Power of Positive Patriotism
Subject: Power of Positive Patriotism (Part 1)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 14:59:51 EDT
This is the first part of a two part e-mail article for your consideration.
Please feel free to contact me at the numbers listed.
Tim Wingate is the director of The Carpe Libertas Institute for Critical
Reasoning. He is also available for speaking and interviews please contact him c/o The Carpe Libertas Institute for Critical Reasoning, 124 N. York Ave. #214 Elmhurst, IL 60126 (630) 782-0156. E-Mail: BeFreeNow1@aol.com
The Power in Positive Patriotism!
By Tim Wingate
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the
highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its
experienced patriots to prevent its ruin" - Samuel Adams
It is now a time for positive action, not just rhetoric, to prevent America's ruin. However, our "experienced patriots" need to know themselves before they can help change the fate of our nation. Some believe the answer comes from action from within the system. While others find the solution outside the system.
Regardless, there are consequences to either action and our patriots must be honest about what "game" it is they really want to join. We need to ask ourselves what our true motivations for change are and if we are willing to pay the price of our actions.
During my participation in the patriot movement for the last 20 years I have seen good people lose freedom, property, health, and family because of their attempts to stand up for their rights supposedly guaranteed under the Constitution for the United States of America.
Why have these losses occurred? Why have they happened at the hands of our own countrymen in our courts? Are we at war with each other? The sad truth is yes. It is a cultural war of worldviews, morals and of faiths. Consequently, this competition influences the legal interpretations of the day.
When the founding father's generation shifted their values toward the rights of man and independence, some still maintained their loyalty to royalty (the Tories). Those changing and competing cultural values eventually led to war among countrymen. We face a very similar situation today, and to ignore the fact is to bury our heads in the sand. Patrick Henry's eloquent words in his "Give Me Liberty Or Give Me Death" speech still apply to us today:
"Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it."The truth is in the origin of our rights. This truth is once again becoming the pivotal issue of our day.
In this article, I will explore the general social problem in America, how America is intended to be, the problem with the patriot movement's current response, and finally outline possible solutions to our dilemma. As a small caveat, I must point out that I tend to be a generalist and a synthesist of cultural trends. I do welcome diverse discourse because as Thomas Jefferson said, "I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion." Also, as it says in Proverbs 27:17 "As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another."
There will always be competing values in our society. However, the conflict between competing values is escalating and the pendulum is swinging toward socialism, authoritarianism and tyranny.
Before we go any further, let us take a quick refresher course in the basics of argumentation.
In Argumentation 101, we learn that any argument (for or against a conclusion) is based upon a premise. The development of the argument upon the premise is called a syllogism. A syllogism is upheld by if/then, cause & effect statements. The efficacy of the conclusion (whether or not it can be proved true or untrue, sound or unsound) is supported by the syllogism. If the premise is unsound or untrue then the argument and conclusion is fallacious. In effect, the whole building (argument & conclusion) is based upon a foundation (premise). Hence, if the "...house is built upon the sand (untrue & unsound premise), and the storms come, the house is washed away" Luke 6:48-49. This thought sequence is the bases for math, logic, reason, law and the scientific method in our western cultural heritage.
As a result, always go to the premise first to examine its soundness and truthfulness before attempting to argue against the components of any syllogism. Otherwise it is a waste of time and effort, when the issue is moot, and you end up having a quarrel rather than an argument.
Now that we have been reacquainted with argumentation, lets take another look at this issue of competing values. Today's patriot movement is factionalized by many issues. Nevertheless, there is one central issue, in particular, that most groups seem to have in common. We are obsessed with the "law." However, we cannot seem to agree, "who's" or which "law" it is.
Most of you will likely answer "God's" law. Others will say the "Constitution." I will leave it at that because, simply put, we cannot even agree on what comprises either one of those.
We have scores of "pay-triots" selling their legal interpretations of the maxims and statutes and codes and treaties and ordinances and jurisdictions and common law and writs. Join our club, buy this book, watch this tape, file this motion, make this asseveration, attestation, affirmation, declaration etc. You'll need: Black's, Bouvier's, Am. Jur., UCC, USC, Law of Nations, commentaries and treatises, ad nauseum. Our legal system is literally one big argument with itself turning into a quarrel.
It appears that we have become mentally constipated by the "law". Culturally, we remember the "laws" intent as presumably just, impartial, and equitable to society in general (at least in the countries that have ostensibly adopted representative, multi-branched, republican or bicameral systems).
