Archive for the ‘truth’ Category

Isolation?

December 4, 2008

In more modern times, people have gotten away from wanting to be isolationists.  I went through that phase, but I am returning to it for a number of reasons.  First of all it was what the founders wanted and they had good reasons. Isolationism is really just a way of respecting other countries.  But it is easy to get people to accept the totalitarian goals of the one world order, once you get then to agree that isloationism is a bad thing.  It is one of those slippery slope things. 

 

Also we need to look at two aspects of interaction between countries.  One is to do with government, and the other is to do with trade.  Government has to do with rulers and politics.  Trade has to do with exchange of goods or resources.  But the guiding principle for both is to do the right thing.  It is the golden rule.

 

As a country we need to decide if we are going to take care of ourselves and if we really have even a right to police the rest of the world.  I do not think we do.  This all got turned upside down when warfare became so bad and the WMD came on the scene.  Now the whole planet can be affected by war between two counties.  So the issue needs to be looked at from two perspectives.  One is ideologically and the other is realistically.  I think you have to do the first, and get very clear about that, before moving onto the second, otherwise you start to violate your own ideology in the process.  That in fact is what we are doing today and it does not serve us well at all.

 

Setting aside the hidden agenda part of things for the moment, it does not make much sense to destroy the freedoms of our own citizens, so that we can fight for the freedoms of others. It is just hypocrisy.  In addition, it makes little sense to say that we believe all men have a right to be free, but then deny them choice over their own politics.  It is saying that “you will accept our concept of freedom, whether you want to or not, because if you don’t, we must kill you.  We are only trying to help you.”

 

It is a very flawed logic.  It is a “logic” used by liars, hypocrites and those who have hidden agendas. 

 

The world may be united in one of two ways.  One is by freedom of all men and by mutual agreement.  The other is by slavery where in all are conquered and controlled by a totalitarian elite.  In the end it comes down to the same principles upon which this country was founded.

 

It is rather simple when you think about it.

 

The role of government is to protect the freedom of its own people.  They do this by serving them to that end only.  That is it.

 

Military needs to be limited to defensive operations only.  This whole idea of preemptive war is shit.  It is an excuse for imperialism and agression.  Only under the fear generated by the war mongers would we have allowed it.  We need to be stronger than that.

 

Terrorism is sparked by this attitude.  As bad as it is, it is a response to the aggression and imperialistic one world order agenda of the corrupt banking war mongers.  You want to stop terrorism?  Stop fueling hatred.  The bankers and politicians do not want to stop terrorism.  The war on terror is what they want.

 

Now turning to the concept of free trade between nations.  There are two ways in which wealth and resources are exchanged between countries.  One is through trade.  It literally is just that.  Trading.  Giving something of value in return for something of value.  It must be free.  Not coerced.  The government should stay out of it, just as they should stay out of the private lives and commerce of its own citizens.

 

The second way for a country to get resources is through plunder and theft.  We have squandered our own resources including the creative innovative minds of our people because we have abandoned all the principles of freedom, ethics and morality.  There is nothing left for us now but to steal from the rest of the world.  This is not going to work.  We must again return to the founding principles or we will be lost.  We will be lost even if we succeed in conquering the rest of the world.

 

Advertisements

The U.S. is not a democracy.

November 17, 2008

In the aftermath of the Presidential election, there is a great amount of hope and celebration.  It is a country filled with relief at the end of the reign of King George Bush.  And there is hope that our new President will set a course which will undo the damage and set us on a new direction.

 

But I am a seeker of truth, not a seeker of comfort.  I am growing more and more concerned.  Even about our President-Elect.  He is so popular right now, that it is looked upon as blasphemy to be the least bit critical.

 

But I am, sorry to say that I am more than a little concerned.  Everyone is convinced that he was the best choice for president, at least a whopping majority.  I was supporting him throughout most of his campaign myself.  I know many of you were very happy about the outcome.  But everything I read and everything he says is not sitting well with me.  People naturally are saying “But he hasn’t even taken office yet.” 

 

So what can I say which will not be rejected out of hand by those who have so much hope about him?  Right now I am concerned for the survival of our republic.  And when I say republic, I do not mean Republican.  That party got its name many years ago when they did support the idea of republic; the name may have stuck, but not the original ideology. 

 

What follows is about the Constitution.  I have addressed some of these issues in the previous post “Let Freedom Ring”.  That post focused on the issue of individualism vs. collectivism.

