Saturday, December 31, 2011

Response to a fellow Southron

Lynda wrote: "I think all this talk about the South leaving the US and becoming a separate nation is just plain unreal and makes no sense to me. I've been reading and listening to you all but I just think that is not giving the Southern people credit for our intelligence and hard work of making a contribution to our country."

Response I:
Lynda, here's my issue with your statement. I think you have the matter, as stated, standing on its head.

In the whole muddle and madness of the debate regarding secession one thing is clear: It is not southern partisans, but those who cannot separate their identity as Americans from the renegade, hostile, unconstitutional gang of thieves, corporatists and banksters in Washington who insult the intelligence of all Americans. It is those who teach others to acquiesce as they do, drink the government kool aid and get on the bandwagon to Uncle Sam's Plantation––it is those, and not southern partisans, who insult the intelligence of the Southern people.

You seem to be saying in order to be a patriotic American I must regard myself as joined at the hip with that THING in Washington. You seem to be saying I must support it in all its unconstitutional wars, frauds and policies clearly driven by elites and special interests to the great harm of We the People?

You mean to tell me that a true American must be, de facto, a mindless unionist; union no matter what? Even if union means bending the back to full blown socialism, communism, and total consolidation of all power in the presidency?--even if it means casting aside the appearance of having a constitution--even if it means accepting the lawlessness and arbitrariness of tyrannical, autocratic rule and complete centralized control of the entire populace? This is clearly where the present regime is headed, full steam. You mean we should embrace union even when it means these things?

Asking us to cling to union and Washington and asking us to accept and "work within" the abusive and lawless litany of things I just mentioned are not two different requests; they're one and the same thing. The list I gave is not some future 1984, it is a present, sorry reality.

The insult to intelligence of Southerners is to teach false history to their children, history filled at best with half-truths, history depriving them of the truth of their heritage; history designed to make them ashamed to be southern, ashamed of their ancestors, and telling them they must live a life as second class citizens, hanging their heads in perpetual penance, always being the suspect of bigotry and racism--and unable to prove themselves innocent--unable to have their message heard that all they want is to be let alone and have the dignity of their natural rights-which includes the rights of self-government.To intimate such things to Southerners is not just a supreme insult to our intelligence, but to our persons and the Imago Dei stamped upon our souls as well. To accept union is, ipso facto, to accept these slanders as truth, for one cannot embrace Washington and union without embracing them as the historical and cultural coin of the realm.

What is it we fight? We fight the cultural genocide poisoning the minds and hearts of our citizens in endless forms of propaganda--materialist propaganda spread by collectivists, by court historians, slickly presented to the ignorant and poorly schooled in their "mocumentaries" on the so-called History Channel. All Reich-approved to be sure, by those who would consolidate all power in the hands of a few, utterly disregard our Founding, our Constitution and our rights, and sell not only our birth right in liberty, but the very soil of our ancestors out from under our feet. (Government created core inflation is doing just that. War will not be necessary for foreign take over. Monetary collapse will do that without a shot being fired. Then the full-blown slavery will begin in earnest).

We deny that being a proud American requires union with this filth and corruption--this Treason posing as patriotism, this THING all decent humans should be ashamed of.

We believe people have a right to govern and rule their own lives, to live and be proud of their own culture and continue to grow and develop and appreciate the things that are good in it and correct the things that are bad as THEY see fit...all this being done by the free effort of honorable people, not by the corrupt and corrupting force of the crude and iron hand of government, enforced by the mindless military drones they send to invade the sovereign lands of sovereign peoples.

The monstrosity in Washington does not believe this. It believes you and I are below the state and the collective. They believe you are the servant of the government, not the other way around. And they couch this inversion of our great Revolution in pious sounding phrases like, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." To echo Ron Paul, I have a great fondness for the first part of that statement.

Their policies, their actions, their abuse of freedom and liberty, their constant trashing of the Constitution, their lawlessness and increasingly autocratic rule--these and many other like things form a virtual mountain of vindication for the secession of 1861. Resistance to these is why we fight.