Furthermore, cultural institutions that influence and maintain the status quo such as the government, schools, media, and religious organizations reinforce this belief. They tell us repeatedly that, "no one is above the law." On the other hand, "it might not be fair but it is the law so you must obey." In addition, "I'm sorry that you feel that way, I'm only doing my job, you'll have to tell it to the judge." It is with this culturally reinforced history of jurisprudence that we entered in, full of hope, naive and trusting in the system supported by our social institutions.
Why? Because the majority of us are "good people" who more or less agreed to "play the game" by what we thought were the rules. To illustrate, let us pretend that we are back in grade school. The neighborhood "big kid" invited us to bring our "real estate" board game and play at his house. However, playtime is not what we expected it would be.. The big kid always wants his way. He claims that since the "monopoly" game is in "his" house, he owns it, he controls the "bank" and that the rules are changed. Furthermore, to add injury to insult, he threatens to attack us if we quit and try to go home. We pull out the rulebook and cry "Foul! You're not following the rules," we protest! He replies, "Yes I am according to new interpretations of the "living" rules. If you don't like it, so what? Make me!" This childish banter may seem a thing of the past, but is it? In our "neighborhood", we looked up to the big kid. At one time, he was fun to play with and looked out for our best interests. Similarly, people look to the "law" as a divine or biblical device here to protect our interests. We expect the law to be constant. However, like our neighborhood big kid, people change. Today, unlike their original intent, laws are dynamic and shifting. Today, those who make, interpret and control the "law" place themselves above its reach. Do the names Lon Horiuchi, Bill & Hillary Clinton, Al Gore or Janet Reno ring a bell? For example, take all this "PR" about campaign finance "reform". Watch what happens. They will just jiggle the numbers around a bit, "now you see them. now you don't. presto chango and viola, the status quo reappears!"
All they really did was change things around again to lock out any viability to challenge their two party monopolies. The "law" is used to control you, not them. The point I want to make is that the game is "fixed." Because of human nature, to some degree or another the game has always been "fixed." People try to, and do buy influence.
The founding fathers tried to set up an impartial and just legal system, but it did not take long for the "loopholes" to be found and exploited. Some have argued that "they" did it on purpose and some argue conversely. However, after reading the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist papers and accompanying letters to individuals by the framers, I think that the original intent was honest but flawed. Jefferson said to "bind them down with the chains of a constitution." The problem is that the chains that were forged had some weak links. We need to stop demanding that the "Tidy Bowl" man obey the "maritime laws of admiralty." Instead, we should find a way to get out of the toilet.
To help us clear our minds concerning the "law", we need to go back to the basics. Two hundred and twenty-four years ago a new cultural value that had been gestating was born. For over one hundred years, this "baby" had been growing in the minds and hearts of the lovers of liberty. Writings by men such as Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) The Rights of War and Peace, Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661) Lex, Rex, or the Law and the Prince, Algernon Sidney (1622-1683) Discourse on Government, John Locke (1632-1704) On Civil Government, Baron Montesquieu (1689-1755) The Spirit of Laws, William Blackstone (1723-1780) Commentaries on the Laws of England, fed this new value system. The pulpits of the nation thundered forth with the teachings that the "Creator" had endowed them with rights, not the government. The
preachers in those days were not the "pulpit parrots" offering a pabulum of pacifism, as today. They were so effective that King George called them the "Black Robed Regiment."
This new cultural value was based on an understanding of what Liberty and Freedom were!
Most people think that the two are the same, however there are subtle differences. Liberty is the right that we have by the fact of having life and being born. As Jefferson said, "Life and Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" is what our "Creator" endowed us with. "Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government." (Noah Webster 1828)
Freedom on the other hand, is what we are allowed to have by an authority. "Freedom is the state of exemption from the power or control of another." (Noah Webster 1828) Simply put, Liberty is the right; Freedom is the exercise of that right. Both of these items come from, as Jefferson wrote in the first paragraph of the Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God." Both of these rights are absolutely essential for there to be any real meaning to "the pursuit of Happiness." (Some have argued that Jefferson's use of "pursuit of Happiness" should have been, as John Locke wrote, "Property." However, I believe that Jefferson's expansion of mere property ownership to the "pursuit of Happiness" was genius. "pursuit of Happiness" is self-determination, including the ownership of property.)
