish to take, is watched, regulated, and constrained.
In part 2, I argued against the incremental approach to regain our freedoms, including the incremental approach of using the electoral process. Instead, I made the following proposition:
Like-minded people who believe in liberty should begin working together to have their objectives realized in their own lifetimes.
In part 3, I delineated many of the "repeated injuries and usurpations" with which the federal government has assailed our liberties and imposed their tyrannies upon us. Having provided ample evidence of such tyranny, the question at hand now is what we should do about it.
Although the historical model of removing tyranny is armed revolution, I do not believe this is the course that must be taken. Voluntaryists by definition do not believe in the application of violence or force to obtain our ends. In general we abhor violence and seek to live in peace with all men.
According to Wikipedia, "voluntaryists seek to dismantle the state by non-political means such as secession, counter-economics, civil disobedience and education..."
Note: It must be understood that although voluntaryists do not believe in the instigation of violence to acheive their objectives, most do indeed believe in self-defense, and firmly believe and support the unalienable, God-given, extra-constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Therefore if violence is instigated against us, we are free (and certain to) defend ourselves.
In the quote above I have said that like-minded people (i.e. voluntaryists, minarchists and even open-minded constitutionalists) should join in efforts to acheive true liberty in our own lifetimes. But how do we do this without incrementally chipping away at tyranny and tyrants, or without armed rebellion?
We do it by openly, vocally demanding our rights, and backing up our demands with non-violent action, including civil disobedience. We want freedom, and we want it NOW.
We do not believe that just because of the fact that we were born in a particular geographical area we are subservient to its national authority, ordained to follow their rules and do their bidding. This is the opposite of freedom. It is slavery.
The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that government's only legitmate authority comes from "the consent of the governed." In order for one to give his or her consent, he or she must be asked for it. Telling is not asking, and we now have a government which only tells, and never asks.
Subservience to national authority is also what we broke from England over. Can anyone truly believe that all we really wanted to accomplish by staging a revolution was a simple switching of masters?
So now the people, as sovereigns, need to rise up en masse and demand our freedom. The people, as sovereigns, need no leaders. We are our own leaders. "Popular" leaders are likely just politicians anyway, and popular leaders can easily be taken down, by threat, bribery, libel, or assassination.
Creating popular leaders is the establishment's preferred way for us to operate. Why, they'll even create the leaders for us (Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, et. al.) if we let them.
Likewise organized groups are easily maligned, infiltrated, scandalized and corrupted. Finally, both popular leaders and organized groups are inadequate at best, and at worst will become tyrannical themselves, poor substitutions for true self-government.
This is not to say that free people cannot organize to bring about public good. For example, in a truly free society communities could still organize courts, militias and hire sheriffs to protect property and individual rights. Voluntaryism is not opposed to organization per se, only to organization that seeks control over, rather than service to, the true sovereigns, the people. In other words, voluntary organizations.
In the case of sheriffs, they would be servants of the people in every sense of the word, not elected to a specified term, but hired, "at will," subject to being fired or even prosecuted by their employers if not performing their duties in the best interests of the people.
These days to "serve and protect" has been twisted into "harass and collect." An "at will" employed sheriff could easily be monitored for the quality of service to the people--the protection of their individual and property rights. Period. No more harassing, no more collecting to fill the city, county or state coffers.
Of course we would like to see the entire territory known as the United States become at least as free as we were under the Articles of Confederation. For that matter we'd like to see everyone, everywhere become free. But that's unlikely to happen, so what can we do?
OK, we need to rise up en masse and demand our rights. But what if most people won't listen? What if most people are still sheep and are allowing fear to prompt them into giving away their liberties to the state? In this sad but likely case, we need to demand a place to go to realize our dream.
But where should that place be?
To be continued...
.
In the first post in this series I argued that we are no longer in any way truly free. There is literally no part of our lives or interactions with others left to our total discretion. We are regulated and legislated to the nth degree, by federal, state, and local governments. Any way we try to turn, any action we wish to take, is watched, regulated, and constrained.
In part 2, I argued against the incremental approach to regain our freedoms, including the incremental approach of using the electoral process. Instead, I made the following proposition:
Like-minded people who believe in liberty should begin working together to have their objectives realized in their own lifetimes.
In part 3, I delineated many of the "repeated injuries and usurpations" with which the federal government has assailed our liberties and imposed their tyrannies upon us. Having provided ample evidence of such tyranny, the question at hand now is what we should do about it.
