Messages to my E-mail list
To be added to this list, go to my Contact page and follow the instructions provided.
Subject: Followup on "Textbook of Americanism"
Date: 6/27/2008 2:16 PM
One reader whom I know to
be an intellectual man, and whose work I
support replied: "Ayn Rand (Alisa Rosenbaum) made one of the
seven deadly sins (greed) a virtue. She was Alan Greenspan's mentor. She was certainly evil."
Virginia (who enjoys seeing her name in print) replied: "Bobby, you're
nutty. The RAND Institute wasn't named for Ayn Rand and had
*NOTHING*
to do with her."
Another reader, also avoiding the core argument for individual rights
replied: "And this is also the same Rand corp. who has been in charge
of ALL ....ALL underground bases built since before 1946"
At the risk of committing yet another sin, I will now address all of
these issues and allegations.
_
In my introduction to Textbook of
Americanism, I stated (with necessary correction in [ ]):
"Ayn Rand is perhaps the most hated person by the New Age.
One of the
frequently stated reasons is based on the activities of the [Ayn]Rand
Institute which was named in her honor. The [Ayn]Rand
Institute obviously
fell under the control of people who wished to capitalized on her
ideals of individualism in order to justify their greed and avarice
for
economic and political power such as we have seen in the perverted
Wall
Street Capitalism driven by speculators who care nothing for productive
labor, but only "productivity" which is anti-man and pro machine".
Virginia read "RAND Corporation", and called me "nutty" for associating
it with Ayn Rand. Does that mean she supports Ayn Rand? Not likely. In
retrospect, it was she who made that wrong
association for reasons as we shall see.
I apologized for my error, excused her personal attack, and asked if
she agreed with my argument. She responded by challenging my use of the
word "inalienable", and once more avoided the argument concerning
individual rights. It is therefore necessary for me to assume that she
has no interest in defending individual rights and would nit pick her
way around it rather than offer an intellectual response.
If I had written "Ayn Rand
Institute" instead of "Rand
Institute", the statement would have been correct, and as so read, I
stand by it without retraction as I will elaborate below. But first...
All dictionary editors understand that usage defines the word. Ayn Rand
used the word "inalienable" in the following context:
Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights
which cannot
be
taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or
collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own
right
and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
Merriam Webster Online defines in·alien·able:
incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred
<inalienable rights>
The same dictionary defines un·alien·able
as : inalienable
It also defines in·ca·pa·ble
1: lacking capacity,
ability, or
qualification for the purpose or end in view: <incapable of
engaging in intellectual discussion by expressing ones own thoughts in
ones own words> (clarification added by me)
I rest my case. "Rand Institute" more closely resembles
Ayn Rand Institute than RAND Corporation, and inalienable and
unalienable are interchangeable terms in common usage.
_
Now the question of Ayn Rand v.s. Ayn Rand Institute, and my
previous assertion
that the Institute serves the interests of "economic and
political
power".
An EIR
Press Release of Oct. 17, 2006 states: "A
lecture titled "Destroying Islamic Totalitarianism: The West's Moral
Imperative," featured Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand
Institute. According to the Daily Bruin newspaper (Oct. 17,
2006), Yaron suggested that a way to defeat these regimes [Islamic
totalitarian regimes] is to kill up to hundreds of thousands of their
supporters. He said only resurgence in the pride for Western
civilization can help the West defeat those Islamic states."
Contrast that with Ayn Rand's own words concerning the Roots of War: "If
peace were the goal of today's intellectuals, a failure of that
magnitude
-- and the evidence of unspeakable suffering on so large a scale --
would
make them pause and check their statist premises. Instead, blind
to everything but their hatred for capitalism, they are now asserting
that
"poverty breeds wars" (and justifying war by sympathizing with a
"material
greed" of that kind). But the question is: What breeds
poverty?
If you look a the world of today and if you look back at history, you
will
see the answer: the degree of a country's freedom is the degree
of
its prosperity."
LaRouche also associates Wall Street Capitalism with Ayn Rand:
"Sir Alan Greenspan, the octogenarian one-time paramour of
hedonist philosopher-author Ayn Rand..."
"Federal Reserve Chairman Alan "Ayn Rand" Greenspan, and of the
inner circles of
President Bush ..."
"Will Ayn Rand Disciple Greenspan Repudiate Genocidalist Brook?"
"Ayn Rand's Assault on the General Welfare"
Rand formulated the principle of "Rational Self-interest" to
describe the function of Individualism in the exercise of individual
rights. Rational self interest does not violate the ideals of
individual rights as she defines them.
She defined laissez-faire capitalism as: "The ideal political-economic
system.... It is a system where men deal with one another, not as
victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by
free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man
may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and
no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The
government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses
physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate
its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full
capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a
complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the
same reasons as the separation of state and church." - Introducing
Objectivism
The most vocal criticism of Ayn Rand revolves around one solitary fact:
that 1) she blazed her own trail and did not conform to any accepted
form of expression or philosophical thought, and 2) she failed to base
her own thoughts on previous works of more acceptable experts, and 3)
because she appears to quote others with whom she has fundamental
disagreements. Those same critics, exhibiting the same delusional
insanity, use the activities of the Ayn Rand Institute to defame and
discredit her ideals as she expressed them.
Leonard Peikoff:
Founder of ARI. Born in Canada, 1933, Peikoff befriended Ayn Rand in
1951. He obtained his doctorate in philosophy at New York University,
1964, studying under Sidney Hook (founder of the University Centers for
a Rational Alternative, the predecessor to Lynne Cheney's American
Council of Trustees and Alumni). Less than a month after the attacks of
Sept. 11, with a full-page ad in the New York Times, Peikoff
was calling for attacks, not on the Taliban or al-Qaeda, but on Iran...
- EIR
So, Leonard Peikoff "befriended" Ayn Rand, thus forming an association
with her, then after her death, constructed the strawman (Ayn Rand
Institute), and then along comes socialist LaRouche et al, who burn it
down destroying Ayn Rand's Ideals of individual rights along with it.
Or so they, and every other
Communist/Socialist/Progressive/Libertarian/Republican/Democrat/New
Age/Unitarian/Communitarian believes.
There is a lot more detail
to this method of deconstruction, but this is sufficient to
accurately illustrate the cooperation that goes on between all of
todays political ideologies who offer false choices, and put up false
fronts of being at odds with one another while working toward a Common Purpose.
Please address all replies to the topic of Ayn Rand's Ideals
concerning Individualism and individual rights.
If you desire to refute her arguments please do so on the basis of her
own comments, and in your own words.
I'm not interested in the philosophical drivel of some establishment
blessed Ayn Rand expert, so don't try repeating their arguments.
If you get the impression that my attitude parallels Ayn Rand's, then
thank you for noticing my claim to Individualism and innate
Individual Rights in lieu of the bogus, humanist, UN sponsored and " granted",
"human rights".
Bobby Garner
http://www.congregator.net/
http://apps.congregator.net/Blog/
P.S. If I send it you can post it verbatim.
Subject: Textbook of Americanism
Date: 6/26/2008 2:30 PM
Ayn Rand is perhaps the
most hated person by the New Age. One of the
frequently stated reasons is based on the activities of the Rand
Institute which was named in her honor. The Rand Institute obviously
fell under the control of people who wished to capitalized on her
ideals of individualism in order to justify their greed and avarice for
economic and political power such as we have seen in the perverted Wall
Street Capitalism driven by speculators who care nothing for productive
labor, but only "productivity" which is anti-man and pro machine
(listen to the market analysts). Another reason for the hatred of her
ideals is founded on the activities of the neo-conservative
administration which has, since 9/11/2001, presided over the most
egregious transgressions of individual freedoms and liberties that the
world has ever seen outside the communist blocks of Russia and China,
Nazi Germany, as well as modern Palestine.
She ends the answer to the 12th question on a note which could be
construed as a belief in the superiority of man, but certainly not in
the same sense of the New Age belief that they are gods with the right
to exercise god like authority over their fellow man. Rand's idea of
man's individuality is traceable to the old establishment which has
been under attack since the 1960's counter-culture, which is another
reason why she is so hated. The following explains the real reasons why
all sides (liberal, New Age, progressive and conservative) hate the
ideology of Ayn Rand, and why all political parties cooperate with the
New Age Communitarian agenda through Community Development money grants
and low interest loans.
Textbook of Americanism
By Ayn Rand, 1946
[These articles were written in 1946 for and appeared
originally
in THE VIGIL, a publication of The Motion Picture Alliance for the
Preservation of American Ideals, Beverly Hills, California. The
subject of these articles was limited to the sphere of politics, for
the purpose of defining and clarifying the basic principles involved
in political issues. The series is incomplete; the twelve questions
reprinted here were only the first third of a longer project; the rest
has remained unwritten.]
1. What Is the Basic Issue in the World Today?
The basic issue in the world today is between two principles:
Individualism and Collectivism.
Individualism holds that man has inalienable rights which cannot
be
taken away from him by any other man, nor by any number, group or
collective of other men. Therefore, each man exists by his own right
and for his own sake, not for the sake of the group.
Collectivism holds that man has no rights; that his work, his body
and
his personality belong to the group; that the group can do with him as
it pleases, in any manner it pleases, for the sake of whatever it
decides to be its own welfare. Therefore, each man exists only by the
permission of the group and for the sake of the group.
These two principles are the roots of two opposite social systems.
The
basic issue of the world today is between these two systems.
2. What Is a Social System?
A social system is a code of laws which men observe in order to
live
together. Such a code must have a basic principle, a starting point,
or it cannot be devised. The starting point is the question: Isthe
power of society limited or unlimited?
Individualism answers: The power of society is limited by the
inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make only such laws
as do not violate these rights.
Collectivism answers: The power of society is unlimited. Society
may
make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any manner it
wishes.