 

This post is about forms of government and to be complete I restate some things previously posted.  There are things which are worth repeating.

 

I am talking about the simple fact that the Founding Fathers created this nation, as a republic, not a democracy.  And most Americans today don’t even know the difference. 

 

When I say that the U.S. was not founded as a democracy, the reaction is like a Pavlovian dog, who has been conditioned to react to that assertion.  So at the risk of rejection I will defend my position.  The Founding Fathers hated the idea of a democracy.  It is why they created the republic instead.  This seems outlandish to people who think that we are a democracy, and that we should be one.  I did not know the difference myself, for most of my life.  Do you?

 

The law of our land, the Constitution, defines us as a republic.  This was no accident.  The document took them over a decade to finalize.  It was not slapped together in three days like the economic bailout package, which is a bad idea.  The Constitution is a plan for a republic.  It does include the idea of using democratic voting as a decision making process, but it does so within the context of a republic, not a democracy.  This is where the confusion comes from for so many.

 

The truth is that we are about to lose our country.  This will be at the hands of the collectivists who are pushing us toward globalization.  And I will say it for the record.  Globalization is a master plan to enslave the world.  It is not supportive of freedom.  The outcome is to be a one world order, under a totalitarian collective ruling elite.

 

The central banks have conspired to create the financial crisis.  They are behind the whole thing.  Now that we are suffering and frightened, they will move to consolidate the world monetary system.  And Obama is going along with this.  It is a mistake.

 

Bush has already signed an agreement with Canada, and Mexico to form the North American Union.  If this happens, the Constitution will be invalidated.  It will in fact be the end of the United States in every way but in name only.  I don’t see Obama opposing this, either.  As a matter of fact, looking at those he is putting into his cabinet, I fear he will be pushing for it.

 

I also do not see him wanting to repeal the Patriot Act which was a direct attack on the Constitution, and in fact makes George Bush guilty of treason.  The oath of office for the President, as well as every other government official, is quite simple.  It is to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.  If they break that oath, it is treason and punishable by death.  I would say it is a pretty serious matter.

 

Most Americans have never even read the Constitution, and if they have, they made little effort to understand the words or the meaning.  It makes me sick.  Out of laziness and ignorance we are about to destroy our country, and very few seem to care.

 

The Founding Fathers were heroes.  They believed in freedom.  “Give me Liberty or give me death.”   Those who are plotting to destroy us will say that the principles no longer apply in today’s world.  They are wrong.  In a republic, freedom for every person is to be protected.   The only thing outdated about that is that is opposes the collective globalist mentality which is their agenda.

 

So, I ask, can you let go of the notion that we are a democracy, long enough to consider why we were founded as a republic?  We have been taught to idolize democracy so much, that we now think anything other than a democracy is wrong.  But the truth is that a republic, goes democracy one better.

 

First I will support my contention with a few facts.  Every child used to place his hand over his heart and recite the pledge of allegiance.  Sorry to have to quote it here but people say the words with knowing what they mean.  It starts “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the REPBLIC for which it stands….”

 

It does not say and to the democracy for which it stands.  There is a very big difference between a republic and a democracy.  Unless you know what that is, you are not going to understand.  Those terms are not interchangeable, and the word was chosen for accuracy.

 

Since we are talking here about different forms of government, I will do a short discourse here to help with the issue.

 

There are many forms of government, and one way to distinguish them is to look at who is free, and who is enslaved.  Or to state it a little differently, who is the ruler, and who do they rule over.  I won’t try and cover every form of government, but just the major ones, for the sake of brevity.

 

So let us start with the Monarchy.  In that form of government there is a king.  He is the ruler, and everyone else is his subjects.  He owns the kingdom.  The land belongs to him and to him alone. I mention the issue of ownership because it will come up again later as we explore freedom and rights.   

 

The subjects have no rights.  They only have privileges granted by the king.  We need to understand the difference between rights and privileges.  This will also come up later.

 

A right is something you have on your own.  A privilege is always granted to you by someone or something else.  As such a privilege can be revoked at any time.  A right cannot be revoked unless as a punishment for breaking the law.

 

A king can banish a subject from the kingdom.  He says you no longer can live on my land, get out.  A king can also take your life.  Off with his head.  A king can take away your liberty.  Send him to the tower.  All these actions are possible because as a subject you have no rights, not even the right of life or liberty. 

 

If you are free, you own your own body.  If someone else owns it, then you are by definition a slave.  Your right to life comes from the ownership of your body.  In a monarchy the king owns everything including the bodies of his subjects.  No one but the king is free.

