December 27, 2009

Looking forward by looking back



On June 4, 2003, I wrote:
It starts like this, I suppose. A blank page waiting to be filled with mild musings, wild flights of fancy, and everything in between.

People start blogs for any number of reasons, some rational, some not. The last couple of years millions of people have started up a blog with the firm conviction that if they could just find the right tone, they could become rich without ever leaving the comfort of their livingroom. That is not why I started mine.

Back in 2003 I was a very active member of an online writing community called, "stories.com". I wrote then for the same reason I write now, I cannot do anything else. Like an addict returning to their poison of choice, if I go more than a few days without writing down my thoughts I start to twitch, my brain gets foggy, and my personality shifts into a dark territory frequented by Mr. Hyde who for his part sometimes seems to be my very close cousin. When I do take the time write, my thoughts become more coherent, my mood brightens, and the world around me breathes a sigh of relief. As long as I find time to write, I'm a pretty nice guy and people enjoy having me around.

Mostly.

This is post 134 for the year 2009. That is important because it turns out that I also wrote 134 posts during the period from June 4, 2003 to December 25, 2008. This year has been so difficult for me emotionally and spiritually that I have been forced to feed my addiction as often in 12 months as I did in the five and a half years that came before. So what happened in 2009 that made it such a tumultuous year for me?

For starters, my sons reached a point where they no longer needed my constant attention. Finally given time to pause, I lifted my head and I looked at the world around me only to discover I no longer recognized it. Call me overly dramatic if you like, but a dark evil has descended on modern America, and no, I do not mean the color of President Obama's mulatto skin.

On January 1, 2009, as I contemplated the year ahead, I wrote this:
The last fifty years has seen the United States of America moving steadily and irresolutely into slavery to selfish passions. Once we are enslaved to our own passions, we will need a dictatorial, oppressive government to prevent us from destroying one another utterly and completely. The kind of "change" Barack Obama has promised to bring us cannot come from the Oval Office. No matter how hard he tries, Obama cannot save us from ourselves. The only person who can save us from ourselves is Jesus Christ.

You know what the most annoying aspect of the prophecy game is? It's this, when you try to prophesy, you fail and then when you speculate mindlessly, sometimes you wind up prophesying. From the moment I saw the plane hit the second tower on 9/11, I knew in the depths of my heart that the only person who would truly profit from this event would be President George W. Bush. After he passed the Patriot Act I woke up everyday wondering if today would be the day he declared Martial Law and disbanded Congress. He had many opportunities, but he never followed through on the groundwork he laid with that one act. To my dying day I will never understand why. Every decision he made, every executive order he signed, laid one more brick on the crypt of American freedom but he never bothered to hang the door.

And then Barack Obama came along promising change and I felt so relieved I was almost giddy.

Then Barack Obama became President Barack Obama and only one month later I was beginning to see unmistakable evidence of rampant collectivism in his czars, his executive orders, and his international posturings. Within a single month I went from an enthusiastic fan to a suspicious critic. And now, as 2009 draws to a close and Bush's foundation not only remains in place but has been dramatically strengthened, I wake up every morning wondering if today will be the day that President Barack Obama declares Martial Law and disbands Congress.

If the current House and Senate bills are successfully joined and healthcare reform as envisioned by the current administration passes, America will have become a dictatorship in all but name. Next will come "social justice" regulations intended to create a "happier, healthier society" and "corporate honesty regulations" intended to prevent any company in America from dismissing unqualified, unwilling, apathetic workers, "who really need their jobs". By the end of 2010 there will be so much internal chaos that it would take a supreme act of conscience and ethics for President Obama not to resort to martial law in an effort to restore order. Personally, I don't believe he has the ethical fortitude to let the system unwind on its own.

To my mind the only question that remains is if the past six years have been a clear demonstration of complete and utter incompetence in American politicians or if all of this is some kind of master plan fully intended to destroy the current Constitutional Republic (or what remains of it) in order to erect something new.

I wish I could believe it was incompetence. I really do. Sadly, I still have enough respect for American politicians to believe that someone, somewhere knows exactly what they are doing. I do not know who the puppetmaster is, it might even be President Obama himself, but the coherency of their actions and the consistency of the result clearly demonstrates that nothing this administration has implemented has been accidental or incompetent. Someone is taking apart the Constitution line by line and they are so convinced of their own invulnerability that they are doing it right in front of us.

There is a major election next November. There is one last chance for the American people to remind everyone in Washington that this is our country, we are in charge, their job is to represent our wishes, and not to impose their own utopian vision of what our nation should be.

268 posts in six and half years, half of those in the past year alone. Yes, I'm scared. I know that ultimately everything unfolds according to God's plan, but given the choice, I would much rather redeem America than watch it collapse.

The only problem is I'm pretty sure my personal choice has nothing to do with it.


December 25, 2009

Holy Days and holidays




It is five o'clock on Christmas morning and I am not feeling very merry. I pray Christmas is being enjoyed in your house, wherever that might be.

About 2500 years ago the Great King of Assyria, Sumer, and Akkad released two groups of people six months apart with orders to return to their homeland and rebuild their national temple. The first group drove off native herdsman who had begun using the ruined temple site as summer pasture, retrieved the corner stones and lintel blocks, and laid the foundation for the most southern wall. The native herdsman, helped by the soldiers of a local king, raided the building site and suffered a humiliating defeat. Shortly after the battle the second group arrived.

The local king sent a emissary to the Great King of Assyria, Sumer, and Akkad claiming the people rebuilding the temple where in fact, fortifying the site with the intention of rebelling against their patron king and re-establishing an ancient, evil kingdom that had wrecked great havoc in the land, forcing the father of the current Great King to launch the original invasion that had destroyed the temple in the first place.

In response, the Great King of Assyria, Sumer, and Akkad sent more money, additional building materials, and a third group of people.

And so it was that the Second Temple was built and the Kingdom of Israel re-established in the area of Jerusalem. The stories of Ezekiel and Nehemiah both preserved this event for two thousand years after the rest of the world had forgotten it ever took place. It was not until the discovery of the palace of Cyrus in the mid-nineteenth century that the biblical "myth" was proven to have been a real, genuine, verifiable historic fact. Which is ironic when you consider that for Jews and Christians alike there was never any doubt about how the Temple of Jesus' time had come to built upon the ruins of the much larger, much grander temple originally built by Solomon.

Christmas is much more than a religious holiday. True, down through the years it has taken on the trappings of paganism, commercialism, and fictional speculation, but none of that changes the simple reality of Christmas. This holy day is the celebration of God, the Creator of the Universe, taking on the limitations of humanity in order to speak to us directly. He was forced to take this step because for three thousand years our civilizations had grown less and less humane until we had reached a point where civil liberties were the privilege of a small wealthy elite while the majority of people spent their entire lives producing the food, buildings, furnishings, and other luxuries this wealthy elite "needed" to survive.

It took three hundred years for his message to be heard. And once it was heard, once the wealthy elite accepted the message of the carpenter's son, it took less than a generation for the message to become so perverted that it became the justification for the existence of the wealthy elite rather than the condemnation of their privileged status.

God Almighty walked among us. He did not walk as a king, prince, general, or merchant. He wore coarse wool and linen and surrounded himself with prostitutes, tax collectors, and poor fisherman. He did this intentionally. He chose his mother, chose his father, chose the city of his birth, announced everything well ahead of time, and appeared right on schedule.

In response we tortured him, nailed him to a wooden cross, and left him to die in the heat of the Judean high desert.

Our need to preserve the status quo was so strong that we ignored him for another three hundred years, but the poor people of the world remembered. His story was preserved by farmers, soldiers, fisherman, craftspeople, housewives, prostitutes, and wandering beggers.

And now, once again, we find ourselves in a world driven by greed and ambition. For a little while, from 1776 to about 1910, a ray of sunshine as strong as the Jewish people rebuilding their temple shone upon the world and reminded it that there was a higher calling. The United States of America, a country founded by merchants, farmers, craftspeople, and wild mountainmen, grew to be a stong guiding light of moral and ethical certainty. We demonstrated with the undeniable strength of economic and political success that a nation can be built on the foundation of common people who are allowed to keep the rewards of their labor. We became the wealth that drove the entire global economy, the ethics that dictated global ideals, and the military power that kept the machine rolling.

Communism nearly destroyed us but we proved the superiority of honest, free-market capitalism by driving the communists into bankruptcy.