Although the historical model of removing tyranny is armed revolution, I do not believe this is the course that must be taken. Voluntaryists by definition do not believe in the application of violence or force to obtain our ends. In general we abhor violence and seek to live in peace with all men.
According to Wikipedia, "voluntaryists seek to dismantle the state by non-political means such as secession, counter-economics, civil disobedience and education..."
Note: It must be understood that although voluntaryists do not believe in the instigation of violence to acheive their objectives, most do indeed believe in self-defense, and firmly believe and support the unalienable, God-given, extra-constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Therefore if violence is instigated against us, we are free (and certain to) defend ourselves.
In the quote above I have said that like-minded people (i.e. voluntaryists, minarchists and even open-minded constitutionalists) should join in efforts to acheive true liberty in our own lifetimes. But how do we do this without incrementally chipping away at tyranny and tyrants, or without armed rebellion?
We do it by openly, vocally demanding our rights, and backing up our demands with non-violent action, including civil disobedience. We want freedom, and we want it NOW.
We do not believe that just because of the fact that we were born in a particular geographical area we are subservient to its national authority, ordained to follow their rules and do their bidding. This is the opposite of freedom. It is slavery.
The Declaration of Independence makes it clear that government's only legitmate authority comes from "the consent of the governed." In order for one to give his or her consent, he or she must be asked for it. Telling is not asking, and we now have a government which only tells, and never asks.
Subservience to national authority is also what we broke from England over. Can anyone truly believe that all we really wanted to accomplish by staging a revolution was a simple switching of masters?
So now the people, as sovereigns, need to rise up en masse and demand our freedom. The people, as sovereigns, need no leaders. We are our own leaders. "Popular" leaders are likely just politicians anyway, and popular leaders can easily be taken down, by threat, bribery, libel, or assassination.
Creating popular leaders is the establishment's preferred way for us to operate. Why, they'll even create the leaders for us (Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, et. al.) if we let them.
Likewise organized groups are easily maligned, infiltrated, scandalized and corrupted. Finally, both popular leaders and organized groups are inadequate at best, and at worst will become tyrannical themselves, poor substitutions for true self-government.
This is not to say that free people cannot organize to bring about public good. For example, in a truly free society communities could still organize courts, militias and hire sheriffs to protect property and individual rights. Voluntaryism is not opposed to organization per se, only to organization that seeks control over, rather than service to, the true sovereigns, the people. In other words, voluntary organizations.
In the case of sheriffs, they would be servants of the people in every sense of the word, not elected to a specified term, but hired, "at will," subject to being fired or even prosecuted by their employers if not performing their duties in the best interests of the people.
These days to "serve and protect" has been twisted into "harass and collect." An "at will" employed sheriff could easily be monitored for the quality of service to the people--the protection of their individual and property rights. Period. No more harassing, no more collecting to fill the city, county or state coffers.
Of course we would like to see the entire territory known as the United States become at least as free as we were under the Articles of Confederation. For that matter we'd like to see everyone, everywhere become free. But that's unlikely to happen, so what can we do?
OK, we need to rise up en masse and demand our rights. But what if most people won't listen? What if most people are still sheep and are allowing fear to prompt them into giving away their liberties to the state? In this sad but likely case, we need to demand a place to go to realize our dream.
But where should that place be?
To be continued...
.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Warning - Your Government Wants To Rob You Again
.
"A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight." Proverbs 11:1
"Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable? Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights? For the rich men thereof are full of violence, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth." Micah 6:10-12
***************
For some time I have been saving all nickels and pre-1982 pennies that come into my possession. This is due to the fact that nickels have the same metal content they have always had, and are now worth a bit more than 5 cents. Pre-1982 Lincoln pennies are mostly real copper and are worth about 2 and a half cents each.
Now comes this word that the Treasury department wants authority to alter the metal content of coins one more time:
http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=9420
Notice particularly one sentence in the proposal:
“The Secretary shall prescribe the weight and the composition of the dollar, half-dollar, quarter-dollar, dime, 5-cent, and one-cent coins..."
Now let's compare that with the supposed supreme law of the land, the US Constitution. I say supposed because, well you can read it for yourself from Article 1 Section 8 (emphasis mine):
"The Congress shall have power to... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures..."
But of course the same "supreme law of the land" also says,
"No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..."