 

So it is good to be the king.  But how is it that a king can claim these rights?  So now we will look at what is called the divine right of kings. 

 

The reason we need to know about this is because it comes up again later.  Sometimes it is called God given rights, and in the preamble of the Constitution, there is reference to the Creator.

 

But before we assume that this has anything to do with religion or a religious dogma, we need to understand it on a more accurate and basic level.  It does not refer to any specific God.  More properly it is a statement that there is something which transcends man. A higher power of some sort.  Think of it as an ultimate truth.  It makes no difference whether you call it God, or the Creator, or divine.  It is truth, and even an atheist, may be able to accept that concept.

 

So the divine right of kings really means that the rights of the king come from something higher than man.

 

But our Founders thought that a system in which only one guy was free and everyone else were slaves, was not best way to set up a government.  It is why we fought the revolutionary war.  And when we declared our independence we set about to establish a more perfect government.

 

But before we get ahead of ourselves, let’s stay with this “one ruler over all” idea for a moment.  Variations of this concept give the ruler rights without any higher truth.

 

If a guy takes the position by military force, he is called a dictator.  Same game, different name.

 

Now here is one that may surprise you.  It is one of the reasons the Founders hated the idea of a democracy.  It is possible that a single ruler can be elected by a majority vote.  By democratic vote, there was a ruler who was elected to office, and he received 98% of the popular vote.  Now that is a democratic landslide by any stretch of the imagination.

 

His name was Adolph Hitler.  So as you reflect on the notion that a pure democracy is great idea, you should understand that it is not always so.

 

We will come back to why a republic will not allow such a thing to happen, later on.

 

Now as we move away from the Monarchy and toward a system in which all men can be free, we expand the freedom of the king to a group of people.

 

This is called an Oligarchy.  This group may come into existence by various means, including a democratic process.  But it is the group which now rules over everyone else.  It may be a senate such as in ancient Greece.  Or it may be a parliament or a congress of some sort.  But in that there are those who rule, and there are those who are subject to that rule, not every one is free.

 

So while it is a step in the right direction, it does not go far enough.

 

If we then expand the concept that the rule is by a majority, then we have a democracy.  So now this is starting to sound very good.  Majority rule.  So what is wrong with that?

 

The problem is that the rights of the majority are protected, but not the rights of the minority.  Since it was our goal that all men’s rights must be protected, and that every individual was to be free, we need to take one final step.  And that is to base the government on a principle of individual freedom for each and every one.

 

This is the defining principle of a republic.

 

So we turn now to the document which was the blueprint to do this.  It is the document which established our country.  It is the document which is the law of the land.

 

It is the Constitution. 

 

Is freedom something you value, or would you rather choose slavery?  Is life important to you or would you opt for death?

 

Do you think it is proper behavior of a President to take an oath of office which says quite simply that he swears to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and then not keep that oath?

 

When that oath is sworn, it is with the understanding that if you break that oath, you are guilty of treason, and that crime is punishable by death.

 

It says that no man is above the law, and to break the law makes one a criminal.  So George Bush, took that oath, and then placed himself above the law, time and time again.  He established the Patriot Act which completely violates the Constitution.  When asked about all this, he said that the Constitution was just a piece of paper.

 

Bush is a traitor to our country.  There is not doubt about it.  Great, so we voted him out of office right?  No we did not.  His presidency was at an end.  We just sat by and allowed a traitor to damage our country.  And what are we doing about that?  Nothing.

 

So let’s look at the Constitution and understand the words it uses.  I am going to go very slowly and in great detail.  This is very basic stuff.  Forgive me if I seem to be stating the obvious, but I read and see very good people, who have no understanding of this.  So stay with me.

 

“We hold these truths to be self evident,”

We are saying that this is truth, not a matter of opinion, or debate, and furthermore they are self evident, meaning that it is obvious that they are true.

 

“That all men are created equal”

 

I am going to stop here to address a commonly made mistake, which is to take this phrase out of context.  But first the language used when it says “men” really means all individuals, including women and children. Today it might have been written persons.

 

So are all persons created equal?  Absolutely not.  Some are taller than others.  Some are more athletic. Some are more attractive.  Some are more intelligent.

 

It is only in context that this statement has meaning.  In what ways are persons equal?  The answer comes next.

 

“equal, in that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.”

 

That is quite a mouthful, and is an example of the powerful and concise language used to set down the ideas.