Now, once again, the world sits at a crisis point. Those who believe in a single economic elite piloting a world ship dedicated to the preservation of an economic underclass that they can exploit for labor, food, and sexual favors have once again risen to the helm. This did not happen overnight, nor did it happen in a complete vacuum. It took a full century for the elitists and collectivists to regain economic and political control of the world. Sadly, the rest of us helped them along in countless ways. By insisting on cheap products instead of products made by ethical companies, by voting for politicians who passed out government funds to their friends and families, and by preferring a self-indulgent lifestyle of endless parties to a life of hard work and honest toil, we gave these people our stamp of approval and put them back in power.

The bills have come due. Our failure to practice good oversight of local and national politicians, our greed, our assuming that government tills were bottomless and open to all, has brought us to the cliff edge of national collapse. It is too late to stop the party now. We are headed over the edge. We are in a state of full ruination. Next year, perhaps the year after, the United States of America will die. Whatever replaces it might use the same name, but it will not be the same nation.

Remember, The Great King of Assyria, Sumer, and Akkad ruled none of those nations. He ruled everything from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean, but his servants chose his daily clothes, his wives dictated who came to his chambers seeking pregnancy, his cabinet told him how to run his country, and his generals decided which battles to fight and which to ignore. The one thing he could do, he did do. He gained permission from his local priesthood to send captured peoples from a dozen surrounding countries back to their native lands to rebuild their home temples and shrines. One of those people were the ancient Jews. Even in this, he was almost denied. It was only after he convinced the local priests that having additional gods and goddesses looking out for the welfare of the nation would not reduce their political power that the local priests agreed to his request.

This is the kind of society the elitists want to build. They crave a captive prince with absolute power who they can control, and through that control, exploit the people and resources of the entire world. The next two years is our last chance to prevent them. This Christmas, like the Jews who accompanied Ezekiel and Nehemiah during the first Passover back in their parent's homeland, I am keeping my weapons close at hand and celebrating with one eye on the horizon.

My "weapons" are not guns and knives, and the "horizon" extends all the way around the globe. I am not saying that civil war is upon us. The war has already been lost. The economic elite have placed their puppets in power and over the next two years those puppets will cobble together a global political system that will enslave you and I. They will do this by promising peace, prosperity, and freedom. Their Christmas present to you is a gilded cage. My Christmas present to you is a key to unlock it.

Will you take the key or will you accept the cage?


December 23, 2009

Inherent rights




I have something to say and I don't want to use my Christmas post to say it, so I am going to say it now.

Rights are inherent. You can call them, "unalienable". You can call them, "god-given". You can even call them, "natural". Every label is irrelevant. In the same manner as the rose and duck, rights exist irrespective of any human attempt to define them. If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it or see it, the tree has still fallen. Rights exist irrespective of culture, conditioning, education, or ability.

1> You have the right to life.
2> You have the right to ownership.
3> You have the right to defend your life and the things you own.

No one can take these rights away from you. They can punish you for exercising them. They can legislate against them. They can kill you when you stand up to lay claim to them. None of that changes anything. You cannot give these rights away. They are a part and parcel of being human. They are yours from the moment of conception until the moment of death.

Here is the key: you and you alone are responsible for protecting and preserving those rights. Before you can protect them, you must learn the difference between a right, a freedom, and a privilege.

A right: You have the right to life.
A freedom: You deserve the freedom to live your life according to your own values.
A privilege: If you live in a modern, industrialized society based on democratic principles, then you have the privilege of participating in the processes that assist you in defending your rights.

These are not the same. No one can change your right to life. They can limit it, they can kill you, or they can ignore you, but they cannot change the simple fact that if you are alive, you have the right to live. If they do limit your life, or take your life, then they have violated the most fundamental of all inherent rights. This and this alone is why abortion is such a controversy. The unborn child has the right to live, but under current laws the mother has the right to kill her unborn child. Why? Because the mother also has the right to her life and the freedom to live her life as she chooses, therefore, the law has decided that the mother's right to determine her own destiny is, for the moment, greater than the child's right to life.

No. I do not agree with the law. However, it is the law. As long as it remains the law, I will not attempt to force a woman to give birth to a child she does not want. In any conflict of rights the law and prevailing culture must determine priorities. Also, the society in question must have the right to negotiate those priorities in a way that preserves the rights of the majority. Sadly, unborn children will never be a majority and will never have the opportunity to participate in the negotiation. This is a simple reality that we all must accept if we are going to have a reasonable negotiation about whether we will keep the current culture or exchange it for something new.

You have the right to own. That includes land, possessions, resources, and the products of your labor. You have every right to own the things you work for, and no right to anything not earned by your own labor and creativity. If you have the ability to buy land, then you have the right to own private property and to use that property how you see fit up until your use of that land infringes on your neighbor's enjoyment of their private property. Environmental laws, fair-use laws, zoning laws, deed restrictions, and so on, are designed to preserve the rights of your neighbors. When those laws conflict with your intended use, you have the right to negotiate changes. Not to secure changes, but to negotiate changes. It is always possible you will lose the negotiation.

Because you have the right to life and the right to ownership, you also have the right to defend both. After all, neither right is worth anything without the third. The greatest problem, the crisis our world is now facing, is the existence of a culture of elitism which has decided you possess none of these rights. To their way of thinking, you have no rights at all because in their minds, you are not human!

Do you understand this? Behind cap and trade, behind healthcare reform, behind gun and knife control laws, behind laws preserving the rights of criminals over and above the rights of their victims, lies the assumption that you are not human, therefore, you do not have the same rights as the elite. These people honestly believe that because you do not have their education, their wealth, their family history, or their position in society, you are not human.

There is only one person who can change their perception and that person is you.

If you accept the enslavement they are offering you through welfare, nationalized healthcare, nationalized pension plans, union membership, lifetime employment, and so on, then you are reinforcing their perception that you are not human and not in possession of the same inherent rights that they themselves possess.

Fortunately, you can change their perception. However, to do so you will have to make some sacrifices. For starters, you will have to stop watching television and start improving your skills. Find a local community college and take some classes. Find a local technical school and acquire a skill. Take correspondence courses. Stop entertaining yourself and start educating yourself. Dedicate your life to self-improvement and through that self-improvement, demonstrate once and for all that you are unwilling to accept the elitist classification of yourself as something less than human.

As long as you are willing to passively accept their perception, their perception will remain. As long as their perception remains, they will work tirelessly to restrict or remove your inherent rights to life, ownership, and self-defense.

The problem with liberty is that if you have the freedom to succeed, you must also have the freedom to fail. The problem with giving up the freedom to fail is that in order to do so you must also sacrifice the freedom to succeed. Like time and space, liberty and success are co-existent and independent. You must have liberty in order to define success just as you must have time in order to define space. Every loss of liberty limits success, just as loss of time limits perceivable space.

In order to succeed you must fight to preserve your liberty. In order to defend your liberty, you must understand exactly what it is you are defending. Life, ownership, self-defense. These are the core issues. If we sacrifice them, we become slaves.


December 18, 2009

Cameron's "Avatar"




An interstellar mining consortium is seeking to harvest an extremely valuable mineral from a moon circling a distant planet. The moon is named, "Pandora", and it is the home to a race of blue humanoids roughly twice the size of you and I. A botanist is with the mining crew, along with a sizable detachment of heavily armed mercenaries. All this is old territory. Science fiction has dealt in this theme, and in these icons, ever since the middle of the nineteenth century when H.G. Wells divided the future Earth between a peaceful surface race and a violent subterranean one. The one new idea brought to the table is the self-aware Gaia-world which allows the planet itself to take an active and decisive role in the final confrontation.

But don't let that stop you from seeing the movie. It is visually stunning, emotionally stirring, and intellectually captivating. The Na'vi are more simian, more violent, and more realistic than their archetype demands, and the greedy corporate raider who commands the mining company outpost is more compassionate, and more trapped between what he must do and what he wants to do, than his archetype is normally allowed to be. All told, this is the most human approach to the problem of exploitation versus preservation that science fiction has ever presented us. This is Heinlein territory, or perhaps Asimov. "Avatar" has the potential to transform the genre in ways we have not seen since the days of post WWII pulp magazines.

It is not, however, the most humane, and that troubles me.

Art creates reality in the same way that reality creates art. The two are locked in a dance of give and take that has been with us since the beginning of self-awareness some 250,000 years ago. "Avatar" is the latest in a long string of stylized cave paintings that reveals our inner world in a consciously vain and narcissistic effort to manipulate the external world. Once again humanity is positioned as the center of creation and when two different human cultures meet, the result is as bloody and violent as ever. I am left heartbroken not at the destruction and death such meetings always produce, but at our own inability to move beyond seeing our individual self as the center of a vast web of interlinked networks whose sole purpose is feeding the ego.