Example: Under a system of Individualism, a million men cannot
pass a
law to kill one man for their own benefit. If they go ahead and kill
him, they are breaking the law—which protects his right to
life—and they are punished.
Under a system of Collectivism, a million men (or anyone claiming
to
represent them) can pass a law to kill one man (or any minority),
whenever they think they would benefit by his death. His right to live
is not recognized.
Under Individualism, it is illegal to kill the man and it is legal
for
him to protect himself. The law is on the side of a right. Under
Collectivism, it is legal for the majority to kill a man and it is
illegal for him to defend himself. The law is on the side of a number.
In the first case, die law represents a moral principle.
In the second case, the law represents the idea that there are no
moral principles, and men can do anything they please, provided
there's enough of them.
Under a system of Individualism, men are equal before the law at
all
times. Each has the same rights, whether he is alone or has a million
others with him.
Under a system of Collectivism, men have to gang up on one
another—and whoever has the biggest gang at the moment, holds
all rights, while the loser (the individual or the minority) has
none. Any man can be an absolute master or a helpless
slave—according to the size of his gang.
An example of the first system: The United States of America.
(See:
The Declaration of Independence.)
An example of the second system: Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany.
Under the Soviet system, millions of peasants or “kulaks”
were exterminated by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was
for the benefit of the majority, which the ruling group contended was
anti-kulak. Under the Nazi system, millions of Jews were exterminated
by law, a law justified by the pretext that this was for the benefit
of the majority, which the ruling group contended was anti-Semitic.
The Soviet law and the Nazi law were the unavoidable and
consistent
result of the principle of Collectivism. When applied in practice, a
principle which recognizes no morality and no individual rights, can
result in nothing except brutality.
Keep this in mind when you try to decide what is the proper social
system. You have to start by answering the first question. Either the
power of society is limited, or it is not. It can’t be both.
3. What Is the Basic Principle of America?
The basic principle of the United States of America is
Individualism.
America is built on the principle that Man possesses Inalienable
Rights;
- that these rights belong to each man as an individual—not to
“men” as a group or collective;
- that these rights are the unconditional, private, personal,
individual possession of each man—not the public, social,
collective possession of a group;
- that these rights are granted to man by the fact of his birth
as a
man—not by an act of society;
- that man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for
the
Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the
Collective cannot cross;
- that these rights are man's protection against all other men;
- that only on the basis of these rights can men have a society
of
freedom, justice, human dignity, and decency.
The Constitution of the United States of America is not a document
that limits the rights of man—but a document that limits the
power of society over man.
4. What Is a Right?
A right is the sanction of independent action. A right is that
which
can be exercised without anyone's permission. If you exist only
because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your
own life. A permission can be revoked at any time. If, before
undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of
society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to
you or not. Only a slave acts on permission. A permission is not a
right. Do not make the mistake, at this point, of thinking that a
worker is a slave and that he holds his job by his employer's
permission. He does not hold it by permission—but by contract,
that is, by a voluntary mutual agreement. A worker can quit his job. A
slave cannot.
5. What Are the Inalienable Rights of Man?
The inalienable Rights of Men are: Life, Liberty and the Pursuit
of
Happiness. The Right of Life means that Man cannot be deprived of his
life for the benefit of another man nor of any number of other men.
The Right of Liberty means Man's right to individual action,
individual choice, individual initiative, and individual
property. Without the right to private property no independent action
is possible. The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man's
right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private,
personal, individual happiness, and to work for its achievement so
long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot
be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of
any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide
what is to be the purpose of a man's existence nor prescribe his
choice of happiness.
6. How Do We Recognize One Another's Rights?
Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the
same
rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all
times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate
the rights of another.
For instance: a man has the right to live, but he has no right to
take
the life of another. He has the right to be free, but no right to
enslave another. He has the right to choose his own happiness, but no
right to decide that his happiness lies in the misery (or murder or
robbery or enslavement) of another. The very right upon which he acts
defines the same right of another man. and serves as a guide to tell
him what he may or may not do.
Do not make the mistake of the ignorant who think that an
individualist is a man who says: “I’ll do as I please at
everybody else's expense.” An individualist is a man who
recognizes the inalienable individual rights of man—his own and
those of others.
An individualist is a man who says: “I’ll not run
anyone's life—nor let anyone run mine. I will not rule nor
be ruled. I will not be a master nor a slave. I will not sacrifice
myself to anyone—nor sacrifice anyone to myself.”
A collectivist is a man who says: “Let's get together,
boys—and then anything goes!”
7. How Do We Determine That a Right Has Been Violated?
A right cannot be violated except by physical force. One man
cannot
deprive another of his life nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue
happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made
to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary
consent—his right has been violated.
Therefore, we can draw a clear-cut division between the rights of
one
man and those of another. It is an objective division—not
subject to differences of opinion, nor to majority decision, nor to
the arbitrary decree of society. NO MAN HAS THE RIGHT TO INITIATE THE
USE OF PHYSICAL FORCE AGAINST ANOTHER MAN.
The practical rule of conduct in a free society, a society of
Individualism, is simple and clear-cut: you cannot expect or demand
any action from another man, except through his free, voluntary
consent.
Do not be misled on this point by an old collectivist trick which
goes
like this: There is no absolute freedom anyway, since you are not free
to murder; society limits your freedom when it does not permit you to
kill; therefore, society holds the right to limit your freedom in any
manner it sees fit; therefore, drop the delusion of
freedom—freedom is whatever society decides it is.
It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to
kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to
live. This is not a “compromise” between two
rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights
untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of
society—but from your own inalienable individual right. The
definition of this limit is not set arbitrarily by society—but
is implicit in the definition of your own right.
Within the sphere of your own rights, your freedom is absolute.
8. What Is the Proper Function of Government?
The proper function of government is to protect the individual
rights
of man; this means to protect man against brute force.
In a proper social system, men do not use force against one
another;
force may be used only in self-defense, that is, in defense of a right
violated by force. Men delegate to the government the power to use
force in retaliation—and only in retaliation.
The proper kind of government does not initiate the use of force.
It
uses force only to answer those who have initiated its use. For
example when the government arrests a criminal, it is not the
government that violates a right; it is the criminal who has violated
a right and by doing so has placed himself outside the principle of
rights, where men can have no recourse against him except through
force.
Now it is important to remember that all actions defined as
criminal
in a free society are actions involving force and only such actions
are answered by force.
Do not be misled by sloppy expressions such as “A murderer
commits a crime against society.” It is not society that a
murderer murders, but an individual man. It is not a social right that
he breaks, but an individual right. He is not punished for hurting a
collective. He has not hurt a whole collective—he has hurt one
man. If a criminal robs ten men—it is still not
“society” that he has robbed, but ten individuals. There
are no crimes against “society”—all crimes are
committed against specific men, against individuals. And it is
precisely the duty of a proper social system and of a proper
government to protect an individual against criminal
attack—against force.
When, however, a government becomes an initiator of force, the
injustice and moral corruption involved are truly unspeakable.
For example: When a Collectivist government orders a man to work
and
attaches him to a job, under penalty of death or imprisonment, it is
the government that initiates the use of force. The man has done no
violence to anyone—but the government uses violence against
him. There is no possible justification for such a procedure in
theory. And there is no possible result in practice—except the
blood and the terror which you can observe in any Collectivist
country.
The moral perversion involved is this: If men had no government
and no
social system of any kind, they might have to exist through sheer
force and fight one another in any disagreement; in such a state, one
man would have a fair chance against one other man: but he would have
no chance against ten others. It is not against an individual that a
man needs protection—but against a group. Still, in such a state
of anarchy, while any majority gang would have its way, a minority
could fight them by any means available. And the gang could not make
its rule last.
Collectivism goes a step below savage anarchy: it takes away from
man
even the chance to fight back. It makes violence legal—and
resistance to it illegal. It gives the sanction of law to the
organized brute force of a majority (or of anyone who claims to
represent it)-and turns the minority into a helpless, disarmed object
of extermination. If you can think of a more vicious perversion of
justice—name it.
In actual practice, when a Collectivist society violates the
rights of
a minority (or of one single man), the result is that the majority
loses its rights as well, and finds itself delivered into the total
power of a small group that rules through sheer brute force.
If you want to understand and keep clearly in mind the difference
between the use of force as retaliation (as it is used by the
government of an Individualist society) and the use of force as
primary policy (as it is used by the government of a Collectivist
society), here is the simplest example of it: it is the same
difference as that between a murderer and a man who kills in
self-defense. The proper kind of government acts on the principle of
man's self-defense. A Collectivist government acts like a
murderer.
9. Can There Be A “Mixed” Social System?
There can be no social system which is a mixture of Individualism
and
Collectivism. Either individual rights are recognized in a society, or
they are not recognized. They cannot be half-recognized.
What frequently happens, however, is that a society based on
Individualism does not have the courage, integrity and intelligence to
observe its own principle consistently in every practical
application. Through ignorance, cowardice, or mental sloppiness, such
a society passes laws and accepts regulations which contradict its
basic principle and violate the rights of man. To the extent of such
violations, society perpetrates injustices, evils, and abuses. If the
breaches are not corrected, society collapses into the chaos of
Collectivism.
When you see a society that recognizes man's rights in some of its
laws but not in others, do not hail it as a “mixed “
system and do not conclude that a compromise between basic principles,
opposed in theory, can be made to work in practice. Such a society is
not working; it is merely disintegrating. Disintegration takes
time. Nothing falls to pieces immediately—neither a human body
nor a human society.
10. Can A Society Exist Without a Moral Principle?
A great many people today hold the childish notion that society
can do
anything it pleases; that principles are unnecessary, rights are only
an illusion. and expediency is the practical guide to action.
It is true that society con abandon moral principles and turn
itself
into a herd running amuck to destruction. Just as it is true that a
man can cut his own throat anytime he chooses. But a man cannot do
this if he wishes to survive. And society cannot abandon moral
principles if it expects to exist.