 

So breaking it down, we addressed the issue earlier about divine rights, and in this instance they are saying that the rights come from an ultimate truth which transcends man.  At the time it was written, they were trying to say that all men, if they are to be free, have the same rights as a king. We had rejected the rule of a monarch.

 

Just a footnote here.  George Washington was asked at one point if he would be the king.  He said absolutely not.  Their goal was to free all men, not to enslave them.

 

“…certain inalienable rights” 

 

“Certain” meant that they wanted to be specific about the definition of these rights.  They did not mean unlimited rights.  They went on to define them.

 

When they said inalienable, they meant again that there would be no arguments over the validity of the rights.  These rights, which they would define, are solid, true, and inviolate.  Nothing messes with them. Period.  It is defined in the law and it is the law.

 

We are talking about rights here, not privileges.  These rights are not granted.  They exist within every individual.  If you are a person, we say you have these rights.  No questions asked.  We also say that nothing can remove them.  The only exception to this is if you break the law, then the punishment will be removal of these rights.  But if you obey the laws set down in the Constitution, you have these rights, and as we will see later on, it is the main function of government to protect these rights for you.

 

“…among these rights are…”

 

This means that here are the first three coming up.  More will be defined later.  As a matter of fact they will be added as amendments, and the first ten of this will come to be know as the Bill of Rights”

 

“…life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

 

These are the big three of rights.  We will take them one at a time.

 

But before getting into that, it is necessary to lay a little groundwork.  The Founders had an idea which had never been tried before in the history of western civilization (at least as far as I have been able to find out) but in any case, it was this:

 

The only way that freedom can be guaranteed to every individual, is to make each one a king.

Now that is a new idea!  How the heck can you pull that off?

 

First we have to understand the concept of sovereignty.  Kings were called Sovereign Rulers.  And there were some rules which they followed regarding the sovereignty of other kings.  It was understood that one sovereign must respect the rights of another sovereign.  Something like, “I am the King of England, and you are the King of France.  I own my kingdom and you own yours.  I will not mess with you and you will not mess with me.”

 

That rule is only broken when war is declared.  It is the definition of war.  But in times of peace, we respect the rules of Sovereignty.

 

So the Founders, realizing that only sovereigns had rights, and therefore freedom; came up with the idea that each citizen in a republic was a sovereign.   They called them Sovereign Citizens.  And they basically had to follow the same rules as kings.

 

I will respect your rights and you must respect mine.  The difference is that a sovereign citizen does not rule over anyone but himself.  He has only one subject and that is himself.

 

He is not ruled over by anyone else, but in respecting the rights of another sovereign, he rules only over himself.  This is a basic principle of a republic.

 

And it is tied to the concept of individualism.  All these things are related to the individual, and not to any collective group. 

 

Freedom is the right of an individual.  If any other individual or group of individuals rules over him, he is no longer free.

 

So with this understanding we can now look at the issue of individualism vs. collectivism.  The only form of government which is individualistic is the republic.  In a sense, a monarchy is also based on an individual, but in that structure there is only one, and he is the king.

 

Anytime a group rules over any individual, this by definition is collectivism.  As a matter of fact anytime any entity rules over another, there is no freedom of those being ruled over.  (That is to say, that they have no rights, but only privileges granted by the rulers.)

 

So how is that supposed to work in a republic?  It is quite a simple answer.  Unlike any other form of government, the government in a republic does not rule over the people, it only serves the people.  The sovereign citizen is free, and the government’s job is to protect the rights and freedoms of all the people; each and every individual and it is to be done on an equal basis.  It is in those rights that we are created equal.

 

It is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  It is NOT a government over the people.

 

After naming the individual rights of men, the Constitution goes on to describe how the government is to be organized.  And in that organizational plan, it is always with the goal that the individual rights and therefore the freedoms are protected.  Always.

 

And the government by law may not interfere with the rights and freedoms of the individual.  No one or thing rules over the individual.  The individual is free, and as long as he respects the rights of his fellow sovereigns, he is following the law, by definition.

 

It is why the Founders did not want a democracy.  Because, in a democracy, it is the collective majority which rules over the individual.  Democratic tools can be used for decision making in a republic, and is set forth in the Constitution, but not to trample on individual rights and freedoms.  That is the difference between a republic and a democracy.

 

Individualism is the main concern of the republic.  The others are either collective, or despotic.  In either case the rights of the individuals are not protected.

 

Collectivism includes Communism, Fascism, Socialism, and Democracy.  Despotic governments include Kings and Dictators. 