On the other hand. If, you believe that we are the product of random chance over billions of years and have survived because of being the most genetically fit by way of natural selection, then the only "right" you possess is, a greater might than others. Hardly a philosophical or moral springboard there. We have heard it before, "Might makes Right!" There is no morality, right or wrong, good or evil except for that which is personally beneficial for the wielder of might. At some point the wielders create a government with a "law" that grants alienable "rights."
Just an aside to those who want to believe in the "evolutionary" model, whichever version you prefer (uniformitarianism, natural selection, punctuated equilibrium, speciation, etc.), what scientific method evidence do you have to prove that mankind is the apex of the evolutionary process? Since you believe that the universe has existed for billions of years, could not something have passed this way before us? Could they have left information, instructions, and guidance? Now, before you all think that I am going off on some Roddenberry or Lucas universal consciousness direction I am not. I am just illustrating that life is a gift. We do not know where it came from for sure but it needs to be nurtured, encouraged and protected. We all have our beliefs and faith in those beliefs. But, if you believe that life is cheap, and might makes right, then you are a potentially destructive force (enemy) to my and other's existence.
If you believe that there is intelligent design behind our existence, whatever that intelligence may be ("Nature's God" implies a superior being), and you believe that intelligence has communicated a behavioral model (moral code or "Laws of Nature") to live by, then you believe that Life (existence) is Right (endowed with unalienable rights). There is an objective or authoritative standard separate from the personal beneficial desires of the individual or government. Morality, right and wrong, good and evil are judged by that standard.
Jefferson wrote in the second paragraph of the Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed." Simply put, Rights came first, then Governments with "just Powers." In other words, the power of government is to be "just" law (powers). Law that is fair, moral, upright, founded in truth and fact, recognizing the "Laws of Nature and Nature's God," having integrity, and "derived" from the "consent" of the people. Do we have that today? Do those that enforce the "law" believe in those founding principles? Do they even know those principles? I do not think so.
But, here is a chance to prove me wrong and have some fun. Get a clipboard, dress nice but casual, and approach any policeman. Ask him these two questions, "Do you/we have rights? Where do they come from?" See how many can answer correctly. If you can, get their name and badge number. Then compose a letter to your local newspaper and send them the results. Depending on the percentage of correct answers you can commend or criticize the police department's hirelings. I doubt that there will many letters of commendation. Try this on your city council or county board members. Try this with the high schoolers in your area. After all, they have been freshly "educated" on the subject and are preparing to vote in a few years. Try this on everybody you know and keep track of how many answer correctly (patriot meetings don't count). It may surprise you.
I have read hundreds of articles, dissertations, magazines, books etc. All dealing with the legal and freedom issues that we currently argue. Many debate over the meaning of the "law" but few bring up the overriding principal that the "law" was created to serve the people rather than the people created to serve the "law." Per the Jeffersonian model, "Nature's Law," and man's "law" exist to protect Liberty and Freedom. The desire for freedom and self-determination is what drove our ancestors to come to this land. Law is nothing more than the rules of the game printed and agreed to so that there can be order in a society. Not all laws are good. That is why we appeal to a higher law of "Natural rights and Natures God." We call compliance to this higher law, lawfulness. For any of the rules of society to be considered good (lawful) they must not transgress this higher law. If they do then the people have a right to replace the "policy" makers and those who govern with those laws and "police" them. Not all that is "legal" is lawful!
"...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of theses ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..." - Thomas Jefferson, second paragraph, third sentence of the Unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.
"We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." -- James Madison
The Law as created by man IS NOT a divine thing! It is men who write it, agree to it, enforce it, and legitimize it by implying that their interpretations are divinely blessed by the "gods" of their society! What hubris! Let us see, has that happened before? Emperor worship, Galileo's forced recantation, Divine Right of Kings, Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, Santa Fe School District v. Jane Doe, Nebraska v. Carhart, etc., just to name a few! When men imply that their law or courts, can rule on the issues of morality, good & evil, right and wrong, apart from a just standard grounded in the concepts of "Laws of Nature " and "Nature's God," then you have those men (the state) putting themselves up as the originators of "rights" as if they were a divinity (Nature's God). The State as God.