Society is a large number of men who live together in the same
country, and who deal with one another. Unless there is a defined,
objective moral code, which men understand and observe, they have no
way of dealing with one another—since none can know what to
expect from his neighbor. The man who recognizes no morality is a
criminal; you can do nothing when dealing with a criminal, except try
to crack his skull before he cracks yours. You have no other language,
no terms of behavior mutually accepted. To speak of a society without
moral principles is to advocate that men live together like criminals.
We are still observing, by tradition, so many moral precepts that
we
take them for granted, and do not realize how many actions of our
daily lives are made possible only by moral principles. Why is it safe
for you to go into a crowded department store, make a purchase and
come out again? The crowd around you needs goods, too; the crowd could
easily overpower the few salesgirls, ransack the store, and grab your
packages and pocketbook as well. Why don’t they do it? There is
nothing to stop them and nothing to protect you—except the moral
principle of your individual right of life and property.
Do not make the mistake of thinking that crowds are restrained
merely
by fear of policemen There could not be enough policemen in the world
if men believed that it is proper and practical to loot. And if men
believed this, why shouldn’t the policemen believe it, too? Who,
then, would be the policemen?
Besides, in a Collectivist society the policemen's duty is not to
protect your rights, but to violate them.
It would certainly be expedient for the crowd to loot the
department
store—if we accept the expediency of the moment as a sound and
proper rule of action. But how many department stores, how many
factories, farms or homes would we have, and for how long, under this
rule of expediency?
If we discard morality and substitute for it the collectivist
doctrine
of unlimited majority rule, if we accept the idea that a majority may
do anything it pleases, and that anything done by a majority is right
because it's done by a majority (this being the only standard of
right and wrong), how are men to apply this in practice to their
actual lives? Who is the majority? In relation to each particular man,
all other men are potential members of that majority which may destroy
him at its pleasure at any moment. Then each man and all men become
enemies; each has to fear and suspect all; each must try to rob and
murder first, before he is robbed and murdered.
If you think that this is just abstract theory, take a look at
Europe
for a practical demonstration. In Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany,
private citizens did the foulest work of the G.P.U. and the Gestapo,
spying on one another, delivering their own relatives and friends to
the secret police and the torture chambers. This was the result in
practice of Collectivism in theory. This was the concrete application
of that empty, vicious Collectivist slogan which seems so
high-sounding to the unthinking: “The public good comes above
any individual rights.”
Without individual rights, no public good is possible.
Collectivism, which places the group above the individual and
tells
men to sacrifice their rights for the sake of their brothers, results
in a state where men have no choice but to dread, hate and destroy
their brothers.
Peace, security, prosperity, co-operation and good will among men,
all
those things considered socially desirable, are possible only under a
system of Individualism, where each man is safe in the exercise of his
individual rights and in the knowledge that society is there to
protect his rights, not to destroy them. Then each man knows what he
may or may not do to his neighbors, and what his neighbors (one or a
million of them) may or may not do to him. Then he is free to deal
with them as a friend and an equal.
Without a moral code no proper human society is possible.
Without the recognition of individual rights no moral code is
possible.
11. Is “The Greatest Good For The Greatest Number” A Moral
Principle?
’The greatest good for the greatest number” is one of the
most vicious slogans ever foisted on humanity.
This slogan has no concrete, specific meaning. There is no way to
interpret it benevolently, but a great many ways in which it can be
used to justify the most vicious actions.
What is the definition of “the good” in this slogan? None,
except: whatever is good for the greatest number. Who, in any
particular issue, decides what is good for the greatest number? Why,
the greatest number.
If you consider this moral, you would have to approve of the
following
examples, which are exact applications of this slogan in practice:
fifty-one percent of humanity enslaving the other forty-nine; nine
hungry cannibals eating the tenth one; a lynch mob murdering a man
whom they consider dangerous to the community.
There were seventy million Germans in Germany and six hundred
thousand
Jews. The greatest number (the Germans) supported the Nazi government
which told them that their greatest good would be served by
exterminating the smaller number (the Jews) and grabbing their
property. This was the horror achieved in practice by a vicious slogan
accepted in theory.
But, you might say, the majority in all these examples did not
achieve
any real good for itself either? No. It didn’t. Because
“the good” is not determined by counting numbers and is
not achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone.
The unthinking believe that this slogan implies something vaguely
noble and virtuous, that it tells men to sacrifice themselves for the
greatest number of others. If so, should the greatest number of men
wish to be virtuous and sacrifice themselves to the smallest number
who would be vicious and accept it? No? Well, then should the
smallest number be virtuous and sacrifice themselves to the greatest
number who would be vicious?
The unthinking assume that every man who mouths this slogan places
himself unselfishly with the smaller number to be sacrificed to the
greatest number of others. Why should he? There is nothing in the
slogan to make him do this. He is much more likely to try to get in
with the greatest number, and start sacrificing others. What the
slogan actually tells him is that he has no choice, except to rob or
be robbed, to crush or get crushed.
The depravity of this slogan lies in the implication that “the
good” of a majority must be achieved through the suffering of a
minority; that the benefit of one man depends upon the sacrifice of
another.
If we accept the Collectivist doctrine that man exists only for
the
sake of others, then it is true that every pleasure he enjoys (or
every bite of food) is evil and immoral if two other men want it. But,
on this basis, men cannot eat, breathe, or love. All of that is
selfish. (And what if two other men want your wife?) Men cannot live
together at all, and can do nothing except end up by exterminating one
another.
Only on the basis of individual rights can any good—private or
public—be defined and achieved. Only when each man is free to
exist for his own sake—neither sacrificing others to himself nor
being sacrificed to others—only then is every man free to work
for the greatest good he can achieve for himself by his own choice and
by his own effort. And the sum total of such individual efforts is the
only kind of general, social good possible.
Do not think that the opposite of “the greatest good for the
greatest number” is “the greatest good for the smallest
number.” The opposite is: the greatest good he can achieve by
his own free effort, to every man living.
If you are an Individualist and wish to preserve the American way
of
life, the greatest contribution you can make is to discard, once and
for all, from your thinking, from your speeches, and from your
sympathy, the empty slogan of “the greatest good for the
greatest number.” Reject any argument, oppose any proposal that
has nothing but this slogan to justify it. It is a booby-trap. It is a
precept of pure Collectivism. You cannot accept it and call yourself
an Individualist. Make your choice. It is one or the other.
12. Does The Motive Change The Nature Of A Dictatorship?
The mark of an honest man, as distinguished from a Collectivist,
is
that he means what he says and knows what he means.
When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we
must
mean just that. Inalienable means that which we may not take away,
suspend, infringe, restrict or violate—not ever, not at any
time, not for any purpose whatsoever.
You cannot say that “man has inalienable rights except in cold
weather and on every second Tuesday,” just as you cannot say
that “man has inalienable rights except in an emergency,”
or “man's rights cannot be violated except for a good
purpose.”
Either man's rights are inalienable, or they are not. You cannot
say a thing such as “semi-inalienable” and consider
yourself either honest or sane. When you begin making conditions,
reservations and exceptions, you admit that there is something or
someone above man's rights who may violate them at his
discretion. Who? Why, society—that is, the Collective. For what
reason? For the good of the Collective. Who decides when rights should
be violated? The Collective. If this is what you believe, move over to
the side where you belong and admit that you are a Collectivist. Then
take all the consequences which Collectivism implies. There is no
middle ground here. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. You are
not fooling anyone but yourself.
Do not hide behind meaningless catch-phrases, such as “the
middle of the road.” Individualism and Collectivism are not two
sides of the same road, with a safe rut for you in the middle. They
are two roads going into opposite directions. One leads to freedom,
justice and prosperity; the other to slavery, horror and
destruction. The choice is yours to make.
The growing spread of Collectivism throughout the world is not due
to
any cleverness of the Collectivists, but to the fact that most people
who oppose them actually believe in Collectivism themselves. Once a
principle is accepted, it is not the man who is half-hearted about it,
but the man who is whole-hearted that's going to win; not the man
who is least consistent in applying it, but the man who is most
consistent. If you enter a race, saying: “I only intend to run
the first ten yards,” the man who says: “I’ll run to
the finish line,” is going to beat you. When you say: “I
only want to violate human rights just a tiny little bit,” the
Communist or Fascist who says “I’m going to destroy all
human rights” will beat you and win. You’ve opened the way
for him.
By permitting themselves this initial dishonesty and evasion, men
have
now fallen into a Collectivist trap, on the question of whether a
dictatorship is proper or not. Most people give lip-service to
denunciations of dictatorship. But very few take a clear-cut stand and
recognize dictatorship for what it is: an absolute evil in any form,
by anyone, for anyone, anywhere, at any time and for any purpose
whatsoever.
A great many people now enter into an obscene kind of bargaining
about
differences between “a good dictatorship” and a “bad
dictatorship,” about motives, causes, or reasons that make
dictatorship proper. For the question: “Do you want
dictatorship?,” the Collectivists have substituted the question:
“What kind of dictatorship do you want?” They can afford
to let you argue from then on; they have won their point.
A great many people believe that a dictatorship is terrible if
it's “for a bad motive,” but quite all right and even
desirable if it's “for a good motive.” Those leaning
toward Communism (they usually consider themselves
“humanitarians”) claim that concentration camps and
torture chambers are evil when used “selfishly,”
“for the sake of one race,” as Hitler did, but quite noble
when used “unselfishly,” “for the sake of the
masses,” as Stalin does. Those leaning toward Fascism (they
usually consider themselves hard-boiled “realists”) claim
that whips and slave-drivers are impractical when used
“inefficiently,” as in Russia, but quite practical when
used “efficiently,” as in Germany.
(And just as an example of where the wrong principle will lead you
in
practice, observe that the “humanitarians,” who are so
concerned with relieving the suffering of the masses, endorse, in
Russia, a state of misery for a whole population such as no masses
have ever had to endure anywhere in history. And the hard-boiled
“realists.” who are so boastfully eager to be practical,
endorse, in Germany, the spectacle of a devastated country in total
ruin, the end result of an “efficient” dictatorship.)