Communism failed, and failed badly. The Soviet Union collapsed under its own weight and China had to take on capitalist economics in order to survive. The people of both Myanmar and North Korea are starving, dressed in rags, and forced to live under the iron hand of a dictator who sees the natural resources of their respective country as his own personal possession. Zimbabwe and Somalia have now joined them, while the rest of Africa struggles to move forward against such widespread corruption that each country defines its neighbor according to the level of graft in daily life. South America is little better, and our "advanced Western society" daily sinks closer to the same depths of corruption and poverty.

"Avatar", after four years of production, is released during the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. This is no accident. Idealism and utopianism still view capitalists as evil and glorify the settled hunter-gather lifestyle as living in perfect harmony with nature rather than as the desperate struggle for survival it really is. James Cameron is going to make a fortune off of this movie and is going to use that fortune to reinforce his own luxurious lifestyle. Radical global warming activists riot in the streets of Copenhagen then return to well-heated, well-lit, well-connected homes that only exist because natural resources have been exploited to build them and are continually exploited to maintain a pleasant warm cocoon against the worst blizzard Copenhagen has seen in decades.

There is no golden past for humanity to return to. The gates of Eden are permanently blocked by the flaming swords of the cherubim. We can only move forward and the only way for us to move forward is to stop viewing our physical and spiritual needs as being locked in competition. We need both the food, warmth, water, and sex that keeps our species alive and the emotional communion of family, friends, and society that keeps us sane. The two cannot be separated and as long as we continue to view them as combatants we will continue to destroy everyone who opposes our desperate struggle to get those needs met.

Our only hope, the only way our children and grandchildren will reach the stars and survive the collapse of our sun, is if we learn to cooperate. The advantage of free market capitalism over communal sharing of resources is that it provides a clear incentive to find that cooperation, reach that balance of exploitation versus preservation, and allow us each the luxury of free time to spend with our friends and families.

The only way for the benefits of a future space-faring commerce to blend seamlessly with the needs of an alien race of hunter-gathers is for us, before we ever leave this planet, to learn to live together. If we cannot live together, then the vision of "Avatar" will never be realized for one reason and one reason only: humanity will self-destruct.

The one thing the climate change alarmists do have right is that our time is limited. We are on a clock, a clock that will not stop counting down no matter what technology we develop to sustain ourselves. It is a matter of billions of years rather than decades, but the clock is still very real, and the outcome very final. Global warming is only one minor symptom. It is not the problem. The real problem is that everything changes, including the sun, including the earth, including our view of ourselves. There is no utopian past, and there is no utopian future. The time has come to wake up from our daydream and work together. Not because of some collective need for peace and tranquility, but because the longer we dwell in narcissistic hypocrisy the closer we come to the day our sun goes nova.

It's not about environmental preservation versus capitalist exploitation. It's about a finite pool of natural resources and a very real cataclysmic end that could occur in as little as a few million generations. One day the world will end and if we have not freed ourselves from the bonds of this Earth then humanity will end with it.


December 16, 2009

A declaration of war against you




Update, 12/17/09:

According to several sources, including "The Hill", the story that someone in the administration had threatened to close Offut Air Force Base is nothing more than a baseless rumor intentionally started by an unnamed staff worker. To quote The Hill, "Nelson said he knows the source of that rumor, suggesting that Republicans would be red-faced if details of the source of the rumor came out."

Alright, since the "source" in the original story was unnamed, I suppose it is only fair to give equal credence to Senator Ben Nelson himself, the alleged object of the original threat. I hope the good Senator is being truthful, for all our sakes.

-----------------------------------------
Original post from 12/16/09:

There are three military bases the United States defense cannot operate without: Offut Air Force Base, Cheyenne Mountain, and Langley Air Force Base. Defense of the continental United States depends upon the ability to move intelligence and battlefield information between these three bases. Systems are in place to allow the loss of one of the three in time of war, provided the internal population (you and I) has not been subverted and provided the integrity of the Canadian and Mexican borders is intact. Should the population rebel, or the borders be breeched, command and control shifts immediately to NORTHCOM, based at Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs.

Are you with me here? The only reason in time of war that command and control shifts to Peterson Air Force Base is if the borders have been violated and the battle front is now located inside the forty-eight continental United States. So when I find this, "Whitehouse Threatens to Close Offut Air Force Base" only a few days after I stumble across this, "Obama Orders Troops to Prepare for Civil War", I get very worried.

In truth, I dismissed the EU Times article the day I read it. I did post it on Facebook and send it to my mailing list, but not because I felt it was credible. I only made people aware of it because I felt it presented an interesting scenario, not a realistic one. However, when a few days later Pres. Obama's administration threatens to close one of the three most important bases for dealing with external threats, a move which would by definition automatically shift strategic command to the base responsible for an internal threat, then I have to ask what the hell is going on at the Whitehouse?

The closure of Offut Air Force Base, even just the ability to imagine it, is a direct and overt admittance that the only threat the current administration is concerned about is you and I! This is far more than an attempt to coerce a senator into supporting an unpopular bill. This is nothing less than a full declaration of war against an internal enemey, and since our borders have not been breeched, the only possible internal enemy is the people of the United States themselves!

In short, the Whitehouse has now officially declared war on you. What are you going to do about it?


December 11, 2009

At last, the great American novel!


Every now and again a novel comes along that defines a particular time and age far more accurately than any treatise on sociology or philosophy can ever achieve. This is the power of well-written fiction. Such a novel has the potential to show us a picture of ourselves far more realistic than any academic work can display. Good fiction reaches deep inside the hearts and minds of real people and reveals their deepest held secrets far more effectively than psychology.

Charles Dickens, for example, was a master of this. "Great Expectations", "A Christmas Carole", and "David Copperfield" reveal both the glory and the ignominy of the human condition at the cusp of the industrial age in England, especially in London.

On this side of the Atlantic, defining "the great American novel" has presented an enigma for many scholars. Earnest Hemingway comes close in many of his works while William Faulkner at his best hits just off-target, but both writers leave far too much unsaid about how their characters arrived at a given crisis. Even worse, they do not begin to touch on what makes Americans different from their European, African, and Asian cousins. They fail to define the qualities of American culture that make it supremely and unmistakably American. Theodore Dreiser hints at the unique qualities of the American dream, but never clarifies why that dream is any different than the impossible yearnings of a Chinese peasant farmer, an Ethiopian herdsman, or a Peruvian tribesman.

My favorite novel of all time, Robert Heinlein's "Glory Road", probably comes closer to describing the essential American character than any classic work of American literature. Caught up in an impossible scenario of exotic travels through space and time is a confused American veteran fresh out of Vietnam in an era when most Americans could not find Vietnam on a map. The character approaches each and every wildly exotic encounter with bravado, gusto, and a streak of insecurity that will not leave him no matter how great his successes. The only thing keeping this work off the list of classics is its impossible and speculative setting that crisscrosses the universe as casually as you and I cross the street.

This, then, is the heart of the matter: What is the "great American novel"? Is it even possible to write such a beast? How does one capture the diversity and dynamism of a class-based society that is essentially classless? How does one reveal the freedom and struggle of climbing the social ladder without resorting to cynicism and sociopathy? Can a simple human writer ever bring to the pages of a single novel both the horrible prejudices and overwhelming charity of a nation so diverse and so dynamic that scholars praise it, ridicule it, and endlessly describe it, but never, ever come close to defining it? Perhaps the greatest oxymoron of all time is the creation of an academic curriculum called, "American studies". How does one study a society with no kings, no princes, no dictators, and no nobility? Can we even call this beast a "civilization" at all, let alone write a story so revealing that Americans of all races, sub-cultures, and families will find themselves on the pages? Maybe not and maybe there has never been a "great American novel" for precisely this reason.

And no, Kerouac's "On the Road" does not qualify. Kerouac speaks for a single generation of spoiled, middle-class American youth who even to this day have failed to define their own sense of integrity and ethics. The most defining feature of Kerouac's generation is their abandonment of what it means to be American and their embracing of the ego-centric self-indulgence that has long characterized entrenched economic and social elites throughout history. They remain an anomaly and an aberration. They are not "American" except in birth. Their personal values reflect a distorted and perverse misinterpretation of European aristocracy and nothing more. Their failure to even attempt to understand the values of their society, a failure that is vividly and lovingly described by Kerouac, is the very same rot and decay that is right now destroying the greatest culture that has ever existed. America is dying because Kerouac's parasitic generation is killing it.