This is more proof that the government totally disregards the Constitution, and does what it dern' well pleases in spite of it. Which is why I'm no longer a constitutionalist.
.
"A false balance is abomination to the LORD: but a just weight is his delight." Proverbs 11:1
"Are there yet the treasures of wickedness in the house of the wicked, and the scant measure that is abominable? Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances, and with the bag of deceitful weights? For the rich men thereof are full of violence, and the inhabitants thereof have spoken lies, and their tongue is deceitful in their mouth." Micah 6:10-12
***************
For some time I have been saving all nickels and pre-1982 pennies that come into my possession. This is due to the fact that nickels have the same metal content they have always had, and are now worth a bit more than 5 cents. Pre-1982 Lincoln pennies are mostly real copper and are worth about 2 and a half cents each.
Now comes this word that the Treasury department wants authority to alter the metal content of coins one more time:
http://www.numismaster.com/ta/numis/Article.jsp?ad=article&ArticleId=9420
Notice particularly one sentence in the proposal:
“The Secretary shall prescribe the weight and the composition of the dollar, half-dollar, quarter-dollar, dime, 5-cent, and one-cent coins..."
Now let's compare that with the supposed supreme law of the land, the US Constitution. I say supposed because, well you can read it for yourself from Article 1 Section 8 (emphasis mine):
"The Congress shall have power to... coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures..."
But of course the same "supreme law of the land" also says,
"No State shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts..."
This is more proof that the government totally disregards the Constitution, and does what it dern' well pleases in spite of it. Which is why I'm no longer a constitutionalist.
.
Nausea For Breakfast
.
And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Genesis 2:16-17
In the future I will talk about God's intended state for man, that man be free and in fellowship with Him. Adam had perfect liberty in the garden, but he sacrificed it by breaking the one and only rule God had given him. The rule was in place to protect the man from a great evil. The serpent wished that evil upon Adam, and persuaded him to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Man did not need to know the nature of evil. His choice doomed him to death, but more than that, to sorrow in life. Now the one more knows about the world, the more sorrow he has. I always check the news in the morning, and usually the mix of good and bad is balanced enough to start my day off reasonably well. Not this morning, however. As I browsed my regular web sites, I ran into the following items. My day is not starting off well. This is your fault, Adam...
1) A two minute video from the National Guard, glorifying war and exalting soliders to saintly, almost divine status.
2) A Palo Alto, California cop, bragging on Facebook on how if he killed law abiding citizens legally demonstrating their second amendment rights he'd get "two weeks off."
Note: The implication of course is police are above the law and will be exonerated for any crime. This was one of the "injuries" Jefferson spoke about in the Declaration of Independence: "For protecting (the King's armed men), by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states..."
3) Attacks on Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina from both the left (Chris Matthews on MSNBC labeled her a racist) and the right (Glenn Beck made her out to be a conspiracy theorist nutcase on his radio show).
Note: Debra Medina has exploded from 4% to 24% in the polls. This has sent the establishment into panic mode. They are scared to death of Medina, and have set their nefarious propaganda machine in motion. This is obvious because 1) the attacks came on the same day, just after the poll was released, 2) the attacks came from both sides of the single Republicrat coin, and 3) both of these charges were made with prevarication--deliberately made with the explicit knowledge that what was being charged was not in fact true. And then both hosts marginalized and laughed about her--this candidate the Houston Chronicle called "the only adult in the room" after the first gubernatorial debate.
There is a war on for the minds and souls of men. This morning I felt we were losing ground. So I'm not feeling so well.
How's your day going?
And the Lord God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die." Genesis 2:16-17
In the future I will talk about God's intended state for man, that man be free and in fellowship with Him. Adam had perfect liberty in the garden, but he sacrificed it by breaking the one and only rule God had given him. The rule was in place to protect the man from a great evil. The serpent wished that evil upon Adam, and persuaded him to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Man did not need to know the nature of evil. His choice doomed him to death, but more than that, to sorrow in life. Now the one more knows about the world, the more sorrow he has. I always check the news in the morning, and usually the mix of good and bad is balanced enough to start my day off reasonably well. Not this morning, however. As I browsed my regular web sites, I ran into the following items. My day is not starting off well. This is your fault, Adam...
1) A two minute video from the National Guard, glorifying war and exalting soliders to saintly, almost divine status.