When you argue about what is a “good” or a
“bad” dictatorship, you have accepted and endorsed the
principle of dictatorship. You have accepted a premise of total
evil—of your right to enslave others for the sake of what you
think is good. From then on, it's only a question of who will run
the Gestapo. You will never be able to reach an agreement with your
fellow Collectivists on what is a “good” cause for
brutality and what is a “bad” one. Your particular pet
definition may not be theirs. You might claim that it is good to
slaughter men only for the sake of the poor; somebody else might claim
that it is good to slaughter men only for the sake of the rich; you
might claim that it is immoral to slaughter anyone except members of a
certain class; somebody else might claim that it is immoral to
slaughter anyone except members of a certain race. All you will agree
on is the slaughter. And that is all you will achieve.
Once you advocate the principle of dictatorship, you invite all
men to
do the same. If they do not want your particular kind or do not like
your particular “good motive,” they have no choice but to
rush to beat you to it and establish their own kind for their own
“good motive,” to enslave you before you enslave them. A
“good dictatorship” is a contradiction in terms.
The issue is not: for what purpose is it proper to enslave men?
The
issue is: is it proper to enslave men or not?
There is an unspeakable moral corruption in saying that a
dictatorship
can be justified by “a good motive” or “an unselfish
motive.” All the brutal and criminal tendencies which
mankind—through centuries of slow climbing out of
savagery—has learned to recognize as evil and impractical, have
now taken refuge under a “social” cover. Many men now
believe that it is evil to rob, murder, and torture for one's own
sake, but virtuous to do so for the sake of others. You may not
indulge in brutality for your own gain, they say, but go right ahead
if it's for the gain of others. Perhaps the most revolting
statement one can ever hear is: “Sure, Stalin has butchered
millions, but it's justifiable, since it's for the benefit of
the masses.” Collectivism is the last stand of savagery in
men's minds.
Do not ever consider Collectivists as “sincere but deluded
idealists.” The proposal to enslave some men for the sake of
others is not an ideal; brutality is not “idealistic,” no
matter what its purpose. Do not ever say that the desire to “do
good” by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor
stupidity are good motives.
Bobby Garner
http://www.congregator.net/
http://apps.congregator.net/Blog/
P.S. I don't know what the copyright status is on this material. I do
know that the subject matter is at the very core of public discourse
today, in subtle ways more so than it was at the time of its writing.
Public Journalism now being what it is, I believe it deserves the
widest possible distribution. If we fail to stand on the side of right,
there is nothing left to stand on. The New Age Communitarians have
tried desperately to conceal and deny their collectivist "ideology"
(Why?), but as Rand points out, "The proposal to enslave some men for
the sake of
others is not an ideal". This simple reasoning is what condemns them,
and thats why they hate reason in decision making because its the sole
property of a unique individual and therefore, out of their power to
control
Subject: Incremental Slippage In the Living Standard of the Fabulas
Fifties
Date: 6/25/2008 7:26 PM
They didn't call it the
Fabulas Fifties for nothing. I have a hunch, in
view of what I now know and verify, that those who gave it that name
knew very well what they had in store for our (then) future.
In 1957 I earned $1.00 per hour (minimum wage) on my first job at the
age of 16 on a Goodyear Stitcher in a
shoe factory about four blocks from my family home. Compare that to the
work which any 16 year old is allowed to do or can do today. On several
occasions, I took my pay check to the bank near the factory and
cashed it.
Sometimes I received a silver dollar or two as a matter of course, and
the smaller change was always silver. I rode my bike
to work for the first 3 months or so until I got my first car a 52
Mercury for $700 on a note cosigned by my father. Gas was about 26
cents then and an attendant was always pleased to come out and pump a
dollars worth even in foul weather. My father was working as a
carpenter doing repairs and some new construction, and he was getting
$2.50 an hour for his work.
In 1960, classified ads for experienced TV
technicians in St. Louis were offering $3.75 per hour. In 1961 at the
age of 20, I was grossing from 500 to 600 dollars per month in my own
radio and TV repair shop in my
small town ( a skill I learn from self motivated study). My operating
expenses ran around $200. My work was
done on most days in under 8 hours, so assuming 500 - 200 = $300 net
per month, or for
a 40 hr. week, $7.50 silver dollars per hour.
This is a true story and I would like to believe that measured in those
same dollars, and doing
the work of an electrical engineer, that I have improved my lot by some
positive margin. Let's see if its true.
That 90% silver dollar then bought 3.85 gallons of gasoline.
Today @$4.00/gal, the same gasoline costs $15.38
The London fix on silver today is $16.70US.
16.70 x 0.90 = $15.03.
15.03 x 7.50 = 112.73
In todays dollars:
A TV technician in St. Louis (if such a thing existed) would need 15.03
x 3.75 =
$56.36 per hour just to stay even with his 1960 starting wage.
I would need $113 per hr. to match my 1960 earnings.
The minimum wage would need to be $15.03 per hour
but That same silver dollar will still buy 3.76 gallons of gasoline.
Meanwhile, I am subsisting on a measly <$900 per month.
If you believe we (you, your children and their children) have not had
our lives stolen from us, then you need to check your pulse to see
whether you still have a heart.
With that in mind, please consider the following non-news (because it
failed to make the news) story:
Around
noon on Monday,
September 17th[,
2007], a Las
Vegas federal jury returned its verdict refusing to convict nine
defendants of any of the 161 federal tax crimes they had
been charged with. The charges included income tax evasion,
willful
failure to file and conspiracy to evade taxes.
The four-month trial centered around the family businesses of Robert
Kahre who paid numerous workers for their labor with circulating gold
and silver U.S. coins, and did not report the wages. The payments took
place
over several years, allegedly totaling at least $114 million dollars.
On September
20, 2007,
three days after the federal trial's dramatic conclusion, the Las
Vegas Review Journal, reportedly under a degree of public pressure,
ran its first (and last) story about the outcome of the trial.
[...]
According to defense
attorney Joel Hansen, who represented co-defendant Alex Loglia, the
primary "willfulness" defense was that the defendants believed they had
no legal obligation to withhold, pay income taxes or report anything to
the government because, in part, the nominal (i.e., face value) of the
gold and silver coins is so small as to fall beneath the reporting
thresholds set by the Internal Revenue Code.
The Defendants also argued that regardless of the valuation of the
coins for internal revenue purposes, there is no law that requires
average American workers to file or pay direct, un-apportioned taxes on
the fruits of their labor.
The Government argued that the payments in solid gold and silver
U.S. coins must be
considered at their bullion (i.e., intrinsic full-market) value when
considering the worth of the wages for purposes of the internal revenue
code.
Attorney Hansen cited two Supreme Court cases bolstering Defendant's
monetary argument at the heart of the defendants "willfulness" defense.
The essence of the argument is that under the Constitution Congress is
obligated by law to mint and circulate such coins as demand requires,
and must establish the value of coins as they are used as legal tender,
but the coins' market value, arising as valuable personal "property,"
is a distinct, separate attribute of such coins, and is of no legal
consequence if the coins are used as legal tender.
In other words, if a worker is paid with such coins, his taxable
"income" (if any) can only be the face value indicated upon the
coin money paid -- i.e., $1.00 for a circulating silver dollar or $50
for a circulating gold U.S. coin. Not surprisingly, the IRS has never
issued any public guidance regarding this significant issue.
The first case,
Ling Su Fan v.
U.S., 218 US
302 (1910)
establishes the legal distinction of a coin bearing the "impress" of
the sovereign:
"These limitations are due to the fact that
public law gives to such coinage a value which does not attach as a
mere consequence of intrinsic value. Their quality as a legal tender is
an attribute of law aside from their bullion value. They bear,
therefore, the impress of sovereign power which fixes value and
authorizes their use in exchange."
The second case,
Thompson v. Butler, 95
US
694 (1877),
establishes that the law makes no legal distinction between the values
of coin and paper money used as legal tender:
"A coin dollar is worth
no more for the purposes of tender in payment of an ordinary debt than
a note dollar. The law has not made the note a standard of value any
more than coin. It is true that in the market, as an article of
merchandise, one is of greater value than the other; but as money, that
is to say, as a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between
them."
Derry
Brownfield Comments
Bobby Garner
http://www.congregator.net/
http://apps.congregator.net/Blog/
P.S. Free to post
Subject: Seven Simple Steps to Personal Freedom, An Owners Manual for
Life
Date: 6/25/2008 6:12 PM
"Individual rights are the means of
subordinating society to moral law."
-- Ayn Rand
"Individual
rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to
vote
away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is
precisely
to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest
minority
on earth is the individual)." --
Ayn
Rand
"Individualism answers: The power of society is
limited by the inalienable, individual rights of man. Society may make
only such laws as do not violate these rights.
"Collectivism answers: The power of society is
unlimited.
Society may make any laws it wishes, and force them upon anyone in any
manner it wishes." -- Ayn Rand, Textbook of Americanism, HERE
Quotes from Communitarianism
v.s. Indivudialism
Its Collectivism which defines Hate
Crimes and give us onerous unconstitutional laws to justify punishment.
Not even the Supreme Court has the right to judge these laws
constitutional, but they do appear to have the necessary and oppressive
power.
Gerry Spence comments on personal
freedom in the new age: "The new and
most powerful union of all will be a union of one: one man, one woman,
one worker with special skills, an inquiring mind, an independent
attitude." I don't support the New Age Communitarian agenda, nor the
old establishment order, but I
do support personal responsibility, and I know that NO responsibility
can be met by anyone who has his hands tied behind his back.
I believe
we were created as free moral agents which includes the responsibility
of making right choices as determined by no one other than ourselves,
and the
responsibility of accepting the consequences of those same choices
whether good or bad.
