Of Men and Kings.

We are involved in what is probably going to be called the election cycle which either ended our republic or restored it.

Every day, nearly at every hour, we can find the so-called experts attempting to explain what is happening in this presidential election process and trying to predict the outcome.

One thing that most of the “experts” seemingly fail to acknowledge is that history has an uncanny way of repeating itself. Some do compare what is going on in the US today to history from the last century, and a few go back to the Roman Empire. I think that today we need to go back just a little further.

I will be quoting 1st Samuel Chapter 8 in my comparison to today, as the incident described therein is an apt analogy to what is taking place in our lives today.

To set the background, Chapter 8 takes place at the end of the period of Israeli history in which they had no formal government as we would understand it today, but instead had judges to settle their disputes and to supply leadership when necessary.

Unfortunately, during this period they were repeatedly oppressed and antagonized by other people, most notably the Midianites and the Philistines. In short, the Israelites weren’t great, and they seldom won at anything. They were losers.

They were losers because they chose to leave their principles behind and follow their desires. They were not losers because of bad leadership, they were losers by way their own personal choices.

Now begins our story from Chapter 8:

When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as judges for Israel. The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they serve at Beersheba. But his sons did not walk in his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.

How like today’s political world that sounds! Aren’t these some of our chief complaints about our current politicians? Perversion of justice rather than equal justice for all, and the enrichment of themselves at the expense of the people?

So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways; now appoint a king to lead us, such as all the other nations have.”

In today’s words, “We want to be great again, but it’s not our fault that we are losers, it’s the fault of our leaders. Give us a powerful leader, a king, and he will cause us to be great again. We want a country, and we want to win!”

But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. And the Lord told him: Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected as their king, but me. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do.”

From the very beginning of our republic, we were warned by wise men everywhere, not the least being the founders themselves, that we would have a republic as long as we could keep it. We, collectively, chose not to do that. We chose to go about our daily lives, chasing our desires rather than our principles, while trusting politicians to keep our republic for us. We couldn’t be bothered to pay attention to what they were really doing.

Now that we have seen the indications of the level of damage that has been done, seen the level of debt we are in, seen the loss of freedom which we mistakenly took for granted, and heard ourselves branded losers, we have entered into a state of denial and chosen our scapegoat. The establishment. The man. The status quo.

We want a king! A king who will give us a country. A king who will make us great. A king who will make everyone see that we are winners.

Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifty, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves, and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for your own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

“Did you say something, Samuel? We didn’t hear you. A king will make us great.”

The words of Samuel sum things up rather well. The king will have an army to keep his power. The king will decide which course our lives will follow, based upon his needs, not ours, and not our desires. Self determination will be a thing of the past, as will our ability to follow our own dreams. We will keep the amount of our wealth, or our possessions, which the king does not want for himself and his favorites, leaving us the least desirable portion.

Our freedom will be gone.

But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

“We still don’t hear you, Samuel. Did you say something? Look at how green the grass is in Sweden. Look at how powerful Russia is. Did you see all of the money those Saudis are flashing around? We want a king to give us comfortable surroundings We want a king to fight our battles for us. We want a king to make us rich.

We want a king!

When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

Then Samuel said to the men of Israel, “Everyone go back to his town.”

Most of us know what happened after this. The Israelites got their king, and although they had some good times, for the most part their kings were detrimental to their wealth, their security, and their freedom, eventually leading to their downfall, their exile, and eventually the holocaust.

Up until this point I bet you thought that I was alluding to a particular candidate and what may lay in our future. Maybe just a little.

I am not referring to a possible future. This has already happened to us. We asked for a king, and we received what we wanted, except in the form of a myriad of little kings instead of one big one.

We used to have unlimited freedom of life, liberty, and property. Now, our little kings control our healthcare, our travel, much of our wealth. We own property only if we pay the kings their taxes. We think that this is the way it is supposed to be. We have forgotten what it was like prior to the arrival of the little kings.