2) A Palo Alto, California cop, bragging on Facebook on how if he killed law abiding citizens legally demonstrating their second amendment rights he'd get "two weeks off."
Note: The implication of course is police are above the law and will be exonerated for any crime. This was one of the "injuries" Jefferson spoke about in the Declaration of Independence: "For protecting (the King's armed men), by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states..."
3) Attacks on Texas gubernatorial candidate Debra Medina from both the left (Chris Matthews on MSNBC labeled her a racist) and the right (Glenn Beck made her out to be a conspiracy theorist nutcase on his radio show).
Note: Debra Medina has exploded from 4% to 24% in the polls. This has sent the establishment into panic mode. They are scared to death of Medina, and have set their nefarious propaganda machine in motion. This is obvious because 1) the attacks came on the same day, just after the poll was released, 2) the attacks came from both sides of the single Republicrat coin, and 3) both of these charges were made with prevarication--deliberately made with the explicit knowledge that what was being charged was not in fact true. And then both hosts marginalized and laughed about her--this candidate the Houston Chronicle called "the only adult in the room" after the first gubernatorial debate.
There is a war on for the minds and souls of men. This morning I felt we were losing ground. So I'm not feeling so well.
How's your day going?
Sunday, February 7, 2010
U.S. Abandons NAIS!
*
In what appears to be great news, the USDA has apparently given up on their attempt to implement the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). You can find the official announcement here:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/
Although some people are suspicious of a bait and switch, it really looks like family farms will be safe. Click on the link to Questions and Answers from the above page to learn more.
Thank God for this great victory.
In what appears to be great news, the USDA has apparently given up on their attempt to implement the National Animal Identification System (NAIS). You can find the official announcement here:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/
Although some people are suspicious of a bait and switch, it really looks like family farms will be safe. Click on the link to Questions and Answers from the above page to learn more.
Thank God for this great victory.
The End of Western Civilization
_
Western civilization is at a crossroads. Its very existence is at stake. Our way of life, our freedom of speech, religion, association, self-defense, etc. are threatened permanently. What happens, predominantly in the United States, in the next few years will determine whether liberty will continue or fail at its grand experiment.
To the average person such comments might seem ludicrous. Barack Obama accepts a Nobel Peace Prize and proclaims "a vision of liberty" for the world. Hollywood continues to crank out its blockbusters. The NFL plays their games religiously every Sunday. The sixth generation of the iPod hits the shelves. If anything, Western civilization appears to be stronger than ever.
So why do I contend it's all about to end? Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) was an eminent historian and researcher on the history of civilizations. He was also an insider and proponent of one-world government, who wrote openly of his first hand knowledge of the Round Table groups, Council on Foreign Relations and the "Shadow Government" of elites that pulls the strings behind supposedly free societies (see Tragedy and Hope, 1966).
Quigley may have been on the globalist team, but he appears to have been an excellent historian and honest broker of his knowledge. One of his most important works was his 1961 book, "The Evolution of Civilizations." In the book, after defining exactly what civilizations are and how they ascend to the title, he notes a particular pattern, or set of phases, that all civilizations have empirically passed through in their journey from inception to dissolution.
These phases are:
1) Mixture
2) Gestation
3) Expansion
4) Conflict
5) Universal Empire
6) Decay
7) Invasion
For brevity's sake I will give slight comment on only the last of these phases. The good news, and the purpose of this post, is that the phases do not have to be irreversably consecutive.
In fact, Quigley asserts that Western Civilization has proceeded beyond, and back to, phase 3, or Expansion, three times. The "instrument of expansion" has been feudalism (about 970-1270), commercial capitalism (about 1420-1650) and industrial capitalism (about 1725-1929). However, he then states that industrial capitalism had become institutionalized by 1930 as monopoly capitalism, and Western civilization entered, "for the third time... a major era of crisis."
He then describes the phase of conflict as a period of imperialist wars, encouraged by a public that has lost vested interest in the existing institution of expansion:
"Unable to get ahead by other means (such as economic means), they seek to get ahead by political action, above all by taking wealth from their political neighbors. At the same time they turn to irrationality to compensate for the growing insecurity of life... This is generally a period of gambling, use of narcotics or intoxicants, obsession with sex (frequently as perversion), increasing crime, growing numbers of neurotics and psychotics, growing obsession with death and with the Hereafter." pg 152.