Let me illustrate the ludicrousness of this by asking this simple question. What do we call the highest court in the land? What do we call the people who sit in judgment at that court? Supreme and Justices! If the "just Powers" are "derived from the consent of the governed", then the governed are the final authorities as to the "supremacy" of the decisions. (I.e. jury nullification) To call someone a quality of virtue such as justice, when they are mere human and arbitrary is vain. Especially when the historical record is rife with exceptions to justice and impartial rulings. We cannot say that we were not warned. Read the whole text of Anti-Federalist paper #15 By Robert Yates (Brutus) to see how foresighted he was as to the condition of the "Supreme Court" that we see today. Here is a sample, "...There is no power above them, to controul any of their decisions. There is no authority that can remove them, and they cannot be controuled by the laws of the legislature. In short, they are independent
if the people, of the legislature, and of every power under heaven. Men placed in this situation will generally soon feel themselves independent of heaven itself..."
When I was a child there was a group game played in which someone was covered beneath a large blanket. They were told to remove whatever they thought that they really did not need. More often than not, many articles of clothing came out from underneath the blanket before they finally realized that it was the blanket that was not needed. We are distracted by arguing over how this "federal" legal box is constructed and held together, rather than questioning whether this legal box is needed. I am not advocating a lawless society or anarchy. That can't happen anyway. There are always rules in a society. It is the question of what kind of rules and who do they benefit, and how are they enforced that always have to be confronted. The fear of anarchy is a myth! It is promoted by those who have a stake in maintaining the status
quo. Fear of anarchy was one of the reasons voiced by the Tory population to counter the independence movement on this continent. When people are free, they can do great things!
Think about it. Most of the advances in culture, arts, law, literature, science and technology have occurred when people were free to question the ruling order of the day, to experiment with out of the box concepts. We are so concerned with the legitimacy of our actions in the minds of those who are caught up in the circus of the status quo, that we forget the double standards, and that they apply against us. We submit to too many fiery hoops to jump through in the ring of public acceptance. Forget the hoops! Get out of the ring! Back out
of the tent and get away from the pressure of the crowd to applaud the clowns. There are those of you in this country that have noticed the subtle changes. Small breakdowns in the civility of society. Attitudes of people seem different and indifferent. The young seem to have superficiality and a compliance that is new to you. You have a sense of uneasiness; you just cannot place where it is coming from. In the wonderfully allegorical film of our illusional constitutional republic, "The Matrix," the character Moebus says to the just awakening hero Neo "...Let me tell you why you're here. You are here because you know something. What you know you can't explain. But, you feel it. You have felt it your entire life. That there is something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is but it is there like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you want to know what it is? It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth...that you are a slave, Neo, like everyone else you were born onto bondage, born into a prison that you can't taste or touch, a prison for your mind."
What are the "walls" of this prison? Presumptions, assumptions, anxiety, fears of; loss, performance and rejection. The belief that we must save this form of government, even though the evidence that it has mutated at least 170 degrees from its origin, and it is not working anymore is overwhelming. For example, in his minority dissenting opinion in Nebraska v. Carhart, "Justice" Anthony Scalia wrote: "It is difficult to maintain the illusion that we are interpreting a Constitution, rather than inventing one." Anything that causes us to not consider an alternative to the growing tyranny is a wall, of the box, for your mind.
Many authors from the founding fathers to Bastiat, Lysander Spooner, Albert Jay Nock, Hayek, Rand, Robert Welch, John Stormer, Gary Allen, Francis Schaeffer, Solsinetzin, to the present day writings of authors such as James Bovard, Vin Suprynowicz, & Pat Shannon, just to name a few, have warned of the decline of the republic. I have watched the multiple videos from early JBS to recent Alex Jones' Police State 2000 II. The decline has been chronicled, examined, debated and denounced all to little or no avail. It is not the fault of these and other authors. They have cried out their warnings. Why has movement toward tyranny gone unabated? Could it be that this system, that we have been told has checks and balances, only checks those who want to balance the transfer of power from the individual to the ever growing central government? As long as the power to enforce injustice is wielded without consequence by a majority of the usurpers then they shall continue to prevail over the polite objections of the infringed.
George Santayana said, "Those who do not learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them." A part of the "why" is contained in this excerpt from a book entitled "They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933 - 45" Milton Mayer, Univ. of Chicago Press, From the chapter, "But then it was too late" pages 169 to 172, 1966 edition, which examines the question: "How could the Germans allow a monster like Hitler to take control and destroy their Republic in such a short time?" You too will understand the parallels we now find in America. (I have edited for brevity but, retaining context.)