The old establishment management model says that when responsibility is
assigned to an individual, that individual
must also be given the freedom to act according to his own discretion
in meeting that responsibility. The wisdom of this will be obvious to
any reasonable person.
Attempts to violate this standard have never worked, but some never
give up trying to dictate the terms of that freedom to act.
Conversely, anyone taking responsibility for his own actions,
must also
take the freedom necessary to act. It is completely unreasonable
to assume that the essential freedom will be granted, simply because it
never has been. This is the in-alien-able God given liberty with which
we were created, and which is enshrined in the US Constitution as an
off limits, untouchable freedom. The freedom to be responsibly and bear
the consequences of our action. The correct term which accurately
describes this form of freedom is Independence.
Those who gave
us this form of independence understood that it could function and be
maintained only if and when its accompanied by a system of equal
justice for
all, without exception. Under such a justice system, no sane individual
would ever dream of engaging in any activity which would prove
detrimental to his neighbor, because he understands that if his
neighbor suffers harm, there is a certainty justice which will prevail,
and he desires to be found in the right if wrongfully accused. The
neighbor also realizes that
to exercise his own freedom, he must be tolerant, and not bring
frivolous charges when no real harm has been done.
Its very difficult for many, and impossible for some to believe this
could ever work, but yet it did in fact work, and it worked very well
and efficiently for nearly 200 years. It worked until the
counter-culture took front and center stage in the mayhem of the
1960's, to prepare
the way for what can now be clearly defined as the New Age Movement.
The howls of objection to this kind of individual freedom are very loud
and extremely angry. These outcries are backed up by the record of
increasing criminal activity, and the blatant violations of one
neighbor against another. However, they completely ignore the
verifiable fact that all of these things (apparent grounds for
rejecting real freedom and independence) were introduced into society
by themselves, the very participants in the counter-culture, their
progeny and their students. They accomplished this feat by removing the
consequences of bad decisions beginning at birth, under the misguidance
of one pediatrician Doctor Spock who ventured outside his
profession
to give advice on how to raise a child. Without consequences, no sense
of responsibility can ever be developed in the minds of those children,
and when they grow to adulthood, the under developed mind manifests a
moral insanity which rejects any and all forms of criticism. Under the
rubric of Moral Relativism, they now define their own immorality, and
judge everyone else in the light of their own dark soul.
The assignment of responsibility by any authority to an
individual is
the method of the quickly passing old established order, making way for
the New Age counterfeit community where the community assigns
individual responsibility, while giving the
individual no
freedom, but instead dictating to him the terms of exactly how those
responsibilities will be met.
We already see this in every community, where persons convicted of
certain "hate crimes" are required to be registered for example. Its
evident in "Community Service" programs where persons convicted of an
alleged crime, i.e. there is no injured party, is sentenced to perform
service
to his community. Political Correctness is another peer imposed
pressure to conform to certain standards with which an individual may
not agree and by which he is frequently harmed in some way by his
compliance.
_
Gerry Spence, you may recall is the Lawyer who argued the Randy Weaver
case against the federal government for the wrongful killing his wife
and son, and won with a settlement of over 3 million dollars. In
the
following quotation, he uses much of the New Age language, but he does
so from a far more mature and sane perspective than is usually heard
from the customary New Age rabble of True Believers. Whether he
subscribes to the New Age, Communitarian agenda, I do not know (haven't
research it). What is apparent though, is a definite individualism in
the Ayn Rand style which I find very refreshing:
"The new and most powerful union of all will be a union of
one: one man, one woman, one worker with special skills, an inquiring
mind, an independent attitude. In the new-age workplace the worker will
no longer be a slave. He will enter the place of work voluntarily to do
a job for a price, his price. He will leave as he chooses. He will
cherish his freedom, which is his security. He cannot be lured into the
trap. The master cannot own him.
The new age worker, belonging to the
union of one, has made himself an expert in whatever job he or she
undertakes. But he does his work with an expertise that brings order
and efficiency to the task. He works to satisfy himself, not the
master. Workers will again become independent-and own their own tools.
I see it already.
The cameraman for network television,
an independent contractor, brings his own camera to the news scene,
does his work, takes his camera home, and goes scuba diving the rest of
the day.
In the new-age workplace, the
engineer, the draftsman, the computer wizard, the designer, every
professional and every skilled artisan, yes, a skilled ditch digger as
well, can belong to the new union of one. The union dues are free. If
the employer does not meet the demands of the union of one, the new-age
worker can replace the employer... with a more intelligent, more
responsive one; one that better suits the taste and the need of the
new-age worker.
The most valuable worker for the
corporation is the worker who no longer demands all of the spangles and
sparkles of security that soon soon-dim: the pensions, the benefits
that somehow end up enslaving rather than freeing.
The old way has become a dismal game
in which both master and slave, chained to each other, hate one
another, each fighting the other with their respective weapons. The
worker, seeking security, like the slave of old, does not seek to do
work but to avoid work.
The worker who seeks security cannot
exhibit the free mind necessary to spring ahead on his own. He requires
an overseer, a time clock, rules of work, rules of vacations, rules of
sick leave, rules about having babies, rules about rules. He requires
laws to protect him, and commissions to hear his complaints and
representatives to represent him.
The new-age employer and the new-age
worker, supported by the new-age 'union of one' will redefine the
relationship of worker and employer. The new-age employer will become
more of a partner, a supplier of opportunity, and educator, a sharer in
dreams, a sharer in profit. The new-age worker will become his own
master. He will decide his fate and make and follow his own dreams." - Gerry Spence from
Seven Simple Steps to Personal Freedom, An Owners Manual for Life
I can only speak for myself, but I feel qualified as "one worker
with special skills, an inquiring mind, an independent attitude", and
I'm ready to apply this idea, even if it harelips every New Age
sympathizer in the County.
I forgot to ask any questions, but I certainly hope you all have
some
and will search for the appropriate answers.
Bobby Garner
http://www.congregator.net/
http://apps.congregator.net/Blog/
P.S. Free to post
Subject: The "Integrated Full Spectrum Prism Synthesis Ascended Master
Training Facility"
Date: 6/20/2008 9:14 PM
Here in their own words,
the "I AM God" dream of the New Age is
actively being pursued. Don't be fooled by the duplicity of meaning in
their words. When they say "God", they refer to Satan and Lucifer. This
"I AM" is not the God who spoke to Moses, but the imagined god within
themselves. The language found here comes straight out of Alice
Bailey's writing, but its really the same bag of lies believed by Eve
in the Genesis account. "Ascended Masters" are deceased "Masters of the
ancient wisdom" which was lost in the Flood, or the sinking of
Atlantis. "Integrated Ascended Masters" is the expected reappearance in
the flesh of those dead Sages, and Masters. In fact, it is demons
inhabiting the bodies of those who "ascend" through the "12 to 22
levels of initiation", but retain their "Lightbody
anchoring" on Earth. Think a return of the Nephilim. When they say
Christ, they mean "Office of the Christ", like the office of the
President, not a specific personality, because many have held the
office. The " Seven
Ray Departments" are the "Paths upon which all humanity are found".
" Planetary
Spiritual Leadership and World Service" are core action groups
within the New Age Movement.
I promise you will find it interesting to do your own searches using
the keywords and phrases found in these documents. Yahoo works best if
you want to find words appearing together within double quotes. Google
will give you only a few returns. Yahoo still gives you all of them.
I AM University Mission
Statement
The
I AM University is the Integrated Full Spectrum Prism Synthesis
Ascended Master Training Facility for the Aquarian Age. The Spiritual
mission and purpose of the inner and outer/Earthly plane I AM
University is:
- To unify all religions, Spiritual
teachers, Spiritual paths, Spiritual texts, gurus, yogis, Masters,
Spiritual centers, schools of thought, mystery schools, channels,
healers, prophets, saints, sages, Spiritual leaders, counsellors,
philosophies and psychologies, Light, Love and Power Workers around the
world.
- To provide a balanced and integrated Full
Spectrum Prism training through the mastery, integration and balance of
the Spiritual/ascension, psychological/consciousness and
physical/Earthly level.
- To help all inspired
Souls achieve their 12 to 22 levels of initiation and Lightbody
anchoring and activation in an integrated and balanced way, and thus
become Integrated Ascended Masters and Planetary Realized Christs /
Buddhas / Krishnas / Moses’ / Mohammeds / Mighty I AM Presences / Gods
and Goddess and to channel their evolved consciousness into Planetary
Spiritual Leadership and World Service.
- To help
all Love, Light and Power Workers around the world realize themselves
as a vital part of the Externalization of the Spiritual Hierarchy on
Earth and to think, feel, speak, and act accordingly.
- To provide a place on the world wide web, namely
“I AM U World Watch”
and “I AM U Global Office”, which we plan to launch on the I AM
University website in the future, to provide an integrated Full
Spectrum Prism and up-to-date listing of current global issues in the
Seven Ray Departments that need attention - as an effort to facilitate
a global focal point to unite the prayers, power and consciousness of
the global Spiritual community to collectively right the wrong in the
world. The Seven Ray Departments are:
| Ray I |
Government And Politics; International Relations |
| Ray II |
(Spiritual) Education And Teaching; Writing, Speaking,
Radio, TV |
| Ray III |
Finance, Trade, Business & Economics |
| Ray IV |
Sociology; Race & Culture Cooperation &
Conciliation; Arts |
| Ray V |
Sciences; Including Medicine & Psychology |
| Ray VI |
Religion, Ideology, Philosophy |
| Ray VII |
Structuring Of Society; Ordering Of Power Through Ceremony,
Protocol & Ritual. |
- To provide a global unifying
platform and vehicle for the Spiritual Hierarchy of Ascended Masters,
Archangels and Angels, Elohim and Christed Extraterrestrials who work
with the evolution of the consciousness of humanity, to disseminate the
Fourth Dispensation of Ascended Master Teachings and to serve as Second
Ray educational outpost of the Office of the Christ.