Why do we persist in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds? Let me respond anecdotally.
Mother Teresa told a reporter who mocked her efforts of saving those on the Calcutta streets while thousands continued to die, "God did not call me to succeed. He just called me to be faithful."
Lott preached against the evils of Sodom, and no one listened. When asked why he persisted though it was plain no one would hear, Lott replied, "At first I preached to change them and thought they would. It has long been clear to me that they will not. I persist now, not to change them, but that so they will not change me."

These are some of the reasons we continue and do not give up hope--we KNOW we are the true Americans, we know we have the only authentically true American culture, we know we were and are the faithful ones to the Constitution, we are the principled ones and our cause is right and just.

Knowing that, it would be an immoral act to give up and become just another kool aid drinker--for those are the only two choices. There is no, as Aristotle would put it, middle way. There is no compromise with tyranny. To think one can work within its broken and corrupt system to reform that THING is a fool's errand. It is the apex of Quixotic madness. Washington will no more reform than Sodom would repent. It is a supreme insult to the intelligence of Southerners to continue to tell them reform is just around the corner of the next election cycle.

If we gave up the desire, longing and hope to separate ourselves from this irreformable evil it would be a betrayal of those who died a century and a half ago, of those who, since then, have persisted in upholding the meaning and rightness of the Southern cause, of those who have labored to rescue and preserve the whole truth; it would be a betrayal of ourselves and our consciences, and perhaps most importantly, a betrayal of our children and the generations that follow.

Barry Goldwater said extremism in the cause of liberty is no vice. Barry Goldwater was right.

We are not obstinate, we are not ignorant. Au contraire! We are simply unreconstructed. Stated another way, we cling to the American principle of self-determination and reject the centralizing force of the teleological principle underlying Lincoln's proposition nation: government enforced equality.

We rightly see the principle of equality for what it is: the false philanthropy the political tyrant uses to cloak the true reasons for his actions. As a principle, equality has been used in law to deconstruct the edifice of the Constitution one brick at a time, and philosophically to generated endless social revolution and to justify ceaseless and costly military adventurism all over the world.

Stated another way,"Ye shall know them by their fruits." So the Lord said. And what have been the fruits of government enforced equality, of Lincoln's teleological constitutionalism? These evils have cost We the People our liberty, our Constitution and countless amounts of blood and treasure--and FOR WHAT?!? For the enrichment of the ruling elites and increased consolidation of power in Washington, that's what: the very thing our Founding ancestors dreaded and feared most--the very thing they knew would be the death knell of our liberty.

It is an insult to our intelligence and an immoral suggestion to say we should give up and accept the present form of union as the inexorable and immutable existential fatalism of Americans. What claptrap, what utter asininity!

Response II:
Lynda, I really don't think you grasp what has been going on--I don't think you see the grotesque beast standing in the room that is the awful progeny of the union of the ménage á trois of the donkey and the elephant with Marxism. If only Joe McCarthy could see how right he was!

If there never had been a war between the states, if not one drop of Southern or Northern blood been shed, decent human beings everywhere would protest against what is being done to us in Washington and how their every move takes each and every one of us and our children deeper into penury and slavery. Decent people would be protesting against what this government has done and is doing to millions around the world in our name.

It doesn't take a Southerner to see this--I know, because millions who have no direct allegiance to the South are waking up to the horrible reality and beginning to see the government for what it has become--and they rightly hate what they see.

Any man who loves liberty cannot love this Great Imposture in Washington that has usurped our once glorious Republic. Sadly, not all men love liberty...

Response III:
Lynda, I believe what you and every American must answer, and answer with unflinching honesty is this:
Is the quintessential American principle that of "Union?"
Or is the quintessential American principle that of "Liberty?"

I believe the answer the Founders would give, with few exceptions, would be a resounding slam of fists upon the table of deliberation and a clarion cry of "Liberty! Liberty is our principle, Liberty, our sine qua non!"

What would our Founders say if they were faced with a reality that showed them that union was being perpetuated only at the continual loss of liberty? Who can doubt that they would stand with the great American poet, Robert Lee Frost, and say, "For what avail the plough or sail, or land or life, if freedom fail?"

Ask yourself, If, in union's checkered development, the central principle of liberty has been replaced with a foreign and even hostile metaphysic (equality) that has caused union to metastasize, so that its every development is an ever further abrogation of Liberty, can that union continue to be rationalized as truly American?