"...You see," my colleague went on, "one doesn't see exactly where or how to move. Believe me, this is true. Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow. You don't want to act, or even talk, alone; you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' ...
It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty.... But of course this isn't the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D."
And one day, too late, ... you see that everything, has changed completely under your nose. The world you live in---your nation, your people--- is not the world you were born in at all. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed...Now you live in a system which rules without responsibility even to God...."
Our society has not watched "one great shocking occasion." We have watched several "great shocking occasions" and they have caused concern and consternation for many. However, not enough have risen to resist. The authorities go through the motions of inquiries, investigations, special counsels always to determine that the government or its agents did nothing wrong, or mistakes were made but acted in good faith, or there is not enough "legal" evidence or that the evidence is inconclusive, or a scapegoat fall guy is sacrificed, or an "insider" is slapped on the wrist, imprisoned for awhile and then released to a high paying job waiting for him, or that if we set the precedent of punishing a sitting "high" official that the whole system of governance would be undermined and we couldn't get good people in government. Huh? Where are the demonstrations in the streets? Where are the protest rallies? Where is the wholesale civil unrest of an indignant populace ready to take back power from their unresponsive representatives?
Oh...that is right ...I forgot...those are the "anarchists".... "we" write letters, send faxes, make phone calls and blow off our steam on talk radio thinking we have accomplished something. All the while "King George" is amassing his troops, incrementally inching forward and seducing the hearts and minds of the complacent and the next generations in his indoctrination centers.
James Madison said, " I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear."
--Marcus Tullius Cicero 42B.C
Cicero recognized the problem 2042 years ago, but he was unable to stop the process toward tyranny. This is how gradualism works. It never moves you out of your comfort zone. The changes are so gradual that you adapt and become comfortable with them until it is too late. It is just like the proverbial story of the frogs and the boiling water. However, in my version, the frogs not only jump from the pot but they also turn off the gas! The time for proverbs and parables is very past! It is time for someone to speak clearly and boldly about the nature of tyranny and what can be done about it. Tyranny NEVER slows down or stops until there is a strong resistance. Tyrants are cowards. They seldom reach out to steal liberty until they
observe weakness or compromise on the part of those entrusted with maintaining liberty. Jefferson said, "Resistance to tyranny was obedience to God."
The first step in winning the war is to recognize that you are at war. Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775... "It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace-- but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!" Now we are at war for the hearts and minds of our countrymen.
The second step is to assess your strengths and weaknesses. We need to be honest as to why people decide to accept or resist tyranny. Behaviorists have identified at least two basic motivators for behavior. Needs based motivation and values based motivation. Food, clothing, shelter, family, community, faith. We all operate from both these motivational areas. To simplify this issue lets recognize that some people are more interested in having their physical needs serviced before their values based needs and visa versa. There is a battle going on between these two groups for the direction of our culture. People today appear to be more interested in the things and comforts of life rather than the philosophical warm fuzzies of doing what is right.
However, not all is lost! Although the dominant media culture has tried to promote a narcissistic society, it has failed. It has failed because it has overlooked one of the needs that people have. To belong to something greater than themselves. Many people will do what is right when presented with the challenge of doing what is right. When we only talk about what is wrong and then offer vague self-sacrificial solutions, it is no wonder people ask why they should risk everything that they have worked for! Most people are not attracted to a patriotism that offers poverty, peonage or prison. Regardless of Mr. Franklin's comment whether they "deserve" them or not, most people will choose to trade a little liberty for safety. That is the reality of human nature. It has happened in all the civilizations before us. It is happening to us.
So, what are we to do about this? We get POSITIVE! There is power in positive patriotism! My grandfather would often say to me, "You can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar." Okay then, we can appeal to the "needs based behavior" values of most people. In order to educate people about our ideas of liberty we offer them a financial incentive first. Offer them a personal enterprise to participate in. A way to make money while "spreading the word." There are a number of organizations and businesses that have attached a price value to the basic information of where liberty and freedom come from. It is a fact that many people do not consider something valuable unless it is pricey. These groups usually offer information on tax exemption for personal, income and property taxes. They then offer suggestions on investments to move assets out of Federal jurisdiction. Some of them advertise in this magazine. Check them out! Get involved with something. The strategy of cutting off the "tax supply line" to the bureaucrats may work if enough do it. However, beware of those who only want to sell you information that may be incorrect.
