The Power of 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 of 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. Most of them advertise in various “patriot” magazines. 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, thumb scans 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 seaports,
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” slingshot 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, and 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 by 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 mail lists. 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.
Contemporary:
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 Bovard
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
Fiction:
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress;
Sixth Column; The Puppet Masters - Robert Heinlein
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