If those who have seized power carry the laws and the land further and further away from the vision of the Founders and ever closer to the tyranny and Jacobin madness of the French revolutionaries, can that government continue to be rationalized as truly good, as truly worthy of our wholehearted and unwavering support? Or should we desire and labor for separation from it?

What is patriotism? Loyalty to Union über alles? Or Loyalty to Liberty? Ask yourself these things and reflect long upon them. I don't think you ever have.

For a long time now the government and its leaders have been laboring day and night to make sure you never do.

Sunday, December 18, 2011


"What have the people become when they sit idly by and let this go forward without complete and total resistance? They have become slaves to the state, and they have become slaves voluntarily!"

Thoughts upon reading

We all know that we suffer the consequences of our actions. Usually retribution comes swift and sure, especially to those of us not possessing of power or wealth.

Those who do possess such earthly goods are always able to use their power and wealth to shield them from consequences that flow from actions driven by their own stupidity, greed, malice or ignorance. Instead, the suffering is deflected to others, most usually others associated in some way with the malefactor.

If this is so with individuals who are rich, how much more will it not be the case with the institution that is the historical sine qua non for the consolidation of wealth and power: the Federal Government of the United States?!

The fact is, the failures of our leaders in specific, and our government in general, have already been repeatedly shunted off onto We the People.

The wars in the middle east were not caused by horrific government policy, but by the way We the People live–––our lifestyles; our economic woes have not been caused by the government's stupid restrictions, confiscatory taxation and costly, stifling regulations, but by We the People "getting a little bit lazy" in recent years. The evils of guns are not due to wrong-headed government policies and programs, but by We the People selling weapons irresponsibly to criminals and drug lords. (That, at least, was the scenario our so-called Justice Department hoped to create with Fast and Furious, to use it as an yet another excuse to take our guns from us and render us increasingly helpless before government might. (However, in the case of "Fast and Furious" there was just one little hitch: THEY got caught).

As future government schemes and policies increasingly fail, the blame will increasingly be put on us; We the People. Let there be no doubt about it. We the People will be made the scapegoats for the failure, folly and misadventures of an Obama administration or worse. And with blame always comes punishment--punishment the Federal Government will exact upon We the People. We the People, indeed, are to the Federal government what the whipping boy was to the British princes.

Once S-1867 is made into law, the stage will be set for the kind of military takeover and rein of terror analogous to what happened during the brutal rule of Argentina's military junta of the 1970s. In this period citizen after citizen vanished without a trace. But the American government will be like Argentina on steroids.

You say the NET can be used to call attention to our plight regarding the tyranny of the Federal leaders and the brutality of the military--our own sons and daughters shooting and killing us (like they have before), our own neighbors spying on us?

I say nonsense. The power is also being put in place to shut down the NET with the flick of a switch. Our Federal government is setting it all up so they can control every means of communication. Everything is being prepared to crush any kind of rebellion, and silence any kind of outcry as these incompetents visit brutality upon We the People; brutality that ought rightfully fall upon them. But let's face the cold facts. Even if a cry went out, who in the world would or could come to our rescue? Who would take on the military might of this government in a Quixotic effort to protect and defend us?

Brutal squads from the Federal government, analogous to those that terrorized Southerners for over a decade during Reconstruction, will be spread throughout the entire land. Paranoia will rein, because citizen won't trust citizen, and no one will know who and who isn't a government snitch and stool pigeon.

God help us. What we've seen up to now is only the beginnings of sorrows--sorrows flowing to We the People from where it historically always has: the People's own government.

Few reflect upon the truth that our government, due to its' brutal and unconstitutional invasion of the South, has killed more of its' own citizens than all other governments who have fought us combined. Stalin killed more Russians than Hitler---by far! Hitler killed more Germans than Stalin did! Mao killed more Chinese than any enemy in history, and Cambodia's government became the agents of intellectual genocide on its' own people.

History gives clear, clarion and unequivocal witness that the institution the people should fear the most is its' own government and its own rulers. It is not China or Iran that the American people should fear. We have little or nothing to fear from them. But we should fear greatly the rapacious beast that sits in our midst, hiding in plain sight on the banks of the Potomac river, in what was once a cesspool of a swamp. A swamp. How fitting! The swamp was drained to create the National Capital--but apparently the rats remained to infest what was built.