Sounds like a pretty good description of the world from 1930-1990. Yet civilizations can and do "reform" and can pass back to phase 3. But if not, they pass on to phase 5, or Universal Empire. Interestingly, Quigley had this to say (in 1961, remember):
"... we may continue in the Age of Conflict until the whole of our civilization comes to be dominated by a single state (probably the United States)." pg 154.
Quigley describes Universal Empire as having these attributes:
"Little real economic expansion is possible because no real instrument of expansion exists... The vested interests have triumphed and are living off their capital, building unproductive and blantant monuments ... The masses of the people in such an empire live from the waste of these non-productive expenditures. The golden age is really the glow of overripeness, and soon decline begins."
On phase 6, Decay:
"The Stage of Decay is a period of acute economic depression, declining standards of living, civil wars between the various vested interests, and growing illiteracy. The society grows weaker and weaker. Vain efforts are made to stop the wastage by legislation. But the deline continues."
And phase 7, Invasion:
"...the Stage of Invasion, when the civilization, no longer able to defend itself because it is no longer willing to defend itself, lies wide open to 'barbarian invaders.'"
I believe today we have moved into Phase 6 in the evolution of Western civilization. The United States has acheived Universal Empire and is now in decay. The emminence and prosperity of the US-led West is an illusion, the "glow of overripeness." Washington D.C.'s "vision of liberty" is nothing more than newspeak. Slavery is freedom. How could it be anything else when while giving lipservice to liberty he is systematically dismantling the Bill of Rights at home?
Where do we go from here? Unless something dramatic happens, we are destined to move quickly through phase 6 and into phase 7, taking the entire West with us. This may indeed be what Quigley and his ilk, certainly understanding this, want. But it's not what I want.
I began by saying Western civilization was at a crossroads. I say this with dead seriousness. It is certainly harder to go from phase 6 all the way back to phase 3 than from phase 4 to phase 3, but I feel it can, it must be done. If it is not, we will slide into a new Dark Age of slavery and opression.
I feel that with restored liberties, an abandonment of Universal Empire, and as an economic instrument of expansion true, free-market capitalism we can get there. But it will not happen by "adjusting leadership" from Republican to Democrat, the two parties sharing a bucket to hell. Barack Obama is George Bush with a nice tan. It will only happen by a radical, revolutionary change in our direction.
It will only happen if the freedom movement grows and takes back the reigns of our nation, and our civilization.
Western civilization is at a crossroads. Its very existence is at stake. Our way of life, our freedom of speech, religion, association, self-defense, etc. are threatened permanently. What happens, predominantly in the United States, in the next few years will determine whether liberty will continue or fail at its grand experiment.
To the average person such comments might seem ludicrous. Barack Obama accepts a Nobel Peace Prize and proclaims "a vision of liberty" for the world. Hollywood continues to crank out its blockbusters. The NFL plays their games religiously every Sunday. The sixth generation of the iPod hits the shelves. If anything, Western civilization appears to be stronger than ever.
So why do I contend it's all about to end? Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) was an eminent historian and researcher on the history of civilizations. He was also an insider and proponent of one-world government, who wrote openly of his first hand knowledge of the Round Table groups, Council on Foreign Relations and the "Shadow Government" of elites that pulls the strings behind supposedly free societies (see Tragedy and Hope, 1966).
Quigley may have been on the globalist team, but he appears to have been an excellent historian and honest broker of his knowledge. One of his most important works was his 1961 book, "The Evolution of Civilizations." In the book, after defining exactly what civilizations are and how they ascend to the title, he notes a particular pattern, or set of phases, that all civilizations have empirically passed through in their journey from inception to dissolution.
These phases are:
1) Mixture
2) Gestation
3) Expansion
4) Conflict
5) Universal Empire
6) Decay
7) Invasion
For brevity's sake I will give slight comment on only the last of these phases. The good news, and the purpose of this post, is that the phases do not have to be irreversably consecutive.
In fact, Quigley asserts that Western Civilization has proceeded beyond, and back to, phase 3, or Expansion, three times. The "instrument of expansion" has been feudalism (about 970-1270), commercial capitalism (about 1420-1650) and industrial capitalism (about 1725-1929). However, he then states that industrial capitalism had become institutionalized by 1930 as monopoly capitalism, and Western civilization entered, "for the third time... a major era of crisis."