What will we do next? Are we brave enough to expel the little kings and return government to its place as a servant, exerting the daily effort ourselves to ensure our freedom and our lost greatness by maintaining control of our own destinies as the founders hoped we would?

Or will we ask for yet more powerful kings, hoping they will do this for us, and go back to our blissfully ignorant life of chasing our momentary desires?

The little kings of socialism, the little kings of the status quo, the big king of fascism, none of these will look out for us, they will all look out for themselves.

If we are brave enough, and find the determination, ambition, and resolve, we can restore the Constitution and the rule of law, becoming free again in the process. If not, we will soon cease to be subjects of the government and become slaves to it.


US Constitution vs Progressive Governance Doctrine – Minneapolis Independent | Examiner.com

US Constitution vs Progressive Governance Doctrine – Minneapolis Independent | Examiner.com.

I found the above article a short time ago, and believe that it is one of the better articles out there highlighting the difference between progressives and…

View Post

Politicians and Guilt.

In the news this week is the developing “circus” surrounding the exploits of Mayor Rob Ford. It has been reported that he has admitted to using illegal drugs, among other things.

Setting aside the “reality show” type reporting of these events, we find that this situation boils down to only one question. What, if any, sanctions should be assessed in this case, and should the job performance and popularity of this man be taken into account?

Some are saying that these drugs should not be illegal in the first place, and therefore the law which Mayor Ford violated was unjust. This, indeed, may well be a valid point, but it is currently only an opinion, as the law does exist, and the executives in government are supposedly required to enforce it until such time as it is repealed.

The Mayor’s own brother made the argument that, in essence, nobody should seek to punish the Mayor, as all people are guilty of wrongdoing at some point in their lives, and only a person free of guilt should be allowed to ask for sanctions. If we accept this as a guideline for society, then we must discard all laws and the attempts to enforce them, because none of us are totally free from guilt, and, therefore, there is no one in existence capable of justly accusing another of wrongdoing, or of enforcing a law.

Another common argument used in support of the Mayor is the premise that what a person does in their private lives should not be used as a reason to discipline someone at their job. This is a very strong point, and in most cases should be stringently applied. Failure to apply this principle in most jobs would certainly give employers the authority to direct their employees private lives arbitrarily, using loss of income as a means of coercion.

This last point, however, contains an exception. The accused in this circumstance is a mayor. As a mayor, he is the chief executive in the city, and the top officer in charge of law enforcement in his jurisdiction. Beyond being accused, he freely admitted to engaging in an illegal act, while not in a state of duress. This form of confession should reasonably be held on par with a conviction in a court.

Any public official tasked with the enforcement of laws should without question be expected to abide by those laws themselves, and voluntarily accept the sanctions in their own lives for failure to comply as they would require of anyone else. We can not hold the past against our officials, but they must be required without fail to abide fully with the laws that they are expected to enforce while in office. Failure to do so should be an indisputable reason for removal from office.

One remaining option is available to legitimately allow an official to remain in office in the face of an admitted violation of a law. This is in the case of an antiquated or unjust law which is enforced on NO ONE. The only viable argument which I can see for the failure to remove this mayor from his position would be if the city could demonstrate that it charges absolutely nobody with a crime for the violation of the law which Mayor Ford admittedly violated himself. If the city has cited anyone at all for violating this law, then Mayor Ford must step down or be removed from office, and be charged at a minimum with the average severity at which the ordinary person would be charged. Failure to hold politicians to this standard simply creates an elite class of politicians who rule with a double standard, with one set of rules for themselves and their friends, and another set for the rest of us.

In summation, the only way that Mayor Ford should be allowed to remain in office is in the event that he can conclusively demonstrate that the law which he admittedly violated has never, during his tenure, been enforced on any other individual in the jurisdiction for which he is responsible.

As a post script, to those who would seek to compare this situation to the events surrounding the impeachment of President Clinton, I present the following, significant, differences: President Clinton was accused of no violation of a law which would have been enforced on the average person, he was accused of lying to the American people, his employers. The people had the opportunity to sanction President Clinton for this, and chose not to. These two cases are not at all on the same level, and it is not rational or legitimate to use one to resolve the other.