- To facilitate an official and tangible platform
for the externalization
of the Spiritual Hierarchy on Earth, as prophesied by the Ascended
Master Djwhal Khul through Alice Bailey.
- To
provide the Integrated Full Spectrum Prism Consciousness Training for
the politicians, educators, businessmen and women, artists, scientists,
ministers and society workers of tomorrow (today), so they may have the
God attuned consciousness to serve the evolution of humanity through
yielding expertise in their field of service and the Ray Department of
their calling, without letting negative ego / fear-based / separative /
dualistic / illusionary / selfish / lower-self / materialistic
consciousness contaminate their service work.
- To
help usher in the Seventh Golden Age and accelerate the establishment
of a Fifth-Dimensional Ascended Master Society on Earth after Christed
Extraterrestrial blueprint, model and design.
- To
eradicate fear (=False Evidence Appearing Real), disintegration and
fragmentation from the world through the proper practice of Spiritual
psychology.
- To launch and spearhead a Revolution and
Evolution of Consciousness and Spiritual Renaissance.
The inner and outer/Earthly plane curriculum of the I
AM University provides the Spiritual/ascension,
psychological/consciousness and physical/Earthly training required so
our society may transform into one of Integrated Ascended Masters that
is Spiritually, psychologically and physically/Earthly equipped to once
again take charge of Planet Earth, restore the God attuned and God
infused consciousness this planet knew in times long past, and create
Heaven on Earth as Planetary Realized Sons and Daughters of God!
http://www.iamuniversity.ch/I-AM-University-Mission-Statement
I AM University Vision
Statement
The basic vision of the I AM University is to
properly fulfill its mission and purpose as laid out in the I AM University Mission Statement.
The greater vision of the I AM University involves
the
creation of a physical platform and university building to provide a
space and proper atmosphere for students around the world to work on
the development and refinement of their consciousness in an integrated
and balanced way; and as such to enhance and speed up the creation of
an Integrated Ascended Master Society on Earth!
It further involves raising awareness and inspiring
the
global community to actively participate in finding and physically
applying God-inspired solutions to the many challenges that humanity
faces today; as well as the establishment of correlating global world
service projects in a very grounded and tangible way. Since the I AM
University is an educational outpost of the Second Ray Department and
Office of the Christ, and hence given the I AM University’s focus on
Spiritual education in the Seven Ray Departments, the vision further
includes the opening of physical I AM University centers around the
world with trained staff, I AM University libraries and with provided
curriculum materials; I AM University TV and/or radio shows, and so
forth.
The greater vision of the I AM University as well
involves the establishment of its own publishing company to further
enhance the global spreading of this work around the world in all major
languages.
Most and foremost, we aim to find a solution to
finance
the mission and vision of the I AM University in a way that allows us
to make available all that the I AM University currently offers, and
plans to offer in the future, free of charge or for just a nominal fee.
The positive fulfilment of the mission and vision of
the I AM University, to a great extent, depends on the generosity of
the global Spiritual community, as we will need the financial means to
realize said mission and vision. As an attempt and as our contribution
to evolve global consciousness, we have been guided by Spirit and the
Masters to establish the policy to never turn away any sincere seeker
for lack of funds. Everything the I AM University has to offer in
electronic format is already now available to anyone around the world,
for the asking, regardless of money. As such, the fate of the I AM
University’s life and the realization of the I AM University’s mission
and vision is in the hands of the global Spiritual community. We have
implicit trust in the generosity and consciousness of Lightworkers to
help support the I AM University as we support you!
This I AM University is YOUR I AM University, for I
AM
YOU, and YOU ARE ME! We are all ONE, and we are all working on the same
team and for one unified, greater mission, purpose and vision, which is
to ascend this planet, establish an Integrated Ascended Master Society
(or whatever term you prefer), reintegrate Planet Earth into the Solar,
Galactic and Universal Confederations of Light, and collectively create
Heaven on Earth as Planetary Realized Sons and Daughters of God!
The I AM University aims to unite the love, the
wisdom
and the power of all God-inspired Souls around the world to work
together, shoulder to shoulder, heart to heart, and mind to mind, to
realize the purpose of life, which is to make real in our collective
reality that we are all extensions of the consciousness of God!
http://www.iamuniversity.ch/I-AM-University-Vision-Statement
The last
known remaining online complete collection of Alice A. Bailey's
books is now gone. A few can still be found at bibliotecapleyades.net
I have the complete collection of Bailey's esoteric
works (about 17MB zipped) in several locations.
If anyone is interested, please inquire how you may obtain a copy.
Much more information on the New Age and its tentacles
in every corner of our society can be found on my website and blog. Use
the search tools provided. If you don't know about it, you have
absolutely no defense against it.
Bobby Garrner
http://www.congregator.net/
http://apps.congregator.net/Blog/
P.S. Free to post if you dare.
Subject: How To Get Communitarian Governance With Public Complicity
Date: 6/19/2008 10:43 AM
What is Communitarian Governance? Well, as we shall see, it
certainly IS NOT constitutional government by elected representatives
of the people, although it is our elected representatives who have
given us enough rope to hang ourselves, and the motivation to do it.
Free trade and globalization provided the motivation, and Community
Development is the rope, and they are feeding it out by the mile.
According to Portland State Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies
and Planning, which offers a major degree in community development
(CD), its "Community-based
participation in all aspects of government planning and
administration..." Its "Neighborhood
associations... actively involved in land use, housing, and
transportation issues...", its "community-oriented
policing". Its Democracy, the power of the MOB taking private
property and placing it in public hands. This is not the rantings of
some crackpot conspiracy theorist. Portland State University is only
one among hundreds of universities around the world offering
professional training in community development skills. It involves "not-for-profit organizations, private
consulting firms, advocacy groups, and state, regional and local
governments". Enterprise Community is a
designation of the federal government which along with the money
stream, promotes compliance. Compliance to what? UN Agenda 21.
Yahoo returns over 3,000,000 hits for the search terms ["community
development", communication, leadership, training, education].
Restrict the search to just ["community
development"] and you get nearly 80 million hits.
The Portland area is an exciting place to enroll in our
undergraduate major in community development. We understand community
development as a process in which people act together to promote
the social, economic, political, and physical well being of their
community (emphasis mine). Students graduating with a degree in
community development will be citizen activists, empowered to take
leadership roles in public affairs.
Community-based participation in all aspects of government
planning and administration is an established part of the political
culture of our region. Neighborhood associations are actively involved
in land use, housing, and transportation issues. The City of Portland
has been practicing community-oriented policing for several years.
Public schools are establishing community-based management councils and
involving local business firms in curricular design. Community
development corporations are growing rapidly in the range and
sophistication of their activities. New community-oriented financial
institutions and public-private partnerships are emerging to build and
maintain affordable housing and to create jobs. Portland has been
designated an Enterprise Community by the federal government. We
anticipate continued growth in these kinds of activities in the years
ahead.
Community Development majors often find careers in not-for-profit
organizations, private consulting firms, advocacy groups, and state,
regional and local governments. Locally, a graduate may find a career
with the City of Portland, Portland Bureau of Housing and Community
Development, METRO, or any of Portland's Community Development
Corporations. Community development practitioners work on a range of
issues including housing, community organizing, transportation, the
environment, and economic development.
Admission Requirements
Students must be formally admitted to the Community Development
program by submitting an application to the Nohad A. Toulan School of
Urban Studies and Planning. Candidates are selected based on written
statements of intention. Fall enrollment is strongly recommended to
allow students to take core classes in sequence and to create a
community environment among each group of students.
- http://www.pdx.edu/usp/community_development.html"
This all sounds so warm and cuddly, almost like "Mom and apple pie".
Unless that is, we dig a little deeper into the framework within which
this is happening. The framework was approved by an assembly of more
than 178 United Nations member nations in Rio de Janerio in June of
1992. Its was called Agenda 21 (Agenda for the 21st
Century), the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.
" Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken
globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations
System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human
impacts on the environment." - Index
to Agenda 21 Documents
This activity is already so deeply ingrained in the fabric of
society, developed and expanded under every conceivable form of
government at all levels and in every nation. The words are familiar to
our vocabulary, and the ideas remind us of cherished memories and
unfulfilled dreams, but it is laced with a deadly poison for a Republic:
national, constitutional, representative government controlled by the
people. It turns everything upside down where community development
gives people control over their neighbors, and empowers government over
the people. The result is top down control, otherwise known a
dictatorship (and it will be global), which will become more and more
obvious as it becomes increasingly more difficult to do anything about
it. In fact, its already past the point of no return, and we cannot
stop it. However, we do have a choice to make as to whether we
participate in the scheme.
Where do you expect this trend to take us when its followed to
its logical conclusion?
To find out if this is working in your "community", scan your local
paper for keywords: Community, Development, Communication,
Leadership, Training, housing, organizing, transportation, environment,
economic, FCE. Especially look for any of these words in
combination. These words will appear in spaces once filled with a much
different set of words such as Industry, Commerce, Manufacturing,
Engineering, Production, well you get the idea.
Additional links:
What
Can I do With a Degree in Community Development?
Family
& Community Education Association Clubs (FCE)
The Anti Communitarian League
Bobby Garrner
http://www.congregator.net/
http://apps.congregator.net/Blog/
P.S. Free to post if you dare.
Subject: Michael Reagan calls for murder of anti-war activist
Date: 6/17/2008 3:33 PM
This may be related to my
earlier email "A Post-Impeachment Vision of
the Future" which presented the analysis of
Webster G. Tarpley of the significance of recent events in Washington
DC. In particular the story
which broke on June 5th concerning the firing of Air Force Chief of
Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley and Secretary of the Air Force Michael W.
Wynne.