Count on the 2012 election to be the lowest, the dirtiest, the most violent and vicious since Lincoln's second election, which he clearly stole through military brutality and intimidation--especially in New York state.

We teeter on the precipice of an autocracy, tyrannical and vicious. And once it is officially declared the excuse will be that We the People have become disorderly, and autocratic power is needed as an "emergency" measure to restore order. Count on it! And count on the "emergency" to never end and the autocratic rule to never be rescinded.

The passage of this monstrosity, 1867, (we can thank John McCain for it and other horrific legislation) is a sad, sad day for American Liberty and freedom loving people every where. The loss and sorrow flowing from the consequences of this bill will be beyond the means of human telling to adequately communicate.

Many who are lovers of liberty and advocates of limited government rightly opined the election of Barack Obama. But when we reflect upon the nature of the legislation that John McCain has co-authored and promoted, it is clear that the choice of 2008 was no choice at all, much like the 2012 election will probably be---That is,unless We the People, for the first time since Grover Cleveland, are given a real choice: Ron Paul.

Sunday, December 4, 2011

The Problem with Modern Liberalism

If the true problem with modern liberalism is to be properly understood, it is important to understand the classical standard that must be met if an act is to be considered virtuous (a truly good act).

An act can only be judged as virtuous if it meets all of the following criteria:
1. The act intended must be a good act.
2. The intent must be good.
3. The means used to achieve the act must also be good (it is not permitted to do evil that good may result).
4. The result must be good.
5. If any evil occurs as an effect of the act, the evil must be unintended and of lesser effect than the resulting good.

The Evils of modern liberalism result from the use of Corrupt Means
Modern Liberalism does not repeatedly fail because its goals and intent are not good, per se. They are often very good. Liberalism most often fails because it is driven by the immature; souls who lack both insight and patience to understand the true causes of a societal evil and devise a fitting plan or solution. As a result, they, in their haste, do not refrain from using means that are unlawful and/or unfitting.

Consequently, the resulting evil (collateral damage, if you will) is often much greater than the good achieved. In fact, the unfitting means may actually prevent the intended good from ever being achieved. Frédéric Bastiat points this out when he writes in his masterpiece, The Law, "Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also be used to organize labor, education and religion."

Bastiat's answer is as clear as it is concise: "Because it [the law] could not organize labor, education and religion without destroying justice."

He continues,"We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper function of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force."

In short, when the law operates beyond its lawful parameters it contradicts itself, creating great harm and falling short of the standard to which it holds others. The powerful who hold positions meant to preserve the law commonly do this, driven by their lust for more power. Thus they create a second standard of behavior for themselves and the institutions they run, a standard far below that which they hold others. The resulting evil is commonly known as "corruption."

How Liberals react to Liberal failure
When the good fails to be realized the modern liberal remains undaunted. Rather than admit and repent the corrupt use of means, he devises means even more unfitting as a "mid-course correction," that he hopes will bring things aright. This, of course, also fails. But undaunted the modern liberal continues to tinker with society, taking risks with the lives of millions, repeating the process, ad nauseam. This is insanity in action.

Self-proclaimed Conservatives acting like Liberals
Let's look at an example that might surprise some who call themselves conservatives. Rep. Michelle Bachmann says that if she becomes president she will promote and sign a bill saying that marriage is only between a man and a woman. Others are in favor of a law making English the language of the American Empire.

Protecting the institution of marriage is a good which all conservatives can and should embrace. A common language is important for many reasons. But the means to protect the institution of marriage as it has been historically known and practiced must be lawful--so says the true conservative, (aka the true Constitutionalist).

The problem with Rep. Bachmann's goal is her willingness to use the law to protect and defend a good that is beyond its scope and power. This unlawful means makes Rep. Bachmann's act a liberal and unconstitutional one.