One of the faster growing associations is the Institute for Global Prosperity. They offer an 80% return for their seminars on financial and personal freedom. I will be happy to answer any questions about them. Whatever you decide to do, you need to stop harping on what is wrong and present a better alternative. We must seize liberty!! We must do it together!!
I have had the following for years, the author is unknown to me If anyone knows, let me know so that I can give credit to whom it is deserved. I have added the title in the Latin and have used this as a springboard for my thoughts ever since. I think that you should also.
Carpe Libertas! (Seize Liberty)
"So you want to be free? Then become free. All the freedom you want is yours, which you are able to seize. How does one seize freedom? By avoiding, evading, escaping, discouraging, overpowering, destroying, or otherwise frustrating anyone who initiates force or threatened force against you. (Freedom as used here is defined as: the absence OR EFFECTIVE NEUTRALIZATION of initiated force or threat of force.)
"But the oppressors ignore my pleas for freedom," you complain. Do you expect THEM to SET you free? As you yourself point out, your oppressors have morals which would shame a beast of the forests. So long as you obey all their rules, no matter how onerous, and pay all their taxes, no matter how burdensome -- why SHOULD they?" And the oppressors dupe my neighbors, who are confused, unaware, and apathetic," you protest.Do you expect THEM not to deceive? The herdsman can milk only tame cows; the tyrant can drive only submissive slaves. "We must overturn the oppressors," some of you proclaim, "and rule wisely and justly in their place."
Then go do it --if you can! But don't be surprised when the oppressors stampede their bewildered subjects against you." We must educate -- teach increasing numbers our values and ideas," others of you shout. "And SOME day evil will be banished from the earth."But as even YOU admit in your more reflective moments, this will take time -- MUCH time. So how shall you live the only life YOU will ever have? And how many followers can you attract AND HOLD if you offer only visions of a paradise for their great grandchildren? "I DO want freedom," you cry. "But there is NO way to get it now -- no chance to elect, no means to revolt, and no place to go. "I reply: If you want freedom SEIZE IT.
"But my oppressors are organized into a powerful state," you object. "They have thousands of agents and millions of police." However, each of the state's minions has only the same two eyes, the same two hands, and usually not so much brains as you or I. They cannot be everywhere; they cannot see everything. "But they will collect a tax on my earnings," you protest. Only if you are so craven as to hand it over. Discover ways to avoid their extortion's: Trade with those who practice freedom. Or be as a gypsy who sells -- and flees.
"But they will confiscate my property," you quaver. Only if you are so foolish as to lead them to it. Convert your wealth to forms you can conceal. And rent your shops and homes -- or mortgage them to the hilt." But they will throw me in jail," you whimper. Only if you are so careless as to stumble over them -- they who have trouble apprehending morons and psychopaths. Make yourself hard to find. "But that is too much trouble," you wail. "I would rather follow their rules and pay their taxes, lick their boots and hone their axes, do everything they demand, and maybe, oh maybe, they will leave me alone just a little. "Then tag along with the sheep to slaughter; you who expect freedom on a silver platter. For how long can you appease the tyrant who will demand more and more, until he has YOU? And what do we know of this utopia that some of you dream of? In every land, of which we hear, there are some who covet the lives and creations of others -- predators who rob and enslave the weak, the foolish and the cowardly.
Sometimes the predators are lone -- and slink about as criminals. So the free men go like tigers -- armed and ready for self defense. Sometimes the predators join together -- and stalk about as rulers. So the free men go like foxes -- inconspicuous and ready to hide. Occasionally the free men ally to put down the predators. But somehow their forces tend to become slavers and looters in turn.
However, in almost any land, those with the courage to assert their freedom seldom need to fight OR hide, for the predators live off the easy prey. "But this will pass," you say to me" for now, at last, I have the key -- the elixir for liberty--for the first time in history. And once sufficient numbers see..."Well maybe... but in the meantime...All of the freedom is yours which you are able to SEIZE!"
I am NOT advocating that we stop our attempts to influence our government, or educate our neighbors. On the contrary, we need to escalate our efforts! Arm yourself with information!!! There are 100's of websites available to learn the basic philosophy of freedom from as well as the many libraries that have not yet been purged of the now "politically incorrect" views of where liberty comes from. Two of the best web sites are Ken Vardon's www.APFN.org (American Patriot Friends Network) and Alex Jones' www.InfoWars.com .