Liberals and the New World Order.

elitism (Photo credit: Vaughan)

In today’s world, liberals are often viewed as big government types, and even socialists. The New World Order is seen as a conspiracy to force the world under one contiguous government.

Are these correct views, or are they intentional deceptions? Let’s take a look.

Until the late 19th century, liberals were generally the group of people who were primarily concerned with the freedom of the individual, while conservatives favored leaving most of the power in the hands of the state, where it had resided, for the most part, for centuries. The desire for freedom was on the rise at this time, and those who envisioned a powerful central state made up of the intelligent elite to control the stupid masses saw that their rise to power hinged on having the support of these same masses. Rather than being honest about their objectives, knowing that this approach would fail, they pretended to be freedom loving liberals fighting for the freedom of the masses. This tactic worked so well for them that today most people mistakenly identify liberals as socialists or something similar. As a result, the term classic liberal has had to be put into use to distinguish between the real liberal (classic liberal) and the false liberal (liberal or progressive). The propaganda of these false liberals, the power hungry elitists, has been so amazingly successful that their supporters still believe that following them is the path to freedom. The truth is that it is the path to a modern version of serfdom.

A similar thing happened to the phrase “A New World Order.” This phrase was coined to celebrate the modern birth of the republic as a replacement for the monarchies which were so prevalent at the time. This idea was closely associated with what we now call classic liberalism, not much different than modern libertarianism in many regards. The same type of elitist which had co-opted the term “liberal” also hijacked the phrase “new world order.” This hijacking, though, has become much more complex over time.

The elitists were aware that as long as there exists in the world an area which embraces freedom for the individual, central authority will fail. This version of the new world order involves the expansion of the central authority across the whole world to eliminate the existence of freedom and the danger that the subjects of the elite states would see and desire that freedom.

The other way that the phrase is used is also a construct of the elitists who wish to control the masses. In much the same way as the definition of liberal was changed, they assigned the phrase “a new world order” to a mysterious group of powerful subversive who were said to be opposed to the ideal (the false ideal) of the freedoms promised by the elite. By this means, they could scapegoat any who were opposed to their agenda. This was so successful that today those who actually are opposed to the elitists have begun using this phrase to point at each other and at groups which in reality do not even exist, all the while not realizing that they are being fed much of their information by the elusive elitists themselves.

Sun-tzu said, “one who knows the enemy and knows himself will not be endangered in a hundred engagements. One who does not know the enemy but knows himself will sometimes be victorious, sometimes meet with defeat. One who knows neither the enemy or himself will invariably be defeated in every engagement.” This concept applies to us as well. In the politics of freedom, we must identify those who oppose freedom and liberty, no matter how deeply they seek to conceal themselves. The lies and deceptions are created by brilliant people who are incredibly adept at misdirection and disinformation, so we can not afford to accept anything at face value anymore, we must research everything for ourselves to find the truth.

Do not accept anything in accordance with the attached label, look deeper to the hidden intention.

As a post script, I feel that it is a good reminder that the phrase on the reverse of the Seal of the United States, “novus ordo seclorum,” is not correctly translated as “new world order,” but rather as “new order of the ages.”


The Mob Rules. The Individual Is Devoured. Maybe.

The Gadsden flag and the Gold-black flag.
The Gadsden flag and the Gold-black flag. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A criticism of democracy? No, I’m afraid that this is much deeper than that. It is a statement of human nature.

Although there are abundant examples of strong, self-reliant individuals to be seen, that is not the norm. The majority of people are not self-reliant at all. Even if we do not require the presence of another person, we require either the products they produce or the interaction they provide. We are social animals who have trouble supplying our own needs without great help.

In the early days of humans, when there were far fewer people, less capable tools, and far greater risk, those strong individuals who also provided for the good of the society in which they lived were revered as heroes and leaders. Today, we have such a comfortable life that few of us live in a state of risk on a regular basis, and our lives are so full of conveniences that not only do we not need to fight for our survival on a daily basis, but we are so busy minding our conveniences that we do not have the time or inclination to tend to our necessities personally. Yes, our very necessities we have relegated to others, whom we ostensibly trust with our very survival.