Then on June 10th in what could be seen as a Neo-conservative response,
Michael Reagan, nationally syndicated Radio America
talk show host, made the following comments live on the air concerning
one Mark Dice and his 9/11 resistance group's “Operation Inform the
Soldiers” ( Website/Audio)
The news of this outrage finally broke 5 days later on Raw Story:
“I don’t want the soldiers who are risking their lives in Iraq to
be
used as pawns in the creation of the New World Order,” Dice said in a
recent press
release.
“I personally know U.S. Marines who believe 9/11 was an inside job, and
they tell me that many Marines suspect that this is the case but are
afraid to speak up out of fear of punishment.”
“We ought to find the people who are doing this,” Reagan said,
“take
‘em out, and shoot ‘em. Really. Just find the people who are sending
those letters…to demoralize our troops…they are traitors to this
country…and shoot them. You have a problem with that? Deal with it. But
anybody who would do that doesn’t deserve to live. You call them
traitors–that’s what they are–and you shoot ‘em dead. I’ll pay for the
bullet.”
- RawStory
Even though Reagan later had Mark Dice on his show and apologized, it
gets much worse: Michael
Reagan's solution for the Middle East. In this video Reagan keeps
repeating the same statements and embellishing them such that it
negates any apology. He talks over a caller and has the last word of
course.
There are clear signs that this is a deliberate action in complicity
with the media and it could turn very nasty very soon:
Increasing Signs of GOP Desperation
Google
News
INDICT MICHAEL
REAGAN, APPLAUD SENATOR KAREN JOHNSON, By Devvy Kid
I think its possible that the republicans are falling on their sword as
the democrats will likely do as well after Obama's inauguration when he
and the new congress completes the implementation of Maurice Strong's,
Al Gore's, et al Communitarian, UN/Local Agenda based, sustainable
Mother Gaia policies, putting us under United Nations control and
foreign occupation. Obama has been repeating Al Gore's ideas, and there
are rumors that Gore
could be next to be named to the UN Secretary General post. Whether
or not that happens makes no difference since Gore already
has the full support of Ban Ki-moon.
If I were making this up, I could be accused of fear-mongering, but its
the truth and after a week the news media is still not talking about
it, which indicates that it has their blessing, or they know its part
of The Plan. If this situation erupts into street fighting, murders and
assassinations, we can expect to see foreign troops under the UN flag
in this country before the end of next year if not sooner.
I want to remind everyone, this is not a political party dispute. It is
not about religion nor politics. Its about the New Age agenda to
establish a Communitarian, Brave New World and every political party is
behind it regardless of their rhetoric. If you don't understand some of
these terms, you have a very short time to get yourself educated,
because no one else can or will do it for you. You can find help on my
websites and on the Anti-Communitarian
League website and Niki's
Blog. If anyone knows of any other websites which focus on exposing
the communitarian agenda and the methods used to implement it, I would
sure like to know about them.
You need to know, What
is the Hegelian Dialectic? and I would recommend my Deceiver's
Toolkit, and Niki's Anti-Communitarian
Manifesto for starters.
Bobby Garner
http://www.congregator.net/
http://apps.congregator.net/Blog/
Subject: A Post-Impeachment Vision of the Future
Date: 6/14/2008 3:29 PM
The Next President
of the United States of America has published his first State of the Union
address to Congress.
If there is any doubt that "The Next President" is Don Bowman, check
out Dick
Eastman's Yahoo Group.
I'm not planning to vote myself. The last time I voted was in the 1972
general election for Nixon and we know how that went. However, for
those of you who believe in the two party system, you may do well to
consider an alternative. Bowman is a progressive populist, a "political
philosophy which puts people ahead of corporations". This is much more
than a party label, because it is in the tradition of the Jeffersonian
founders who first defined liberalism as small efficient representative
republican government (NOT Democracy) responsible to the people rather
than paid corporate lobbyist.
However, before you vote for anyone, I recommend that you investigate
the information published on my Gateway to
America's Destiny page. I don't know what America's destiny is, or
even if it has one. Personally, I don't believe in such things as it is
the business of seers and fortune tellers. Unfortunately, the people in
control are driven by such sorcerer's of Magick,
and that's what you will find illustrated on this page. The reason this
should concern you is the verifiable fact that these things were also
the guiding principles of many of the American founding fathers.
For those curious ones among you, I will say that my own thoughts on
this information which many of you will find disturbing, is that the
founders were an elitist group, and as such shared (in varying degree)
the elitist view of the common people that we are totally dependent
upon their benevolent oversight and protection. The thought is
contained in Benjamin Franklin's reply to the question, "What have you
wrought?", and he said, "A Republic if you can keep it." This statement
is loaded with doubt and apprehension, and clearly implies that keeping
it is the responsibility of the people. We know that they were well
read in the bible scriptures, and no doubt they were quite familiar
with the words of Jeremiah 10:23 which reads: " O Lord, I know that
the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man who walketh to
direct his steps."
Remember that the "Divine Right of Kings" was being seriously
challenged here. The bible account seems to make it a point to show
that man made government beginning with Nimrod has produced nothing but
bad results for the common man and it often refers to them as
"beasts". So, all of the claims of a workable form of government have
failed throughout history. None have lasted for more that a couple of
hundred years except in name only. Now according to many, the American
system too has failed. More truthfully though, it was in fact sabotaged
by the developing New Age Movement and the general drive toward global
governance under the auspice of the United Nations. But then on the
other hand: Who allowed that to happen?.
I believe that the American system of government was the crown jewel of
such government, and was intended to be so, and as such, it represented
the very best of all options. It was a genuine test of the Bible
statement quoted above, specifically because it placed the common man
in control. The question was: Is it possible to devise a form of
government which will constitute a valid test and settle once for all
time, whether or not it is possible for man to "direct his own steps".
I believe that we now have the answer to that long contested question,
and it is a definite and resounding NO. I further believe that the
events of September 11, 2001 provided the response to that answer. The
test was concluded and the globalist elite determined to assume total
control once again. I also believe that their efforts will install the
"eighth king" and his kingdom (the New Age
counterfeit kingdom of God on Earth) will stand for "one hour"
(Revelation 17:11,12. For you Bible researchers, the meaning of this
should be obvious. For many years now we have been in attendance in the
Palace at Belshazzar's feast, and the writing is clearly on the wall,
and it is man's government over the people of this Earth (now
specifically symbolized by the failed American System standing as the
seventh world power in bible prophecy), that has been judged. The
"eighth king" can now be expected to replace him in short order.
__
Trilateral Commission founder Zbigniew Brzezinski and his Trilateralist
co-conspirators are apparently back in control in Washington D.C. as
recent events seem to confirm. Webster G. Tarpley names the Air Force Purge
of June 5th ( story)
as the most significant indicator, which happened within two days of
Obama's (unprecedented?) acceptance speech as the Democratic
presidential nominee months ahead of the Democratic Convention.
According to Tarpley, Defense Secretary Robert Gates is a leading
member of the Principals' Committee which now runs the US government.
"The Principals' Committee is made up of Pentagon boss Gates, Secretary
of State Rice, NSC director Hadley, Joint Chiefs of Staff head Mullen,
intelligence czar McConnell, along with a few others." He adds, "These
are the same forces who own and control the Wall Street
Manchurian candidate Obama". The Principles Committee is controlled
by "Zbigniew Brzezinski, Joseph Nye, and the Rockefeller family." This
probably also means that the fix is in for Obama to be the next
president. Tarpley also says that "Brzezinski's hit list is much more
ambitious [than Iran], and includes Sudan,
Pakistan, Burma, and China, all stepping stones to the final reckoning
with Moscow."
Moscow has raised the hackles of western powers by paying off the
former USSR's
debt and is now in competition with the World Bank and partnering
with China, India and oil producing countries to our south.
Bobby
http://www.congregator.net/
http://apps.congregator.net/Blog/
P.S. Please don't tell Chris North that I Cc'd Dick Eastman again. ;-)
Chris believes Dick is a Mormon and therefore couldn't possibly have
anything worth the telling. But Chris obviously fails to grasp the
American system which allows all faiths to co-exist.
Subject: UNESCO: "laying a world-wide foundation for the minimum
physical welfare of the entire human species"
Date: 5/27/2008 12:10 PM
Thanks to Niki Raapana
for this link.
World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO
UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy Part 1
Brent Jessop - Knowledge Driven
Revolution.com
May 19, 2008
"...It is that the task before Unesco is necessary, is opportune,
and, in spite of all multiplicity of detail, is single.
"That [fundamental] task [of UNESCO] is to help the emergence of a
single world culture,
with its own philosophy and background of ideas, and with its own broad
purpose. This is opportune, since this is the first time in history
that the scaffolding and the mechanisms for world unification have
become available, and also the first time that man has had the means
(in the shape of scientific discovery and its applications) of laying a
world-wide foundation for the minimum physical welfare
of the entire
human species. And it is necessary, for at the moment two opposing
philosophies of life confront each other from the West and from the
East, and not only impede the achievement of unity but threaten to
become the foci of actual conflict.
"You may categorise the two philosophies as two
super-nationalisms; or as individualism versus collectivism; or
as the
American versus the Russian way of life; or as capitalism
versus
communism; or as Christianity versus Marxism; or in half a
dozen other
ways. The fact of their opposition remains and the further fact that
round each of them are crystallising the lives and thoughts and
political aspirations of hundreds of millions of human beings. Can this
conflict be avoided, these opposites be reconciled, this antitheses
be
resolved in a higher syntheses? I believe not only that this
can
happen, but that, through the inexorable dialectic of evolution,
it must happen...
[...]
"The two opposing philosophies of to-day differ essentially on one
point-the relation between the individual and the community.
But this one central difference provides differences in every field
with which Unesco has to deal, as well as in many others. It engenders different
moralities and systems of ethics...
though the full development of the individual is recognised as the
central aim and criterion of further evolutionary progress, the proper
organisation of society
is recognised as the indispensable mechanism of that progress. Put in
another way, society as such embodies no values comparable to those
embodied in individuals ; but individuals are meaningless except in
relation to the community..." - Sir Julian Sorell Huxley
(1887-1975), as Director of UNESCO (United Nations Educational,
Scientific
and Cultural Organisation), from his paper entitled UNESCO Its
Purpose and Its Philosophy (1946).