All viable means of mass communication need to be utilized. Open your home and show videos, have a discussion and action group. Get on public access television, present your views or just show videos. There are radio stations that broker time, use it. Stop listening to the national radio advocates of the two party system status quo. Support the people who are on local radio and short-wave that are action oriented. However, it is also time to start talking about creating alternatives to this system. If we don't start considering now what we are going to do, IF any of the "worst case scenarios" come true, what do you think we will be able do then if they do come true?
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen to set brush fires in people's minds..." -- Samuel Adams
To help our cause succeed, and remembering the quote at the beginning, I have a simple suggestion. Media Bypass, Jim Thomas, Devy Kidd, Al Adask,, Alex Jones, Ken Vardon (just to name a few) and the other Patriot group leaders need to host, sponsor, or coordinate a Continental Congress on Liberty. Maybe some of the "third" party candidates would come. Instead of "rallying" at the capitol, and making a big but non-effective noise, we need to discuss the viable alternatives to submitting to the growing police state. I am not disparaging the use of our right to "peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." However, other than an "international embarrassment" and an implied threat of non-compliance, what leverage does that have with an entrenched bureaucracy that does not answer to us?
In the book, Why Not Freedom! America's Revolt Against Big Government, by James and Walter Kennedy, in chapter 26, several examples of the modern use of the threat of succession to gain concessions from a more powerful force are cited. For example, the Scottish National Party gained larger shares of North Sea oil royalties and Quebec gained language and tax concessions from Canada. The time is over to just to discuss the issue of Liberty. Maybe we need to establish a provisional government to legally remove or separate from the "republocrat" socialists who have taken over our government and entrenched themselves there.
We need to consider what the answers are to the following questions. What if we were able to buy time, show videos, host programs, make commercials, broadcasting over every conceivable form of communication, and print media, is that enough? Would enough people listen? Is there enough time to influence a whole generation of voters not to feed at the trough of big government? If they won't listen now, when they are free to protest and fight for change, what makes you think that they will fight when they are less free and it costs more? Maybe they will, maybe they won't. Samuel Clemens wrote as Mark Twain, "In the beginning of a change, The Patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." Historically territory is taken over by the ethnic majority in the area. Texas, U.S., Canada, South Africa, India, Balkans etc. In his book Civil War II, military analyst Thomas Chittum argues that the U.S.A will "Balkanize" into at least three ethnic groups regionally. Unless the "Imperial" central government is able to maintain imposed "national unity" by growing more powerful, people will do what people have done for thousands of years. They will split into ethnic majorities.
Do we need to consider forming a new republic? Many will say that Texas is the perfect state. The provisional government of the Republic of Texas claims a legal right to nationhood. Do they have a chance? Is it too late for Texas now that the ethnic majority is becoming Hispanic. Maybe that is why the "Feds" have been concentrating on suppressing rights in Texas with military checkpoints, thumbscans and urban warfare drills. I know that there are "southern partisans" who also advocate a new "southern" secession. Is that practical since it appears that the "south" is becoming a "black" majority with large white enclaves?
Is it possible to lawfully secede without conflict? What if those of us of like mind all moved to a state or states contiguous with each other and form the legal majority? However, does it have to be ethnic only? Is it possible to have a common culture of freedom and racial diversity? I personally would rather live with neighbors like Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Akhil Amar, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard than the Clintons, Gores, Bushes and Liebermans. Maybe a northwestern state or states with sea ports, farmland, minerals, timber and water, would be better. If the Shree Rangeesh could legally take over a town (Antelope, Oregon) in the 80's why can't a couple of million constitutionalists take a state? Could we elect freedom loving representatives and then move through the legal and moral channels to legitimize a separation from the socialist USA? We don't know unless we ask these questions and explore these options while we still can. Whatever is in America's future, any group of people who want to be free need to be free in at least three specific areas. Information/communication, energy and weaponry. Information that is free, and a form of communications that is private. Energy, for power, transportation and heat. Weaponry that is affordable, available and effective..
Do we need telephones as they exist now? Are there other ways of telecommunicating information? We now have the Internet and PGP and other encryption programs. Short burst microwave? Encrypted cell phones? What are the possibilities? Most of us are already aware of the NSA, Echelon & Carnivore. We don't have control of the media except for this very powerful tool the Internet. However it wouldn't take but just one Executive Order, for the reasons of the national security of the nation's military and business computer systems, to shut down or seriously cripple the Internet.