There is, however, a glimmer of hope. Someone has stepped up with a novel that hits at the very heart of what it means to be American. Whether your ancestors arrived here across the land bridge with Asia, in the worsted cloth of evangelicals seeking a Biblical utopia, shackled in the holds of Dutch slave ships, or as refugees from the brutal and fiery collapse of ancient societies throughout the world, the promise of emotional and spiritual redemption along with the surety of being able to profit directly from your own sense of enterprise is what makes you American. For now, and perhaps for only a short while in the future, this freedom to create your own definition of success is what makes you unique in all the world.

Americans are not Americans because they carry a blue passport or because they were born between Canada and Mexico. Americans are who they are because this is the one society that up to now has guaranteed that if you put forth your best effort and conduct your life on a foundation of honest integrity, you will succeed. This freedom is what we stand to lose. This promise is what Kerouac's generation seeks to deny us. This light in the midst of five thousand years of oppression is the hope so many of us are right now fighting to preserve against the encroachment of globalist scholars, industrialists, and politicians.

The novel is called, "Off-Road". It is written by Stephen E. Wright. If you want to see what America really stands for, if you want to understand exactly what it is that makes America unique, if you want to know why America is the greatest nation that has ever existed, then read this book. "Off-Road" captures the heart of what it means to be American in a way no novel before it has ever done. If the liberal progressive agenda cannot be reversed, then this novel will be the last glimpse we will ever have of what American freedom truly means.



December 09, 2009

This is not "progress"!




Christianity in Modern England (a video)

I am a Christian. I have been a Spirit-filled, Bible-believing, Charismatic, Faith-healing follower of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ for over three decades. If an atheist is allowed to deny God, a homosexual is allowed to defame God, and a Muslim nation is allowed to jail or execute Christians, then why is my faith suddenly regarded as "hatred"? This is not "progress"!

The globalists have made great strides in England. Watch carefully events unfolding in that ancient and revered land. England is the "utopia" the globalists are trying to bring. If England is such a great place to live after the implementation of so many "progressive" ideals, then why are so many people angry, disenfranchised, and depressed? Suicide rates are climbing, violence is more commonplace than it was during the Anglo-Saxon wars. Is this really the utopia the progressive agenda promises to bring the rest of us?

Open expression of personal beliefs is not hatred. I believe homosexuality is a perversion, a crime against nature and against God. I do not hate homosexual people. Some of them are wonderful leaders, many of them have been my friends. I neither condone nor embrace their lifestyle, but that does not stop me from treating them with the same respect, dignity, and humanity that I treat everyone.

Christianity is not the enemy of homosexuality. Christianity is not the enemy of progress. Christianity has been the source of progress for the western world for two thousand years. Christianity can continue to lead the way toward a more humane, dignified, and loving society. The globalist agenda of liberal progressivism based on Marxist ideals of godless rationalism that put the individual at the century of creation is not real. It is a mask covering an elitist program to put control of the world's resources in the hands of a mere 5% of the world's population.

Liberal progressivism is not progress. It is aristocratic fascism disguised as rational humanism. It will bring oppression, massive die-offs, enslavement of the majority of the world's population, and a global legal system that condemns 95% of the world's population to a life of small-scale, peasant farming. Is this really the future you want for your children and grandchildren?

When the Rainbow Coalition and its many Marxist brethren talk of a better future for our children, it is very important to remember that homosexuality cannot produce children. When Islamic extremists speak of a more sane, ordered society, it is important to remember that their women are kept like animals and treated like furniture. When global warming fanatics speak of the danger of carbon dioxide, it important to remember that without carbon dioxide our world would be a desert.

These people do not want progress at all. They want to transform you and your children into peasant farmers that they will be free to exploit for slave labor, sexual favors, and cannon fodder.


December 07, 2009

Reality is not a box of chocolates




It is very fashionable in today's world to blame someone else for your problems. If you're a blue collar worker you blame management. If you're a manager you blame labor. Those who work on Wall Street blame the consumer, while the consumer rails against "greedy Wall Street bankers". Democrats blame Republicans for stalling healthcare reform and in a perfect tit-for-tat, Republicans accuse the Democrats of trying to impose socialism. The beneficiaries of our liberal progressive education system accuse big business of destroying the earth, while business leaders accuse the government of over-regulation and excessive taxation.

There certainly is a lot of blame to go around, isn't there? Personally, I blame myself. Over the past three decades I have been too busy raising children, comforting my workaholic wife, and feeding the cat to do much of anything else. I haven't had a job in over a decade, and I cannot remember the last time I filed a tax return. The last time I voted in a major election Ronald Reagan was re-elected to the presidency (and yes, I did vote for him). Now, after two and a half decades in Japan, I'm setting up house in a small county seat in Ohio. I'm plugged back into the local political scene (but just barely), I've bought my first guns, and I'm on a first-name basis with the local bartender. Two letters to the editor were printed in my name, and one of them earned a vitriolic response from someone who disagreed with me.

So last week when I had a chance to attend a small reception at the home of a local resident who is one of three people running for the local seat in the House of Representatives (which happens to be the 16th District), I jumped at it. I've met two of the three and even though what I've seen of the third does not impress me, I'd still like the opportunity to shake his hand and hit him with my usual barrage of tough questions. The important thing today, however, is the reception.

The house of the candidate who hosted the reception is in an upper class neighborhood in the county seat of the next county over. He and his wife both work, but neither one is a doctor, lawyer, banker, or other occupation likely to produce the kind of money needed to buy such a house. I honestly have no idea how they're making their monthly mortgage payment. For all I know the previous owner (who was a very successful local business owner) died and left the house to him in his will, in which case there is no mortgage payment. It is a beautiful house, exactly the kind of house you would expect a congressman to live in, and that's what bothers me.

Four rooms of the house were open to the guests of the reception, including the library. In the livingroom was a beautiful Christmas tree all done up in a white theme. Then I looked more closely. There were about a dozen ornaments on the tree with pictures of the Whitehouse (yes, that one, the one in Washington D.C. where the president lives). On a table near the tree was Sarah Palin's book, "Going Rogue". In the library were books of presidential memoirs, presidential thoughts, the scribblings of JFK, and a biography of Abraham Lincoln. Books on pop psychology stood next to Bibles, and a first edition "Little Women" kept intimate company with a collection of "Great Wartime Speeches". Beyond a single ancient title by Thomas L. Friedman, there were no books on economics. A "Dummies" guide to legal documents stood next to a reprint of Blackstone's, "Commentaries on the Laws of England", and of the two the "Dummies" guide was the only one showing any sign of use. Presidential portraits framed the library.

Okay, so he has ambition. This is America, after all, and at least in theory any citizen who has lived in the country for at least seventeen years and is at least thirty-five years old is free to run for the highest office in the land.

And on his official website, the candidate in question has this to say:

"This campaign is about freedom...freedom from excessive taxation, out-of-control government spending and job-killing government regulations.

The future belongs to those who recognize that prosperity has never been delivered by the heavy hands of government, but it is always created by men and women who understand the combined force of freedom, personal responsibility and hard work. Our economic prosperity depends on you and me, and our commitment to doing what we know is right."

I am not a psychologist. I am not a sociologist. I am an avid reader and although I have read many books on both psychology and sociology, I am not a trained professional. When I walk through a person's house I read the environment the same way I read a book. I am looking for clues to what this person believes and how far they are willing to go to defend that belief. I am also looking to see how much of their belief system is firmly grounded in the real world of hardworking laborers, managers, bankers, and craftspeople. A congressional representative stands for an entire constituency. That constituency includes people from all walks of life and every single one of them is entitled to equal representation. A congressional representative who only stands for gay rights, gun rights, healthcare, or even lower taxes is not truly representative of their district. If a person does not intimately understand both the richest and the poorest, then they will not be able to fairly represent either extreme, let alone the middle.

I came away from the cocktail party deeply impressed with his sincerity. I also came away deeply disappointed at his lack of depth. I am not a professional analyst of any kind, so many people will happily dismiss my opinion on what does and does not make a person an effective congressional representative. I have observed the system from the outside for over two decades and to me, it looks like the system is coming apart at the seams. Now that I am back in America, meeting people, visiting their houses, and discussing issues important to me as a voter, I am struck by something that has always bothered me about American culture. We have this tendency to glorify ignorance (Forest Gump) and greed (Gordon Gekko), while getting ourselves deeply worked up over irrelevancies (American Idol), then we turn around and ignore real problems (Fair Finance) affecting our friends and neighbors.