 

Of all of these, democracy is the best.  But there is one better; it is the republic.

 

Let us get back to the “big three”; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

 

Life

 

You have, as a fee individual, the right to life.  It cannot be taken from you unless you give up the right by breaking the law. It is a right is because you are free and own you own body.  As a slave or a subject, you do not own your body.   It is someone else’s property.  Rights are tied to ownership.  And individual rights, which are really the only true freedom, are tied to individual ownership.

 

I emphasize this issue of ownership, because it comes into play later regarding property rights, and wealth, and commerce.  We will get to that in due course.

 

It is individual ownership which creates individual rights.  In various collective concepts, there is no individual ownership, and therefore no individual rights.

 

Communism says that all things are owned collectively.  Socialism says that all things are the property of the society.  Fascism says that all things are owned by the State.  Monarchy says that only the king owns anything.

 

In any collective system, individual ownership is not allowed, and therefore, there can be no individual freedom.

 

As the present day collectivists are planning on some sort of collective plan for wealth and property we need to protect the rights of individuals to own property.  It is why the new world order will enslave all men if the goals of globalization are achieved.

 

Liberty

 

You have the right to move around and to do things.  No one has the right to prevent you from doing this as long as you respect the rights and property of others.

 

The concept of Liberty is so important to our nation, and yet we have been far too casual in defending it for a long time.  Does the Statue of Liberty holds meaning for you as a symbol?

 

There was a time when we believed in liberty as the right of all men.  This was such an attractive idea at one time in our history that France made us a gift of the Statue.  As we now have little regard for our own freedoms, and we abuse the freedoms of people all over the world, do you think we would receive such a gift today?  We must return to the principles which made us great in the past.  We must return to the Constitution, and to the republic which it created.

 

The pursuit of happiness

 

Note that it says you have the right to pursue happiness.  This is not saying that you have a right of happiness.  There is no guarantee.  But what is guaranteed is your right to pursue it.

 

This includes the right to pursue ownership.  And as a free person you do this through trade.  I have something which I will trade with you, on a basis of mutual agreement.  I may be offering services, or goods which I have created or acquired through trade.

 

This is what free trade is all about.  And free trade does not mean that it is limited by government oversight or regulation.  It is the job of government to protect my rights and those of others and that is all it may do.  The Constitution does not define what laws can be made. But instead defines what laws may not be made.  The Congress shall make no law which….etc, etc.  And the etc. is almost always something having to do with limiting individual freedom or individual rights.  No laws which limit rights.

 

I bring this up because there are many who think that government regulation is necessary in order to protect people from greed and monopoly.  But this is not the case.

 

Greed, money and free market capitalism

 

Mostly what we hear is from collectivists on this issue.  They say free market capitalism ultimately leads to greed.  Greed is bad.  And people usually buy into these false statements. 

 

The first thing to understand is that the attack is really against personal freedom, but perhaps not in the way you might think.  First we have to look at the concept of ownership.  Collectivists do not want any individual ownership of anything.  But all real freedom is based on individual ownership.

 

You have a right to all of the basic freedoms, based on the fact that you own your own body.  Your right to life and liberty are based on that concept.  If someone else owns your body, then you are by definition a slave. There is not any good counter argument to this, unless it is a King who claims that you are his subject, or a socialist who says you are not an individual , but part of the collective society.

 

The point being that something other than your individual sovereignty rules over you.  Once this happens, you are not free.

 

Also this extends to ownership of wealth and property.  The same principle applies.  In your right to pursue happiness, you have a right to the freedoms that ownership gives.  I wrote about this before, but it is worth repeating.  Rights come from ownership, and privileges are granted by another entity, which he can do because of his ownership.

 

Like the neighbors who own adjacent plots of land.  The owner is free to do what he likes on his land, but is not free to do the same on his neighbor’s land.  It is because he does not own his neighbor’s land.  He can, as owner, grant privileges to his neighbor or choose not to.  It can work both ways.  But the freedom is vested is rights, not in the privileges.  And the rights are tied to ownership.

 

So how does one in the pursuit of happiness, go about pursuing ownership?  It is done by trading.  It is done by marketing.  And for it to work properly, a trade or market transaction must be free.  It is your property, services, or goods which you are freely trading with another.  Free trade between free individuals will protect the rights of the participants.  But it must be free and it must be based on individual ownership.  It is when either the freedom or the individualism aspects are removed that we get greed and monopoly, and all those things which the critics say are because of free trade.  Exactly the opposite is true.  It is when government interferes with the process, or where collectives have power over individuals that we get all the bad stuff.