Trust with evidence is logical, but without evidence it must rely on emotion. Since we have a need to fit into a group to compensate for the difficulty meeting our needs on solely our own merits, and since we are so busy with conveniences, we tend to rapidly and with little thought identify with the group that most nearly reflects our own opinions, our own feelings, and give that decision only a minimal rational examination.

As technology and industrialization increases, this tendency also increases. The group with which we choose to identify becomes supreme to our own ability to survive as individuals, and as long as the group continues to provide for our needs, why would we want to disassociate ourselves from that group? After all, it’s working for our survival, isn’t it? But that’s the catch. If we become such individuals that we threaten the goals of the group, we become a threat to the group and must be dealt with in such a way so as to ensure the status quo of the remainder of the group. We then become outcasts and criminals.

This is true to some degree in any kind of group. Nations, ethnic groups, religions, political parties, it does not matter. Once we subvert our individual identity to become a member of the group, we lose much of our individual rights in favor of the rights of the group.

In religion, since we can not be bothered to spend the time in study and reflection ourselves, we subvert ourselves to priest, pastors, imams, and other holy men.

In a national setting, we are so busy with our day to day activities that it seems beneficial to us to allow a seemingly wise ruler or set of rulers the power to deal with the choices that must be made for us outside of our private little bubbles so that we are not burdened with the task of participating in these decisions directly.

In politics, it is the same. Most of us do not have the inclination or the sense of responsibility to accept the inconvenience of educating ourselves and participating more than cursorily in decisions which are to be made, so we label ourselves as Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, or something else, then allow the leadership of our selected group the authority to not only make the decisions for us, but to tell us what we should believe. We have given these leaders authority to see to our very survival rather than reserving that authority to ourselves, all because it is easier to believe what we are told by our selected leaders than to devote the time and effort to make our own rational determinations.

We have become what many call sheeple. Rather than follow our own rational and beneficial path, we would prefer to have the leaders of the group tell us where to place our feet. We no longer stand for what we believe, we stand for what the group tells us to believe. This has brought us to the point where the individual is no longer revered, but looked upon as a threat to the group, and treated as such by many members of the group.

If you are to buck the leaders of your religion, you may well be punished by one of various methods such as excommunication, shunning, stoning or beheading.

If you buck the leaders of your nation, you may be jailed or executed for serious offenses, and receive some other form of punishment for smaller offenses.

If you oppose the positions of your political party, even if it is an informal one, you will likely be slandered and denigrated in such a way that you will be unable to succeed in your opposition (unless, of course, you join a more powerful group).

And so the mob rules. Even if it is well disguised, the mob still rules. It is fine to say that a group is acceptable if it uses no coercion, but looking deeper we find that society itself coerces us all to select a group to join. The only way to escape the negative ramifications of this societal coercion is to intentionally join a group that refuses to subvert the rights of an individual to the rights of the group, and then to vigorously promote that group with the goal of including enough members to give that group enough staying power to survive the onslaughts of the mob of individually subversive groups.

The continuing challenge is to ensure that the members of your group all continue to hold each other, especially those with the most influence, to the tenet that the individual is supreme, and the group can not be allowed to violate the rights of any individual simply for the greater good.

Unfortunately, we must also bear in mind that some groups, notably nations, have co-opted so much power that they can select their own members, and like it or not, we are members of one or more of these groups by default. This is the end result of allowing group rights to have precedence over individual rights. A nation can be called a group grown to maturity. This is where all groups will end up without proper supervision by the members of that group, any time that group survives to maturity without being required to subvert itself to the rights of the individual consistently from start to finish. Allow the group the single opportunity to trump the individual and a monster is born.

May we all come to the point in our reflections that not only can we join with all other individuals who believe that we can work together, as a group of individuals, to maintain our individual rights, and at the same time seek to educate as many as we can to this philosophy and encourage them to join with us.