The time has come for all of us to stop blaming the rest of the world for our problems. When reality does not meet our expectations, then the problem is not reality and it is our expectations that must change. We must each individually ground our expectations in reality and then we must move forward to change circumstances around us in ways that will help serve everyone. I'm not saying individuals must sacrifice themselves for the common good, nor should the common good ever be sacrificed for the benefit of one individual or one group of individuals. What I am saying is that if we are going to fix this mess we find ourselves in (rising unemployment, impossible deficits at all levels of government, nighttime streets ruled by drug gangs), then we must first take responsibility for our own individual life and that responsibility starts with making an honest effort to come to a realistic understanding of the world around us.

In short, turn off American idol and spend some time reading books on history, economics, and law. Susan Boyle is not important. It does not matter how deeply she disturbed Simon Cowell, her voice will not help lower your taxes by passing the kind of healthcare reform we do need (H.R. 4038 and H.R. 4039), and her country charm will not prevent the Senate from enslaving us to China by passing the woefully misnamed "American Clean Energy and Security Act".

You and I must do our homework. We must also demand our representatives do their homework, and then we must hold them accountable for their mistakes. Our future depends on having competent people in Congress and we cannot achieve this if we are not competent ourselves.


December 01, 2009

Bah Humbug 2009




This morning at breakfast my sister asked my father what he would like for Christmas. My father began running down a long list of items he needed to keep his favorite hobby going, then a list of items he needed to do small handiman-type jobs around the house, then onto more expensive tools that would be nice to have but which he had no particular use for at this time. Today is also my father's birthday. He is 71 years old.

Somewhere along the line I lost sight of the magic of the holiday season. I don't ask for gifts anymore, haven't for at least a score of years. Since I am in America and will be here for the holiday season, I bought the members of my family Visa pre-paid debit cards with an amount large enough to buy themselves each a pretty nice present, or a dinner at a pretty good restaurant, or anything they felt they needed. If someone gives me a similar present I will thank them politely but it won't really give me the same thrill it gives others.

I guess the problem is I don't really need anything anymore. Once our new house is finished and I move in I'll be busy writing, doing landscaping, and so on. I'm looking forward to having a couple years on my own while my wife finishes up her business in Tokyo and our two boys get started on their adult lives. I suppose if someone gives me a Christmas present of items for the new house I'll be pleasantly surprised, but I don't feel any need to ask for anything. Given time I'm certain everything will work out just fine, even if the current world economy completely collapses. Anything I cannot buy I can find a way to make. Anything I can neither buy nor make, I can find a substitute for.

You see, I have spent twenty-five years in the middle of Tokyo. Being surrounded by crowds twenty-four hours a days, seven days a week, three hundred sixty-five days a year has soured my opinion of humanity. Watching tens of millions of people scrambling around looking for ways to destroy one another in order to rise to the top of the heap has left me unable to see any "magic" in humanity, let alone in the holidays they celebrate.

And now the Democratic Congress with the backing of a Democratic president is seeking to implement in America the same kind of self-destructive, totally delusional policies that have left a dozen major industrial powers around the world completely bankrupt. Where is the "compassion" in a government-run economy that destroys the motivation of its people? One of the reasons the Japanese people have become so cutthroat in their daily social lives is a deep-seated sense of entitlement that five decades of "social reform" have created in them. I do not want the United States to continue down this road and mimic their "success".

At the end of World War II, liberal-minded social reformers flooded into Japan, each of them utterly convinced that they now had the opportunity to engineer a perfect society. They instituted massive land and wealth redistribution programs, put in place the most comprehensive social welfare programs the world has ever seen, and implemented a mandatory national health insurance program which took wealth from everyone and gave them minimal healthcare in return.

The first thing that happened was massive hyperinflation. All through the fifties and sixties thte Japanese currency lost value, sometimes as much as 300% in one day. All those social welfare programs put so much money into so many hands that the currency could buy nothing. Social unrest ran rampant. Violence became more commonplace than it had been even during the worst periods of Japanese feudalism in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. They outlawed swords, guns, knives, any form of handheld weapon they could imagine, and still the violence spiraled out of control. Finally, they shifted enormous amounts of their national budget into a national police force so large and so extensive that in some neighborhoods there are police boxes every couple of blocks with two to four officers working around the clock.

This is what happens when you create a liberal utopia. Sooner or later you must institute a police state to control the violence. Where does this violence come from? It's simple really. When you provide food, clothing, housing, and healthcare, people have nothing left to work for. Instead, they start looking for ways to express their sense of isolation, their longing for constant love and attention, their need for social recognition. Once the basic needs are met, everyone needs to be regarded as a king. When they do not receive the homage they feel they are entitled to, they get angry.

In Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, once people fulfill biological needs they immediately begin seeking social needs. Social needs are no less desperate, no less painful, than biological needs. The only thing that can suppress any need at any level of the pyramid is either a conscious choice on behalf of the individual to learn to compensate for that need or the existence of an even greater need.

Liberal progressivism is human-centric, secular in nature, and completely focused on social justification of exploitative behavior by a more "enlightened" elite. The core idea of liberal progressivism is that the individual does not know what they need. The only people qualified to provide their needs are the social and economic elite of the political and social order. In the mind of a liberal progressive, the social elite (including but not limited to: actors, professional athletes, lawyers, social workers, bureaucrats and politicians) are "better" than the rest of society and therefore, these "leaders" are responsible for deciding how the rest of us should live. To their mind, their success in their chosen field, especially if that success came through destroying the competition, proves their "fitness" to lead, therefore, the rest of us "deserve" to be exploited.

It is important to note that concepts such as "left", "right", "conservative" and even "liberal", are meaningless. Liberal progressive elitists can claim to be any of these, or even all of them. The one factor that sets apart the liberal progressive is a sincere belief in their own natural superiority. They are elitist to the core. So deeply elitist, in fact, that they honestly believe themselves the humble servants of the rest of us even as they strip us of worldly possessions and force us into positions of subservience to them. If you feel you deserve to be treated better than someone else then you are a liberal progressive. No exceptions. If you feel entitled to ask for anything and everything under the sun in the name of a holiday, a social issue, a personal need, or a personal desire, then you have taken upon yourself an assumption of superiority to the person who you expect to provide that need.

You are entitled to nothing. I am entitled to nothing. No individual anywhere is entitled to anything. If a farmer works all summer to produce fifty thousand bushels of corn, the only person entitled to that corn is the farmer. It does not matter how hungry you are, how hungry the person you are championing is, or how desperate the family you represent is. The farmer planted the corn, tended the corn, took care of the land, harvested the crop, and laid the groundwork for next year. The only person entitled to a share of the farmer's crop is the farmer.

If you want to share in the farmer's crop then what you must do is work for the farmer. Help them plant. Help them harvest. Help them prepare the ground for next year. Help them maintain their buildings and equipment. Cook for them. Clean their barn. Whatever work the farmer tells you to do you must do, because the crop does not belong to you, it belongs to the farmer.

According to the liberal progressive, everyone is entitled to a share of the crop because the farmer must be a compassionate, understanding human being who is willing to share with people around him. If he is not, the people around him are entitled to use whatever violence is necessary to remove the farmer's crop and feed everyone else.

So when someone talks to me about "Christmas spirit" and the only thing they can do is talk about what someone wants or needs, then I say, "bah, humbug!"

If no one around you provides your needs then you alone are responsible for seeing them met. Somewhere along the line Christmas became a season of taking and not a season of giving. As long as people are so selfish, so self-centered, and so immune to the needs of others that the only thing they feel on Christmas morning is disappointment because they don't like the color of the sweater, the brand of the tennis shoes, the power of the computer, or whatever, then I will continue to say, "bah, humbug!"

Christmas is not about the goose in Tiny Tim's pot. Christmas is about the transformation of Ebenezer Scrooge from a selfish old man into a generous employer. As long as liberal progressives feel they are responsible for forcing Ebenezer to give up a goose, they will never understand the real meaning of Christmas, or any other holiday.

It's not about the goose. It's about the transformation of the individual. It's about you learning to put the needs of others before your own.


November 28, 2009

An Op-ed by Robin of Berkeley




I don't normally do this, but this opinion piece by Robin of Berkeley goes far beyond anything I could accomplish on my own. The original (as far as I know) is found at American Thinker, a place where left and right are both found in abundance. I found the link over at The Breda Fallacy.

--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wilding of Sarah Palin
by, Robin of Berkeley

When I was in college, I read a book that changed my life. It was Susan Brownmiller's tome, Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, which explained rape as an act of power instead of just lust. What I found particularly chilling was the chapter on war -- how rape is used to terrorize a population and destroy the enemy's spirit.