Remember, we ALL use the telephone lines, microwaves, cellular, and com-sats. The plugs CAN be pulled. Maybe we should use coded language as the patriots did in Taylor Caldwell's The Devil's Advocate? Why not explore the ideas of alternative fuels. Water is the most plentiful substance on the planet. Water is made up of Hydrogen and oxygen, both combustible. How about exploring the ideas of non internal combustion? J.P. Morgan supposedly told Nicholas Tesla that the reason he was withdrawing his funding was, "that you can't make money off of free energy." Why does anyone need to make money off of energy? What if the normal waste and byproducts of everyday life could be used as a source for home energy needs? Why do we need cars as they are today? Neil L. Smith in the Probability Broach has a parallel earth where the federalists were defeated. Science was free to explore concepts outside of the "science box" of our dimension. People used hover craft for transportation. Think about it. We have already the technology to build fuel efficient personal hovercraft but we don't. Why? Who stands to lose if people are provided with personally owned cheap, efficient, safe transportation? The oil and rubber industry? Asphalt and concrete road builders? The state "licensing" offices?
Let's talk about weaponry. Remember the flak over "potato guns"? They are a small, effective, short range mortar. How about an impact explosive imbedded with pellets that can be launched safely by a "wrist rocket" sling shot or potato gun? Why do we need projectile weapons? What about sound, laser, and microwaves? Robert Heinlein in his book the Sixth Column suggested that harmonics could be used as a weapon. We know that the Army is already experimenting with blinding laser, ultrasound projection, and short range electro-magnetic pulse weapons. Is it possible to make a deadly hand held weapon that is nonprojectile and silent, from household products such as a stereo amplifier, microwave oven or laser pointers? These are issues that need to be explored if people want to be free from government regulation and control.
My goal is to get you to think outside of the box, color outside of the lines, think of alternatives! We must wake up our collective courage and creativity if we are going to remain free. The time it would take to educate enough people to our way of thinking maybe too great and a losing proposition because in the meantime the "enforcers" will continue to pick us off one be one, group by group as we rise to resist. So how about it leaders? Can we get together? You already have the resources, the audience, the airwaves, the publications and the mailists. Remember what Ben Franklin said, "Gentlemen, we must hang together or surely we will hang separately."A small list of books that must be read to free your mind!! Those that made the list are not necessarily endorsed 100% for content, but rather for the brain stretching exercise that they provide. They are not listed in order of importance.
101 Things to Do 'til the Revolution; Don't Shoot the Bastards (Yet); I Am
Not A Number - Claire Wolfe
The South Was Right; Why Not Freedom? - James & Walter Kennedy
Lost Rights; Freedom in Chains - James Bouvard
Send in the Waco Killers, Vin Suprynowicz
Civil War II - Thomas Chittum
The Book Of Virtues - Bennett
Classic & Historical:
The Federalist Papers & more importantly the Anti-Federalist Papers
The Lysander Spooner Reader - (specifically No Treason) - Lysander Spooner
They Thought They Were Free: The Germans 1933 - 45. - Milton Mayer,
The Road to Serfdom - Hayek
Our Enemy The State - Albert J. Nock
The Law - F. Bastiat
The Discovery of Freedom - Rose Wilder Lane
On Civil Disobedience - Henry David Thoreau
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress; Sixth Column; The Puppet Masters - Robert
Heiland - Franklin Sanders
The Probability Broach; Pallas; Forge of the Elders - L.. Neil Smith
The Devil's Advocate - Taylor Caldwell
Tim Wingate is the director of The Carpe Libertas Institute for Critical
Reasoning. He is also available for speaking and interviews please contact
him c/o The Carpe Libertas Institute for Critical Reasoning, 124 N. York Ave.
#214 Elmhurst, IL 60126 (630) 782-0156. E-mail: BeFreeNow1@aol.com
I Tried To Be Patriotic!
"Atrocities at Ruby Ridge"
American Patriot Friends Network
"... a network of net workers..."
APFN IS NOT A BUSINESS
APFN IS SUPPORTED BY "FREE WILL" GIFT/DONATIONS
Without Justice, there is JUST_US!
APFN Message Board
APFN Contents Page
APFN Home Page
Last updated 04/28/2010