He then describes the phase of conflict as a period of imperialist wars, encouraged by a public that has lost vested interest in the existing institution of expansion:
"Unable to get ahead by other means (such as economic means), they seek to get ahead by political action, above all by taking wealth from their political neighbors. At the same time they turn to irrationality to compensate for the growing insecurity of life... This is generally a period of gambling, use of narcotics or intoxicants, obsession with sex (frequently as perversion), increasing crime, growing numbers of neurotics and psychotics, growing obsession with death and with the Hereafter." pg 152.
Sounds like a pretty good description of the world from 1930-1990. Yet civilizations can and do "reform" and can pass back to phase 3. But if not, they pass on to phase 5, or Universal Empire. Interestingly, Quigley had this to say (in 1961, remember):
"... we may continue in the Age of Conflict until the whole of our civilization comes to be dominated by a single state (probably the United States)." pg 154.
Quigley describes Universal Empire as having these attributes:
"Little real economic expansion is possible because no real instrument of expansion exists... The vested interests have triumphed and are living off their capital, building unproductive and blantant monuments ... The masses of the people in such an empire live from the waste of these non-productive expenditures. The golden age is really the glow of overripeness, and soon decline begins."
On phase 6, Decay:
"The Stage of Decay is a period of acute economic depression, declining standards of living, civil wars between the various vested interests, and growing illiteracy. The society grows weaker and weaker. Vain efforts are made to stop the wastage by legislation. But the deline continues."
And phase 7, Invasion:
"...the Stage of Invasion, when the civilization, no longer able to defend itself because it is no longer willing to defend itself, lies wide open to 'barbarian invaders.'"
I believe today we have moved into Phase 6 in the evolution of Western civilization. The United States has acheived Universal Empire and is now in decay. The emminence and prosperity of the US-led West is an illusion, the "glow of overripeness." Washington D.C.'s "vision of liberty" is nothing more than newspeak. Slavery is freedom. How could it be anything else when while giving lipservice to liberty he is systematically dismantling the Bill of Rights at home?
Where do we go from here? Unless something dramatic happens, we are destined to move quickly through phase 6 and into phase 7, taking the entire West with us. This may indeed be what Quigley and his ilk, certainly understanding this, want. But it's not what I want.
I began by saying Western civilization was at a crossroads. I say this with dead seriousness. It is certainly harder to go from phase 6 all the way back to phase 3 than from phase 4 to phase 3, but I feel it can, it must be done. If it is not, we will slide into a new Dark Age of slavery and opression.
I feel that with restored liberties, an abandonment of Universal Empire, and as an economic instrument of expansion true, free-market capitalism we can get there. But it will not happen by "adjusting leadership" from Republican to Democrat, the two parties sharing a bucket to hell. Barack Obama is George Bush with a nice tan. It will only happen by a radical, revolutionary change in our direction.
It will only happen if the freedom movement grows and takes back the reigns of our nation, and our civilization.
Arrogance, Hypocricy, Reciprocity, and the Golden Rule
_
"Be not deceived. God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7
The war party is asking for trouble.
The verse above from the Bible is far more than just a religious nicety. It reflects an immutable natural law. Evidence of this is that similar expressions appear in other religions, and from secular sources, as well as science itself. No one can deny that if you sow a kernel of corn, the plant that breaks through the soil will absolutely be a corn plant, not a watermelon, nor a hawk nor a handsaw.
One cannot say 'I am planting corn because I want to produce wheat for all.' Yet this is exactly what the war party is saying when it pushes pre-emptive wars in the name of global freedom and peace. They contend that planting a little war today will harvest a lot of peace tomorrow.
But it will not. And it can not. If the authors of pre-emptive war believe they are so righteous and so important they can change the rules of the universe, they are in for a rude, and devastating, awakening.
So the question is, what will the doctrines of the war party harvest? The answers are too bitter to swallow, so the current regime pretends they don't exist. They clasp their hands over their ears, shut their eyes tight, and hum at high volume. However, ignoring the answers will not change them.
If it is acceptable to torture an "enemy combatant" because he might have information that will save American lives, it is acceptable for the enemy to torture American soldiers for information helpful to the enemy cause. The war party today is planting the seeds of the horrifying pain and suffering of American soldiers in the future. Thanks, guys, you really support our troops.
If it is acceptable to cut off food and essentials through sanctions and account seizures, causing millions of innocents in other countries to suffer, starve, and die from illness and hunger, it is acceptable for future enemies to cut off food and essentials to American children. Sorry, thinking we're the "good guys" so we're immune from natural law doesn't cut it by any measure.