 

Money is not the root of all evil.  Honest money is merely a facilitator of trade and commerce.  The problems we have now with money are because it is fiat money, not honest money.  Honest money is backed by something tangible.   We don’t do that any more.  Fiat money is the root of all evil.

 

I was going to define the word evil, but I don’t think that is necessary in this context.

 

Greed is one of the seven deadly sins, right?  We have been taught that.  But we must be certain that we are talking about greed.  There are two ways to look at it, but the basis is that ownership is a component of freedom.  So if you define greed as a desire for ownership, then geed becomes a desire for freedom.  With that definition, it cannot be bad.

 

If you define greed as transactions which trash the rights and freedoms of individuals, then it is definitely anti freedom and thereby would be properly defined as bad.

 

But the collectivists what to have it both ways, and interchange the definitions as suits their desire to prove that individualism based republic from of government is somehow evil.

 

So to keep it simple, greed which supports freedom is good, greed which destroys freedom is not good.  Remember if someone argues that greed is bad, you can always use the word ownership instead to avoid the pavlovian response.  But I would rather just be clear that greed is neither intrinsically bad nor good.  It all depends on if it supports freedom or suppresses it.  One could say the exact same thing about love.

 

Are you greedy to claim ownership of your body?  The collectivists would have you believe that your are, and that you are selfish and bad, when what they are really saying is that you must give up your freedom for the sake of their collective agenda.

 

In a republic, there would be no fiat money, and there would be no monopolies.  Both those things come into being in defiance of individualism. 

 

So perhaps you may think it is a matter of degree.  I would disagree even with that. Greed only becomes a bad thing when it violates the concepts of individualism.  Just to repeat an earlier argument, individual freedom is not unlimited in the application of individualism.

 

Unlimited greed is evil for that reason.  So what is good about greed?  Ask yourself why do you work to make a living?  Would you call that greed?  You are trying to acquire wealth and property in your free pursuit of happiness, are you not?   Are you greedy to do this?

  

You work for two reasons, one is to pursue happiness as is your right, and the other is to pay a debt to the banks as a wage slave.  The banks are taking your property from you, not to provide you with something in return, but to make a profit at the expense of your freedom.  You are exercising greed as freedom, but they are exercising greed to rob you of freedom.  If you want a definition of good greed vs. bad greed, there it is.

 

I stated earlier that rights are tied to ownership of property.  I hope you got that concept.  It is an important one.  Starting with ownership of your own body, are you greedy to want to own your own body?  Or are you just free?  So perhaps it would be better to not use the word greed to describe this.  Perhaps we might want to say, the desire to be free instead.  Perhaps we should substitute a less provocative word or phase such as motivated, pursuing happiness, caring for your family and friends, caring about being free to help others, etc.

 

Using such phrases make us feel a lot better about the process, but the danger is that collectivists will make arguments against freedom and rights by calling these things by the “G” word.  I say that thinking people just need to dump the brainwashing and correctly define the meaning of the term.

 

Why should you buy into the concept that wanting a better life for yourself in exercising your divine right to pursue happiness and freedom is an evil thing?  Why should you feel guilty about that?  It is just the brainwashing done by the collectivists who want to rob you of your freedom.  It is time for thinking people to reject it.

 

It took me some effort to make this transition myself.  Initially I reacted with negative feelings when ever someone would say that greed is not bad.  “How can they say that when everyone knows greed is bad?”  I had been brainwashed and it was an effort to deprogram myself after a lifetime of preconditioning.

 

In closing I wish to say that it is true that there are workable forms of government.  A monarchy works.  Communism and socialism works.  Even Fascism worked.  But just because it works does not mean it is the better way.  There are those who would argue that the United States is not working very well right now.  This is sadly true.  But if it is not working, it is because we have all but abandoned the republic.

 

Some would have us believe that we should abandon the republic completely because it is not working.  But we have not been a true republic for almost a century.  Rather than abandon it, I say we should return to it.  It was our country, and it worked very well for over 130 years as a republic.  It is what was intended.  It is what we once were.  It is what we must become again.

 

Restore the republic.  

 

 

Let Freedom Ring

November 1, 2008

Hello everyone,

 

I had planned to refrain from any new posts until after the election, but this subject came up and I decided not to wait.