While edifying, the book magnified the vulnerability I already felt as a female. Fear of rape became a constant dread, and I sought a solution that would help shield me from danger.

The answer: seek safe harbor within the Democratic Party. I even became an activist for feminist causes, including violence against women. Liberalism would protect me from the big, bad conservatives who wished me harm.

Like for most feminists, it was a no-brainer for me to become a Democrat. Liberal men, not conservatives, were the ones devoted to women's issues. They marched at my side in support of abortion rights. They were enthusiastic about women succeeding in the workplace.

As time went on, I had many experiences that should have made me rethink my certainty. But I remained nestled in cognitive dissonance -- therapy jargon for not wanting to see what I didn't want to see.

One clue: the miscreants who were brutalizing me didn't exactly look Reagan-esque. In middle and high schools, they were minority kids enraged about forced busing. On the streets of New York City and Berkeley, they were derelicts and hoodlums.

Another red flag: while liberal men did indeed hold up those picket signs, they didn't do anything else to protect me. In fact, their social programs enabled bad behavior and bred chaos in urban America. And when I was accosted by thugs, those leftist men were missing in action.

What else should have tipped me off? Perhaps the fact that so many men in ultra-left Berkeley are sleazebags. Rarely a week goes by that I don't hear stories from my young female clients about middle-aged men preying on them. With the rationale of moral relativism, these creeps feel they can do anything they please.

What finally woke me up were the utterances of "bitch," "witch," and "monster" toward Hillary Clinton and her supporters early last year. I was shocked into reality: the trash-talk wasn't coming from conservatives, but from male and female liberals.

I finally beheld what my eyes had refused to see: that leftists are Mr. and Ms. Misogyny. Neither the males nor the females care a whit about women.

Women are continually sacrificed on the altar of political correctness. If under radical Islam women are enshrouded and stoned and beheaded, so be it.

My other epiphanies: those ponytailed guys were marching for abortion rights not because they cherished women's reproductive freedom, but to keep women available for free and easy sex.

And the eagerness for women to make good money? If women work hard, leftist men don't have to.

Then along came Sarah, and the attacks became particularly heinous. And I realized something even more chilling about the Left. Leftists not only sacrifice and disrespect women, but it's far worse: many are perpetuators.

The Left's behavior towards Palin is not politics as usual. By their laser-focus on her body and her sexuality, leftists are defiling her.

They are wilding her. And they do this with the full knowledge and complicity of the White House.

The Left has declared war on Palin because she threatens their existence. Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.

A strong, self-sufficient woman, Palin eschews liberal protection. Drop her off in the Alaskan bush and she'll survive just fine, thank you very much. Palin doesn't need or want anything from liberals -- not hate crimes legislation that coddles her, and not abortion, which she abhors.

Palin is a woman of deep and abiding faith. She takes no marching orders from messiah-like wannabes like Obama.

And so the Left must try to destroy her. And they are doing this in the most malicious of ways: by symbolically raping her.

Just like a perpetuator, they dehumanize her by objectifying her body. They undress her with their eyes.

They turn her into a piece of ass.

Liberals do this by calling her a c__t, ogling her legs, demeaning her with names like "slutty flight attendant" and "Trailer Park Barbie," and exposing her flesh on the cover of Newsweek.

And from The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan "Sarah Palin's vagina is the font of all evil in the galaxy."

Nothing is off-limits, not actress Sandra Bernhard's wish that Palin be gang-raped or the sexualization of Palin's daughters.

As every woman knows, leering looks, lurid words, and veiled threats are intended to evoke terror. Sexual violence is a form of terrorism.

The American Left has a long history of defiling people to control and break them. The hard core '60s leftists were masters of guerrilla warfare, like the Symbionese Liberation Army repeatedly raping Patty Hearst. Huey P. Newton sent a male Black Panther to the hospital, bloodied and damaged from a punishment of sodomy.

The extreme Left still consider themselves warriors, righteous soldiers for their Marxist cause. With Palin, they use sexual violence as part of their military arsenal.

Palin is not the only intended victim. As Against Our Will described, the brutality is also aimed at men. By forcing men to witness Palin's violation, the Left tries to emasculate conservative men and render them powerless.

The wilding of any woman is reprehensible. But defiling a mother of five with a babe in her arms, and a grandmother to boot, is particularly obscene. It is, of course, Palin's unapologetic motherhood that fuels the leftist fire.

Because as a mother and a fertile woman, Palin is as close to the sacred as a person gets. She is not just politically pro-life. Her whole being emanates life, which is a stark contrast to the darkness of the Left, the life-despoilers.

These "progressives" are so alienated from the sacred that they perceive nothing as sacred. And they will destroy anyone whose goodness shines a mirror on their pathology. The spiritually barren must annihilate the vital and the fertile.

It has been almost two years since I woke up and broke up with liberalism. During these many months, I've discovered that everything I believed was wrong.

But the biggest shock of all has been realizing that the Democratic Party is hardly an oasis for women. Now that it has been infiltrated by the hard Left, it's a dangerous place for women, children, and other living things.

In the wilding of Sarah Palin, the Left shows its true colors. Rather than sheild the vulnerable, leftists will mow down any man, woman, or child who gets in their way. Instead of a movement of hope and change, it is a cauldron of hate.

From Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.:
Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.

In these dark times, with spiritually bankrupt people at the helm, thank God we have bright lights like Sarah Palin to illuminate the darkness.

A frequent American Thinker contributor, Robin is a psychotherapist and a recovering liberal in Berkeley.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Now let me close with a single thought of my own for everyone who believes the future of humanity is a liberal progressive utopia: Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it!


November 15, 2009

Before I only suspected, now I know






Lou Dobbs was one of the original anchors thirty years ago when CNN went from a 24-hour text-based headline summary to a full broadcasting news channel. He is one of the people largely responsible for their success in America and around the world. Now he has been forced off the network for the sin of telling the truth, even when it hurts.

His website, LouDobbs.com, contains a bit more information about his hasty departure, but no details. Unlike Gary Shapiro, Lou Dobbs is a man who truly understands tact, honor, and respect.

And that, is the real problem. Go read Gary Shapiro's Op-Ed at the Huffington Post. Compare that with any broadcast by Lou Dobbs when he interviews someone who opposes his viewpoints. The modern progressive movement, typified by Gary Shapiro, has become a trash-talking collectivist juggernaut that defames, humiliates, and insults anyone who dares to disagree with them. And then they turn around, like Gary Shapiro, and proclaim themselves the epitome of free speech and open-minded thinking.

This kind of doublespeak has long been typical of Marxist-inspired movements. The redefining of words so that "free speech" means "you can say anything as long as you don't disagree with me" while "freedom and liberty" mean "blinded by prescription drug abuse and reality television so you can remain dependent on an oppressive social order" is the pinnacle of the political correctness that they have been pushing for at least twenty-five years.

This must stop. People must be free to speak their minds, even when those minds are filled with hate. To preach hatred of tradition, condemnation of freedom, and glorification of tyranny while calling it "love and the hope of a more open society" is not the epitome of free speech at all. It is, instead, pure and unadulterated hypocrisy.

If this continues, the global dictatorship described in the Book of Revelation will be realized within a decade. I know they have convinced millions, and possibly billions, that they are not trying to bring about a global dictatorship, but this is a lie. I will even go so far as to state that this deception is in fact, the "big lie" the Book of Revelations itself speaks of. People will be promised freedom and granted slavery and none will realize they have been deceived until the anti-christ puts his mark on their forehead.

A word to the wise, the Biblical "mark on the forehead or the back of the hand" is a metaphor. It does not necessarily mean a physical mark on a body part, although it may come to that. It means that those who receive the mark are set aside as being proud to be the slaves of the one who owns them. That mark of slavery could be something as simple as an identification card carried in your wallet that must be produced in order to buy a loaf of bread or apply for a job. When America, and the world, reaches the point that an official identification card issued by a global government must be shown before any kind of interaction can be started, then we will have arrived at the point predicted by the Apostle John almost exactly two thousand years ago.

If you don't believe me, just wait another decade, and perhaps within the next four years.


November 09, 2009

It's about the man, not the religion and not the guns




Kamran Pasha: A Muslim Soldier's View from Fort Hood

I could not say anything that has not already been said in the article above. Go there. Read it. Pray for the soul of Hasan. Pray for the grieving families. Pray for the wounded.

The courts and the legal system will deal with Hasan. If anything, my one hope would be that somewhere along the line a more rational iman than the one he has been following will find him and lead him into the greater truths of Islam, the Prophet, and the true Jihad.