If it is acceptable to launch a pre-emptive war against a country that might do something bad in the future, it is also acceptable to have a pre-emptive war launched against the United States, by say, China, a decade or two from now, because America might do something "bad" to China. The only requirement is military strength, which China is rapidly acquiring.
Unfortunately, if a single kernel of corn is planted, the harvest does not consist of a single kernal of corn. It is multiplied exponentially, multiple ears with hundreds of kernels. Therefore one more Bible verse, representing yet another natural law, sheds light on our future, if we do not change our course soon:
"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." Hosea 8:7
The harvest of our present evil will return to us greater evil. (Hands to ears, eyes closed! Start humming now!)
Neither does any claim of God being "on our side" negate the natural law. From the same chapter in Hosea, a claim of "knowing God" is made:
"They cry out to Me, "My God, we (of the war party) know Thee!" (verse 2)
But it simply cannot be. Iif that were true, they would have followed the natural law!
"Though I wrote for him ten thousand precepts of My law, they are regarded as a strange thing." (verse 12)
And so the corn comes up, and the harvest is... corn. In abundance. (Religion helpful, but not required.)
So what should we as a nation be sowing, if we want peace and freedom for ourselves and our neighbors? I have an idea. How about... peace and freedom?
"But... but... but... terrorists are bad!" Yes, and this changes natural law how?
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
"Be not deceived. God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap." Galatians 6:7
The war party is asking for trouble.
The verse above from the Bible is far more than just a religious nicety. It reflects an immutable natural law. Evidence of this is that similar expressions appear in other religions, and from secular sources, as well as science itself. No one can deny that if you sow a kernel of corn, the plant that breaks through the soil will absolutely be a corn plant, not a watermelon, nor a hawk nor a handsaw.
One cannot say 'I am planting corn because I want to produce wheat for all.' Yet this is exactly what the war party is saying when it pushes pre-emptive wars in the name of global freedom and peace. They contend that planting a little war today will harvest a lot of peace tomorrow.
But it will not. And it can not. If the authors of pre-emptive war believe they are so righteous and so important they can change the rules of the universe, they are in for a rude, and devastating, awakening.
So the question is, what will the doctrines of the war party harvest? The answers are too bitter to swallow, so the current regime pretends they don't exist. They clasp their hands over their ears, shut their eyes tight, and hum at high volume. However, ignoring the answers will not change them.
If it is acceptable to torture an "enemy combatant" because he might have information that will save American lives, it is acceptable for the enemy to torture American soldiers for information helpful to the enemy cause. The war party today is planting the seeds of the horrifying pain and suffering of American soldiers in the future. Thanks, guys, you really support our troops.
If it is acceptable to cut off food and essentials through sanctions and account seizures, causing millions of innocents in other countries to suffer, starve, and die from illness and hunger, it is acceptable for future enemies to cut off food and essentials to American children. Sorry, thinking we're the "good guys" so we're immune from natural law doesn't cut it by any measure.
If it is acceptable to launch a pre-emptive war against a country that might do something bad in the future, it is also acceptable to have a pre-emptive war launched against the United States, by say, China, a decade or two from now, because America might do something "bad" to China. The only requirement is military strength, which China is rapidly acquiring.
Unfortunately, if a single kernel of corn is planted, the harvest does not consist of a single kernal of corn. It is multiplied exponentially, multiple ears with hundreds of kernels. Therefore one more Bible verse, representing yet another natural law, sheds light on our future, if we do not change our course soon:
"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind." Hosea 8:7
The harvest of our present evil will return to us greater evil. (Hands to ears, eyes closed! Start humming now!)
Neither does any claim of God being "on our side" negate the natural law. From the same chapter in Hosea, a claim of "knowing God" is made:
"They cry out to Me, "My God, we (of the war party) know Thee!" (verse 2)
But it simply cannot be. Iif that were true, they would have followed the natural law!
"Though I wrote for him ten thousand precepts of My law, they are regarded as a strange thing." (verse 12)
And so the corn comes up, and the harvest is... corn. In abundance. (Religion helpful, but not required.)
So what should we as a nation be sowing, if we want peace and freedom for ourselves and our neighbors? I have an idea. How about... peace and freedom?
"But... but... but... terrorists are bad!" Yes, and this changes natural law how?
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)