True Republican Conservatism: Judge Bork and fidelity to the Law
Now, let's take a true conservative, like Judge Robert Bork. Judge Bork is a faithful Catholic. He, therefore, is personally categorically against abortion. Had he been appointed to the Supreme Court he would have voted to repeal Roe vs Wade, but not because he was personally against abortion. He would have voted for repeal because the Constitution does not give the Federal government the authority to make such a judgement. This matter, as Judge Bork has repeatedly pointed out, is a matter for the states.

One could almost be completely certain he would have the same opinion on the marriage issue. That is, if any governmental institution has the rightful authority to judge on language, or marriage or similar issues, it would be the states or the people of the states, with their unlimited and unenumerated Constitutional powers.

For Judge Bork the problem is not his opposition to the good desired, but the means used to achieve it. According to the law of the land only the states or the people of the states have authority to judge in these and similar areas. The judge, as a true conservative, refuses to make it legal to use the corrupt and lawless means to achieve a goal, even if that goal is a true good.

Lincoln, Modern Liberalism and Slavery
Finally, no one can deny that the goal of ending slavery was and is an indisputable good. But the horrific and unconstitutional means used by the Lincoln administration to accomplish it in America did not result in freedom. It resulted in the mere exchange of chattel slavery for political slavery--the slavery resulting when sovereign states and sovereign peoples are forced to remain in a relationship they despise and which they see as abusive and destructive to them as a sovereign people.

The central principle of the Declaration of Independence rejects the right of governments to subject a people against their will. The sovereign right to self-government and self-determination was the core justification for the American Revolution. When Lincoln used means contradictory to this principle, he began a process that reversed the victory of the colonists over Great Britain––a process that has once again enslaved Americans to a tyrannical, consolidated power: its' own government.

The political slavery resulting from the unconstitutional use of force by the Federal government has been much greater, more pervasive, more far reaching and much more destructive to liberty and than the chattel slavery we inherited from Great Britain.

The evil of political slavery was not the necessary price for ending chattel slavery. Political slavery was caused by the corrupt and lawless means used to achieve it: sectional hegemony and the subjugation of sovereign states and sovereign peoples to the brute force of centralized power--inhuman means clearly hostile to American Liberty.

Slavery came to an end around the world without the use of violence and force, save in only a few instances. In those instances where violence was used, slavery provided the excuse for the use of violence, but was not the real reason. The reason, in the case of America, was the desire of a few for all power to be consolidated in Washington.

The Southern States opposed such consolidation and were able to prevent it for the first seventy years of the Republic. Their subjugation was essential if northern consolidators were to achieve their goal. The war, carried out under the guise of the false philanthropy of ending slavery, was the means to that end.

The Sorry Results
Americans today are suffering in uncounted ways and their personal freedoms are in grave peril as a result of that consolidation...all flowing from the corrupt and lawless means used to end the evil of slavery.

We must commend the leaders then, because they did not hide the real reason for the means they used. The leaders stated again and again, before, during and after the war, their intent was to change the loyalty and fealty of the individual citizen from his family, his community, his region and state to exclusive devotion to the Federal government. Nationalism was to usurp patriotism. As Seward repeatedly stated, the desire of the Radical Republicans was "To make a man love his nation more than his state."

The ending of slavery was simply another means to weaken those sovereign forces that opposed a consolidated Empire, an Empire that was to be used by the few to achieve untold power and wealth for themselves at the expense of the liberty of the many.

Our present leaders and their "court historians", as apologists for the War, are not so forthright. They insist the exclusive intent of the Federal Government was to end slavery. They conveniently forget there was, within the Constitution, a peaceful and constitutional means to do so. Their blatant dishonesty reveals that they are even more corrupt than the schemers who brought about the war in 1861, and their corrupt puppet, Abraham Lincoln.

These are only a few of the horrible, profound and long-reaching effects of the use of corrupt and lawless means in order to achieve a particular good. These means in the modern world are all but ubiquitous. Few in power refrain from the use of such means.

As long as there are those in power, regardless of their political label, who believe the ends justify the means and do not shirk from their use, the erosion of our liberties will continue unabated. That is why I am supporting Ron Paul for president, and not faux conservatives like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum, both of whom would abuse the power of the office of the presidency to accomplish that which is beyond the scope of the authority of the Federal government, as defined and limited by the law of the land: The Constitution of the United States of America.