Muslims, especially imans and other teachers, you and only you can save your religion from becoming the curse of modern civilization. Speak to your people, remind them that the true jihad is not fought with guns and bombs, it is fought with prayer and fasting.

And Christians, you need to do the same! Christianity has its own deluded individuals who feel the time has come to take up the sword and fight for the faith. Spiritual warfare is NOT fought in the material world. How could it be? Spiritual is, by definition, not material.

It is time for Muslims to realize that if they are allowed to destroy Christian and Jewish institutions then Islam will be the next target of the secularists. The Christians, likewise, need to keep firmly in mind that if secularists are allowed to destroy Islam, Christianity will be next.

We are all painted with the same brush. It is up to us to define the color of the paint.

----------------------------------------------------

One of Kamran Pasha's links will take you here: Suicide in Traditional Islamic Law

It is important to remember that the majority of Muslims are NOT radical fundamentalists who subscribe to the views of Al-Qaeda, even as most Christians are NOT white supremacists who subscribe to the views of the KKK and Neo-Nazis. We must not let our world be defined by its most radical individuals!


November 08, 2009

I know when I am outclassed




Therefore, three links, all to the same article at different sites:

The original comment at HaloScan
The First Repost that I can find at "Smallest Minority"
The post at Western Rifle Shooters where I read it

And now I, in turn, will repost it here on the off chance that it becomes unavailable at any of the three links above:

------------------------------------------

A comment by Phil B.

I must disagree with Kevin regarding the ability of anyone to convince the voting public that anything to do with guns is acceptable or normal. I personally do not believe that it is possible to peacefully reverse the restrictions and negative image of firearms in the UK for various reasons. Let me start from first principles to outline why I have come to this conclusion.

You must understand the nature of the Politicians, Quangos (Quasi Autonomous Non Governmental Organisations) and the Civil Service (which is neither civil or a servant but a Master). Ministers come and go and are briefed by the civil servants but it is the Civil Service which effectively runs the country. It is overwhelmingly Marxist/Leninist in its ethos and has been infiltrated so successfully by the left that the average citizen (or even a group of such citizens) does not even understand the rules of the game.

Communism can be simply and easily summarised : “A group of PROFESSIONAL Revolutionaries, taking over the levers of power of a country and running the country for their own benefit”. How will they mange this? By organisation and eliminating opposition by whatever means is necessary. Briefly, the left wing intent is to destroy the existing society and replace it with a society of its own design. Lenin proposed five conditions for successful “Revolution”, namely:

1) The weakening or destruction of the existing State and its institutions
2) The destruction of the existing society so that it can be replaced by the type of society required by the "new" post revolutionary society
3) An inability of the existing institutions to govern or bring about change.
4) The armed forces must be demoralised and rendered ineffective (including the Police).
5) The "proletariat" must be in a mood for change.

He also stated that Freedom and Liberty is precious and therefore must be strictly rationed. All power must be accumulated to the State and freedoms and rights will be permitted ONLY if the State allows. Once you understand that mindset and these principles, then you can use them as a template to see how many of the trends in society fit the pattern and “advance the cause”. The destruction of marriage, the recent posting on this blog about the way all parents are to be treated as paedophiles, the wrecking of the education system, “equality” legislation, gay and minority rights, etc., and so forth, ad infinitum, all assist one or more of the five principles. Try matching the attack to the principle.

Interestingly, Lenin did not prescribe what form the revolution takes or how it is prosecuted. Everyone thinks of the “Revolution” as armed people storming the Winter Palace in St Petersburg (or Leningrad if your atlas is a bit older). However, he also said that ALL aspects of society should be attacked simultaneously and if an opportunity arises to spring the revolution, then it should be taken. If the communists can actually take over the Government of the day and run the country for its own use, then that is also considered as “revolution” and equally valid. The left wing has infiltrated and hollowed out from within just about every organisation - including the Conservative party (“Right” wing or Republican) which is “Blue Labour” – their policies and attitude is a milder version of the Left policies and attitudes. As a “for example” I will quote from Mary Ellen Synon's blog “Eurosceptic” (original here: Dave Pétain)

Tony Blair promised the British people a referendum on the European Constitution. Then, after the text was renamed the Lisbon Treaty, Blair broke that promise because he said it was no longer a constitution, it was a treaty, and he had only promised a referendum on a constitution.

David Cameron promised the British people a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Now, after the text has been signed by President Klaus of the Czech Republic, Cameron has broken that promise -- he has sent out his Tory spokesmen to say there will not be a referendum because Lisbon is not a treaty, it is now European law, and he only promised a referendum on a treaty.

Do you spot the similarities?

In the UK. The brothers Milliband (both professional politicians who have never had a job outside of Politics) and are the sons of Ralph Milliband, an ardent and active communist, are holders of significant power in the UK. David Milliband is Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. Edward Samuel Miliband is Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change. Ralph Milliband was attacked by David Horowitz in an essay called “The Road to Nowhere” and Kevin blogged this a while back. Examining the political credentials of the rest of the Government Ministers reveals a similar catalogue of “ex” Marxist/Leninists in significant positions of power and influence.

A revolution? I believe it certainly is and all the conditions listed above have been very largely been achieved. The Daily Mail newspaper reported that Labour has deliberately encouraged “multiculturism” and unlimited mass immigration to destroy British society and forever change Britain to spite the right wing. As the newspaper concerned has not been sued by the Labour party or the Government or forced to issue a public retraction of the statement that I can only assume that it must be true. (see "Labour Cynically Plotted to Transform Britain" and "Labour Opens Borders, Accuses Tories of Racism" for details)

However, there has been a deafening silence from the rest of the press and as the majority of people rely on the TV for news and the BBC (the state sponsored broadcasting organisation) in particular, very few people are aware of this. This also addresses Point 2 above, for example, examining the relentless attacks on marriage from a myriad of different directions (removing tax breaks for married couples, elevating the “single parent family” by favourable benefits so that it is financially more beneficial for a married couple with children to LIVE APART, the elevation of gay “Marriage” etc.) all add to this.

Constant change and bogging people down in pointless activities contributes to points 2 and 3 – Markadelphia is an expert at this. Consider the amount of time that the readers of this blog have wasted in rebutting in detail his postings – while you are busy researching facts, carefully editing replies and spending your time and effort concentrating on the garbage he writes, you are not concentrating on other, perhaps much more important things. “Make the enemy do useless things” is one of Sun Tzu’s maxims. And while you are doing this, he, like a butterfly, flutters off onto another topic, equally as pointless and you respond, so forth and so ad infinitum.

What you must bear in mind is that for a professional revolutionary, infiltrated into an organisation, IT IS THEIR FULL TIME JOB to work towards the destruction of society. Kevin, all the rest of the bloggers and I must devote our spare time to this – a revolutionary can work 8 hours a day at the office and then go home to carry on in their leisure time.

My point is that, regardless of your arguments, no matter how detailed your research, no matter how much you can demonstrate that your point of view is reasonable, it will be ignored, dismissed and trivialised. Critical Theory, so well developed by the Frankfurt School of Communism, will be brought fully to bear to render your arguments invalid (“You are wrong”).

The existing State holds the levers of power and they certainly are not going to give it up – remember, rights will be allowed if the State is convinced that it will not be harmed by the relaxation and can be withdrawn at any time. You might as well try to persuade by sweet reason a hungry grizzly bear to turn vegetarian and not eat you. It is not interested, its mind is made up and you are wasting your time.

Now, having outlined the methodology of the Left and given some examples to illustrate the way that the left operates, let us examine how they have used Critical Theory in particular to shape the way firearms are viewed in the UK. Since 1920, the propaganda output by all the British media, both State controlled and privately owned, has been that Guns are evil. Gun “Nuts/Fanatics/Crazy” people have been (and still are) the target of all the insidious destruction of their reputation and character which the left practices so well.

Using Critical Theory, firearms and owners are attacked and trivialised at every opportunity. Rich, upper class people shooting grouse and pheasants (I am neither rich or upper class but have shot both pheasants and grouse on a very modest budget) can be dismissed using the “Class Enemy” approach and vilified as brainless, moronic bloodthirsty destroyers of the environment (when not clearing the peasants from their land so that a privileged minority can lord it over the country for their own sadistic pleasure, of course).

So inculcated are the populace and so selective are the reports presented by the media (“look what happens in America”) that anyone would think that an intelligent, sober, sensible, law abiding person merely touching a gun would instantaneously be transmogrified into a drooling, crazed murdering chimpanzee on acid and not to be trusted with a gun. The press and media are so left wing leaning and biased against firearms that getting the message out will be virtually impossible.