 

I will put it into a political context for the sake of the election, but it is a topic which has much broader implications.  It is such a core issue, that I intend to return to it in the future.

 

This is based on a comment I made in regards to a debate about individualism vs collectivism.  Some of you may not be familiar with the terms, so I will lay a little foundation, and hope you will follow up by learning more about the issue.  In future articles I will explain and explore in fuller detail.

 

I have to insert a note here about language.  In the following I am using the term “men” meaning men and women and all individuals.  It is the language used in the founding documents and is not meant to exclude women or any persons.

 

I would suggest to those who are struggling with the concept of “individualism vs collectivism” that may wish to consider examining the issue more fully.

 

The works of the philosopher Ayn Rand may be helpful.  She emigrated to the U.S. from Russia.  She left a communistic collective country, to embrace the U.S. which was founded on the concepts of individualism.  And if you study all the things which originally defined our country, you will find that individualism is at the core of what we once were.

 

Collectivism and Individualism are not separate doctrines.  They are exact opposites of the same concept.  They cannot coexist.  They are like matter and antimatter, which cancel each other out when mixed in equal amounts.

 

If freedom is important to you, you will find that it can only exist in an individualistic approach; only persons can be free.  As its opposite, collectivism can only lead to the opposite of freedom, which is slavery.  There are those who believe that somehow we might be able to exist as “relatively” free slaves, but that is a contradiction.

 

Individualism seeks to set men free, collectivism seeks to enslave men.

 

So what the heck happened to us?  We started out as a nation based in individualism.  To verify this, one only needs to fully read the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and fully understand the words used.

 

It is not enough just to recite these words without understanding.  We must understand their meaning fully before we can argue anything about them.

 

The sad truth is that we have turned away from these concepts and no longer embrace the very things which once defined our greatness.  We were founded on these great ideas, and we have slowly over time moved in the opposite direction.

 

It is not surprising that we have fallen into this trap.  Most if not all now living have come into this world at a time when the battle was already well in progress. 

 

I mentioned above the left extreme of communism, defined in it essence by Karl Marx.  Now I will mentioned another collective concept from the extreme right, which is Fascism.  This collective concept was embraced by Adolph Hitler and the National Socialists (Nazis).  It embraced the collective nation as being more important than any individual freedom, and we all know how well that worked out.

 

But what you may not be aware of is that the German philosophers who started Germany on the road to Fascism, then came to the United States and started spreading the same doctrines most especially in our educational systems.  This re-education of us all was a factor in why we reversed our thinking regarding our founding principles.

 

It is time we wake up from this nightmare which has spilled over into the entire world.  It is time to make a choice between the conflicting opposites of individualism and collectivism.

 

In this election, all the candidates are speaking about change.  Each candidate is arguing that his version of change is better than his opponent’s version.  One thing we know for certain is that some kind of change is what we want.

 

I don’t think anyone is really happy about the direction in which we have been going.

 

I don’t think anyone is happy about what is happening to us and to the world.  Whatever we are doing seems to be wrong, and thus we want some sort of change.

 

I am suggesting that the change we are really seeking is based on the conflicting ideologies of individualism vs. collectivism.  This is a core choice to be made and will define the nature of all other change.  If we do not make the better choice, then any other change will be merely a variation of the wrong choice and will not really change things for the better.

 

If you look at all the various choices of “isms” you will see something which is quite obvious. 

 

Communism  – a collective ideology

Fascism – a collective ideology

Socialism – a collective ideology

And the list includes almost every doctrine you can name.

And then there is the one exception.

The original founding principles of this country which, unlike all the rest, are based on individualism.

 

So can individualism work?

 

It did for much of our country’s early history.  But we have abandoned it in favor of collectivism.  This is where we went wrong.  It is time to change for the better.

 

One often hears the argument in defense of our modern collective philosophies that times have changed.  The world is a different place.  These arguments are made against the founding principles, by those who are convinced that collectivism is the only way.

 

I can only reply that they are right.  Times have changed for the worse.  The world is a different place today.  It used to be a better place.

 

The thing that has changed is that we no longer value the rights of the individual.  These rights as stated include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  Individualism is founded on the premise that there is nothing more important than these rights.  When I say nothing, I mean exactly that.  No government, group, state, country, religion, monarchy, dictatorship, majority, community, society, and any other collective entity or institution is more important than individual rights.  It is in these rights that all freedom exists.

 

And individualism holds that all men have these same rights, not just Americans, but all men everywhere.  And in fact, they stated that it is in this way that we, all men, are created equal.