The Police have actively campaigned for the restriction on firearms since the beginning in 1920. Their mantra is “We wish to reduce the number of firearms in the hands of the population to the absolute minimum” – and if you believe any number north of zero is “the minimum”, then you are as gullible as Markadelphia.

Thanks to the Police, taking anyone to a range to introduce them to the sport is lengthy, tedious, bureaucratic and intended to put people off. Journalists have stated that they want to infiltrate a gun club and “prove” how easy it is to steal a gun. (A few years back, a journalist smuggled a gun into the UK to “prove” how easy it was … and was not prosecuted for breaking the law).

The penalties for having a gun stolen are severe and you can bet your bottom dollar that you will never own a gun again. Any Gun Club where the firearm is stolen will be shut down. More ammunition will be provided to “prove” that firearms owners are a danger. As you must vouch for anyone you take to the club, very, very few people will risk things and even fewer clubs will encourage visitors.

Gun ownership is being attacked and strangled from many directions and few people will be willing to risk introducing anyone to a club, or even discuss that they are firearms owners in case loose talk leads to a break in and theft of a firearm. Samizdata has a blog entry describing the evolution of the “no right to self-defense" (link here: Samizdata: The Way We Were) and it summarizes how and why it is impossible to use a legally held firearm in self-defense (besides the conditions on the firearms certificate will state “Only to be used on Approved ranges”, or a named piece of land for shooting rabbits, etc., so you will be breaking the law by doing so).

So to conclude, the decline in firearms ownership in Britain will only continue, and indeed accelerate as people are forced out
of the sport and no new people come into the clubs, etc., and those in charge of the system will be quite content to allow this BECAUSE it is what they want. Chairman Mao stated that “Power comes from the barrel of a gun” and there is no way in the world that these people will allow power to be given to the population.

So will there ever be a change in this status? I believe so but as I said at the start of this essay, it will not be PEACEFUL. There is an interesting book about revolutionary guerrilla warfare by Robert Taber called the "War of the Flea". It was published a while ago in the 1960s and the CIA bought up the entire first printing – not because it was so dangerous that the public couldn’t be allowed access to it but it was so good it was issued as a standard text to their operatives. I often used to see it in second hand bookshops in the UK. One of the questions Taber asked was, “Why do people, when the risks and dangers are so great, both to themselves and their families, resort to armed revolution?”

His answer was quite simple – they cannot get any redress to their grievances either through the ballot box or through the Courts. In the UK such topics as the Lisbon treaty, law and order, taxation, the deliberate encouragement of immigration to destroy the nature of the country, loss of liberties, ID cards, etc. etc. are occurring at an accelerating rate and the average citizen is bewildered by this. The torrent of legislation and the pettiness and disproportionate penalties for trivial transgressions of the law is proceeding unabated. The labour government, through “Enabling Acts” (i.e. under existing legislation a Minister can introduce a law without it being scrutinised or voted on by parliament) has introduced one new criminal offence for EVERY DAY they have been in power since May 1997. Such legislation has given the state unprecedented power to snoop and spy on the population and now it is more expensive to obey the law than to be a criminal.

The citizens do not understand the rules of the game being played by the left. They try to understand and reason their way to a solution – and while they are trying to address and counter the arguments and problems in detail and try to lobby their “representatives”, they are overwhelmed by the new legislation coming down the pipeline. The representatives will ignore or trivialize the citizens letter or enquiry – they are driving the process – and will divide and conquer using Critical Theory, accusations of Racism, Homophobia, Islamophobia etc. No matter, it helps destroy and fragment society and isolate people, engender suspicion and any “problems” can be sorted later (such as declaring sections of the population as counter revolutionaries, class enemies, etc.). The solution involves firing squads or Gulags but it must be kept firmly in mind that the purpose of it all is for a SMALL group of PROFESSIONAL revolutionaries to run the country for THEIR benefit. See any communist country and the way the leaders behave.

Is there any redress through the ballot box? All political parties are singing from the same hymn sheet and Europe is gaining greater and greater (unelected and unaccountable) powers – see the quote by Mary Ellen Synon above. Is there any chance of the Law Courts siding with the people of the country and reversing the Governments policies? Again, no. Rather they uphold stupid and malicious legislation. And any situation where it costs you more to obey the law than to disregard it is a dangerous situation. Some of the judgements are frankly bizarre and perverse to say the least and discriminate in favour of “minorities” and against the law abiding (as a “for example” search for “Travellers” on the Daily mail website for dozens of examples of this).

The mood of the people when I left in late January 2009 was becoming increasingly frustrated and angry. Society is so fragmented now that there is no longer a sense of national identity and people now have nothing to lose. If you accept that Taber was correct (regarding ballot boxes and the law courts) then you must conclude that revolution in the UK is inevitable. I learned that to avoid trouble it's best not be there when it kicks off, and I believe that Britain is heading for a revolution of one form or another because the pressures and change in society are so great that it is at a breaking point. What will replace that particular version of society is anyone’s guess but I can guarantee it will be a less benign, harsher and more impoverished existence. Revolutions destroy wealth and stability and I’m getting too old to start from scratch again. That is why I am writing this in New Zealand.

HOW the revolution starts (without guns in the hands of the people it will be difficult, but not impossible) and what direction it takes I would not like to predict. It will be bloody, long and protracted - but sweeping away of the old regime and the replacement with a new form of governance will be something to observe from afar. You can bet that those people who have put their life on the line to get rid of the corrupt, non-representative and self-serving system will not meekly hand in their weapons to those in the new authority. Instead, they will be as brutal as the Communists and quite a few of the existing politicians, civil servants and others will meet an untimely end in one form or another.

So is there hope? That’s a strange way of looking at it but perhaps there is.

As usual, you will want to know where the information comes from. For a concise and easily read summary of the aims and principles of communism, Geoffrey Fairbairn’s “Revolutionary Guerrilla Warfare, The Countryside Version” is as good as you will get. One chapter on Leninism sums it up completely in 19 pages of a paperback. Chairman Mao's quotes are found in my copy of “Mao Tse Tung – Selected Writings” which is surprisingly readable and well written. Not that I would be persuaded to subscribe to his philosophy.

Lenin’s works are too numerous to list in all their gory detail but the following are worthwhile to understand the way communist organisations are set up, organised and run. Note that Lenin had experience of the Army and organisation so if his writings seem to be written as a military textbook, referring to “This Army”, now you know why. His acceptance and insistence on the use of overwhelming violence stems from his Military Training and may give an insight into the tactics of the left wing political parties. Try these two as a primer:

On Organisation
Selected Works

Incidentally, if Lenin DID write this stuff, he was an excellent technical author.

Sun Tsu – The Art of War. I prefer the translation by Samuel B. Griffiths (an ex-US Marine) but there are plenty more out there.

The Daily Mail is a large circulation newspaper with over 3 million readers per day (see the Audited Bureau of Circulation Website for exact figures. Make sure you enter the full title as there are thousands of newspapers with Mail as part of the title) and covers some of the stupidities of the various laws passed over the last 13 years. Try entering BNP as a search string in the website and read some of the comments under the articles. Or “Travellers” for the way the law abiding are second class citizens in their own homes.

Samizdata is, I find, patchy and does not cover a single topic (as Kevin's Blog does) but in the right hand sidebar, you can search under TOPICS for self-defense, etc. Plenty of British points of view.

------------------------------------------


And there you have it. The entire case laid out in a degree of detail I could only manage with a solid investment of six months or longer. This is not paranoia. There is an active culture of narcissistic self-indulgence among the economic and political elite in both Britain and the United States. These people desire nothing more than to be the new nobility. If they have their way, they will command all the resources our modern society produces and the rest of us will be reduced to either factory drones or peasant farmers. If you think factory work is robotic and monotonous now, just wait until these people get hold of things. Watch carefully what happens to General Motors and Chrysler now that the federal government is in charge. Be mindful of anyone in congress who tries to put forth a measure removing term limits on the Presidency. It is especially important now, more than ever, to remove from office any and every elected official who has made a career of politics. These people are not interested in anything except solidifying their own power and passing it on to their children.

I have said it before and I will continue to say it until the course is reversed. We stand at a dangerous crisis point in American history. Progressive liberalism, global environmentalism, even your local board of education have been taken over by people who have become convinced that the future of humanity is a Marxist utopia and they will destroy anyone who stands in their way. If we cannot remove them from office through the ballot box, then there will be armed rebellion. It is not a question of "if". It is strictly a matter of "when".