 

Collectivists would have you believe that all men are equal.  What they mean by that is that all men under a collective system are equal slaves.  This is not what the founders meant.

 

They were very specific.  We know that all men are not equal.  Some are more beautiful than others, some are more intelligent than others, some are taller than others, etc.  But the founders said quite clearly that we are all equal in the individual rights we have.  They held that this was truth, and that it was not debatable.  It was absolute, and inalienable.  We are equal in that each of us has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

There are more of these equal rights than the above mentioned three.  All of them are individual rights, not collective rights.  Many of are listed in the Bill of Rights.  It is in this way, the individual freedom, that we are equal.

 

Now if we turn to the issue of government, and how it was intended to function in our nation, we can see that it has evolved into something which we do not want, if we value individual freedom.  The original concept of government was to protect and defend the individual rights of our own citizens.

 

If you read the Constitution, you will see that this is what was intended.  The Constitution is an amazing document, which clearly outlined how government was to work.  It has one flaw in that it assumes that people understand the principles upon which it was based, and does not fully explain why the principles were included. 

But as far as it goes, it is very clear.  It was also written based on the principles of holding individual freedom above all else.  And it is written in a form which does not say what the government can do.  It says what the government cannot do.  And all these limiting factors have one thing in common, in that the government cannot do anything to interfere with individual freedom.

 

The form is this, and it is repeated throughout the entire document:  The government shall make no law which does “such and such.”  And in every case it boils down to the following:

 

The government shall make no laws which remove individual freedom.  That is exactly what it says.  Read it for yourself.

 

Our government today, no longer follows the Constitution.  This has become very obvious.  Our current soon to be ex-president Bush provides a striking example.  After taking an oath to uphold the constitution, he went on to remove individual freedoms, for the collective concept of the greater good.  But there is no greater good than individual freedom.

 

When asked about this, he said that the Constitution was “just a piece of paper.”  Do you agree with him?  I do not.

 

The Constitution limits the power of government so that it cannot deny anyone his individual rights.  It says that the government is to be of the people, by the people and for the people.  The people are the individuals with individual rights.

 

The government was to serve the people, not to rule over them.  We now have a government over the people.  This was what the founders wanted to avoid, and it unfortunately is what we have allowed to happen.

 

As I promised, I will return to this core issue in future posts.  It is a huge subject to examine and understand.  But I will close this with an introduction to have this subject applies to armies, war, military aggression and those related things.

 

Starting again with the individualistic view that all men have equal rights which are not up to debate, but in fact are inalienable, and given that the government is charged with the task of protecting these rights, then how does the military fit into all this and how is foreign policy affected?

 

The founders said that the government should provide for the common defense.  Note that is says defense, not offence.

 

In that the government is our government, it has a duty to protect the life, liberty and other individual rights of our citizens, from outside forces which would deny us these rights common to all men.

 

There is what seems to be a conflict here, but I will try and show why it is not.  The conflict is that if we embrace the idea that every man has a right to life, then how can we justify killing any individual?  This is especially an issue in war.

 

But the principle is that every man has a right to life, and that if another individual or group tries to violate that right, then in defense, life must be protected, even if it mean killing that aggressor who would deny that right to another.  But understand that life may be taken in defense, not in an attack of aggression.  We held to this principle in war, for a long time, but recently we have abandoned it.

 

Having adopted a collective policy, we now have become the very thing which we were once against.  We have become an offensive aggressive empire, with a totalitarian goal of a one world order.

 

This is the concept of globalization, and it is contrary to our principles. It is because that we have changed to this as a foreign policy, that we have lost the respect we once had.  When we were true to our policies, we were viewed by the rest of the world as a symbol of freedom for all men.  France, who had a grand regard for the concept of freedom and liberty, gave us a gift which we proudly look at as symbol of our country.  The Statue of Liberty.

 

Do you think we would be deserving of such a gift today?  I don’t think so.

 

We have abandoned the principles in favor of collectivism.  There was a time when our ideals could spread across the world, as men seeking freedom would voluntarily adopt our ideals because we were a shinning example of individual freedom.

 

If we do not return to our strength, and adopt the principles which once made us truly great in the eyes of the world, we will go the way of all previous empires.  Every empire in history believed that they could enslave the rest of the world by force.  And every empire has failed.

 

The collective based idea of world conquest is the enemy of freedom, no matter how much we use the word “freedom” as a meaningless slogan.  Freedom is a concept we need to once again embrace.