Much
more here, including the entire document in pdf.
Some of you will recognize this as an early statement of the
communitarian philosophy as developed by Amitai
Etzioni and Martin Buber at Hebrew University in Jerusalem back in
the 1930's. The "proper organization of society" as the "criterion
of further evolutionary progress",
is the purpose and intent of UN/Local Agenda 21, sustainability
programs, which are currently and overtly ongoing in every region of
the world including your own "community".
Obviously, before society can be reorganized properly, the old
organized order must first be dismantled. When do you suppose they will
get started on that major project? Well, would you believe that the
methods of Social
Disorganization
have been studied in academia since the mid 1930's? (notice the
recurrence of the 1930's period as you study this subject) Would you
also
believe that the rabble rousing cry of the radical 1960's
counter-culture was anti-establishment, and that "the Establishment"
represented civilized society? Social Engineering (a special
application of Systems Engineering) has been a professional discipline
since the 1960's when the definition of "engineering" was extended to
include social and behavioral considerations as inherent parts
of the engineering design process. Systems Engineering, Cybernetics and
Control Theory are all related to achieving the "proper
organization of society".
The links to Humanism and Population Reduction are obvious when you
follow the process to its logical conclusion. Not so obvious is the
role of technology,
Transhumanism and
ultimately Posthuman
in the reordering of society. For a preview of where transhumanism will
take you, consider this current story in the European press:
European Court agrees to hear
chimp's plea for human rights
His name is Matthew, he is 26 years old, and his supporters hope
to take his case to the European Court of Human Rights.
But he won't be able to give evidence on his own behalf
- since
he
is a chimpanzee. Animal rights activists led by British teacher Paula
Stibbe are fighting to have Matthew legally declared a 'person' so she
can be appointed as his guardian if the bankrupt animal sanctuary where
he lives in Vienna is forced to close.
Transhumanism, Eugenics, and Population Reduction is the expected
outcome of the technological Singularity,
the realization of superhuman intelligence against which no human will
be able to successfully compete. While this may read like science
fiction, it is NOT, and neither was this from the Star Trek Enterprise
episodes: "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. We will
assimilate you." - The Borg
That's why they gave us democracy first. It's a key stepping stone
on the road to collective socialism. The will of the people expressed
through a bogus polling system and corrupt representation achieves
collective complicity in the plan. For those believers in democracy and
other assorted collectivist ideals, this is not seen as a problem,
because, well, they are the complicit believers who have become
complaisant (eager to please). For others who have not been thoroughly
deceived and did not take refuge under the collective's protective
wing, but retain their individuality, it is huge a problem. That
explains why the individual is roundly scorned and publicly ridiculed
if he sounds a discordant note, or looks "suspicious" in his neighbor's
eye.
However, individual complicity is another matter, because the true
individual is not represented by the collective. That's why the
individual is so systematically attacked as a misfit, outsider,
isolationist, separatist, loner, etc. and pronounced mentally ill which
then justifies his being incapacitated, incarcerated,
institutionalized, surrounded, isolated, traumatized, and frequently,
summarily executed to prevent his 'disease' from contaminating the
fictitious collective mind. - Resisting
the Collective: But How?
More Interesting Links:
Links
to the New Age
"Shedding
of the Flesh" and Ascension To Godhood
Transhumanism
and Micro-Chips Video
Technology
and Social Control: The Search for the Illusive Silver Bullet
WHAT IS COMMUNITY?: A
Sociological Perspective
Community Empowerment
Keywords
Did you notice that the threat and/or fear of global thermonuclear war
is the motivation for compliance with the UNESCO agenda?
How about the Theory of Evolution in synthesising the "proper
organization of society"?
Julian Huxley was a brother to Aldus Huxley, author of the Utopian New
Age "Brave New World". Julian Huxley, evolutionary biologist, humanist,
internationalist. Titles in addition to being the first Director of
UNESCO include: Secretary of the
Zoological Society of London (1935-42), first president of the British
Humanist Association (1963), Vice-President (1937-44) and President
(1959-62) of the British Eugenics Society. He was a founding
member of Prince Phillipp's World Wild Life Fund, he coined the term
"transhumanism" and gave two Galton memorial lectures
(1936, 1962). He received many awards including the Darwin
Medal of the Royal Society (1956), UNESCO's Kalinga Prize (1953) and
the Special Award of the Lasker Foundation in the category Planned
Parenthood - World Population (1959) to name but a few. He is also the
Grandson of Thomas Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog) and brother of author
Aldous Huxley.
Free to post. Comments welcome.
Bobby Garner
http://www.congregator.net/
http://apps.congregator.net/Blog/
Subject: Tyranny As A Tool of Social Engineering
Date: 3/23/2008 5:37 PM
This is updated research material on the subject of tyranny which
includes my recent comments on Communitarianism. My objective is to
show the nature of connections between the New Age Movement proper and
the numerous ancillary movements which support it directly or
indirectly, use it for other advantage, and/or provide a smokescreen
cover for it. You may recall that this was also the theme in a recent
email which is posted HERE.
Many of you feel the effects of "a rigorous condition imposed by
some outside agency
or force". We may place the blame on the Tavistock Institute, the
Bilderbergers, the Trilateral Commission, the Rothschilds, the
Illuminati, or the CIA. We may have different names for it, the hidden
hand, the velvet glove, the powers that be, and
many others, but at the end of the day its simply tyranny
in some shape or form. It exists because we tolerate it, love it, hate
it, ignore it, excuse it, condemn it, write about it, and talk about
it, but in the final analysis we essentially do nothing about
it. One reason seems to be that there are so many explanations from
those who attempt to describe it that the readers of all this
information could not possibly know which one is correct.
The main function I try to serve is to suggest the means by which it
all makes more sense to more people. But its such a perfect crime, that
the closer I get to the truth, the more absurd the tail becomes.
Consequently, my objective is more easily achieved by those many
authors who write primarily for financial gain or personal recognition.
The only thing which make any sense to me is 2nd Thessalonians 2:
9-11.
For the
mystery of lawlessness already is working, only he is holding
back now, until it comes out of the midst. And then "the Lawless One"
will be revealed, "whom" "the Lord" "will
consume" "by the spirit of His mouth," and will bring to nought by the
brightness of His presence. Isa. 11:4 His
coming is
according to the working of Satan in all power and miraculous
signs and lying wonders, and in all deceit of unrighteousness in those
being lost, because
they did not receive the love of the truth in order for them to be
saved. And because of this, God will send to them a working of error,
for them to believe the lie, that all may be judged, those not
believing the truth, but who have delighted in unrighteousness.
Therefore, it is not for me to persuade you to believe anything. but
for you to decide just what you will stand up for, or be willing to die
for, because thats what its going to come down to in the final
analysis. Will you search out the obscure but available truth and live?
Or will you believe the lie as its being told in many different
versions, one to suit every preference? The lies are many, but there is
only one truth. If you find it all to confusing, maybe its because
you've been trying to decide which lie to believe.
_________________________
In all the problems facing the world today, there is one common
factor which is often overlooked. Tyranny! Merriam Webster Online
defines tyranny
as "oppressive power", especially when that power is exerted by
government. It could also be "the office, authority, and administration
of a tyrant", or "a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency
or force". The latter of course may be the most subtle and this is the
particular nature of the tyranny under consideration here.
We tend to naively think of tyranny as the product of a foreign
dictator, or a rogue group of militants. Often that tendency is
encouraged by active promotion of such outlandish ideas as a terrorist
organization headed up by a vagabond hermit who possesses high
technologies which allow him to out maneuver the military defenses of
super powers and outwit the (alleged) greatest military intellectuals
in all of recorded history, and to do so successfully for a period of
many years.
Rarely do we consider that much of what we see and feel in our
everyday lives is the result of tyranny within our own social
environment. There are many tyrannies which go unnoticed simply because
they are so deeply ingrained in the social fabric. There's tyranny of
the mob that we otherwise know as democracy as it is shaped by opinion
polls, and reflected in pressures to conform to societies rules. The
tyranny of political correctness, or the tyranny of the amoral
judgments of society are some examples of largely self inflicted social
tyrannies. To wit: Many advocates of a cause may often come under the
tyranny imposed by their own actions, but fail to recognize it as such
because it comes as an unintended consequence, and one which may easily
be blamed on others. The "others" however, may be of the same or
similar group but coordinated by still others above each of those
groups.
In addition to tyrannies imposed by interest groups, tyranny may
develop spontaneously within a society which fails to successfully meet
its challenges. It should also be noted that a tyranny may be developed
on purpose by a dedicated group which promotes the conditions which
cause it to appear to develop spontaneously, i.e. "feelings of
insecurity and inadequacy". This could be done by first introducing the
challenges (example: the 1960's counter-culture), and then promoting
bogus, ineffective responses, such as a War On [Poverty], [Crime],
[Drugs], [Terror], or better yet, all of the above.
The emergence of tyranny therefore begins with
challenges to a group, develops into general feelings of insecurity and
inadequacy, and falls into a pattern in which some individuals assume
the role of "father" to the others, who willingly submit to becoming
dependent "children" of such persons if only they are reassured that a
more favorable outcome will be realized. This pattern of co-dependency
is pathological, and generally results in decision making of poor
quality that makes the situation even worse, but, because the pattern
is pathological, instead of abandoning it, the co-dependents repeat
their inappropriate behavior to produce a vicious spiral that, if not
interrupted, can lead to total breakdown of the group and the worst of
the available outcomes. Principles of
Tyranny, by Jon Roland
"Moral busybodies" require little or no motivation and lend
themselves well to the implementation of the tyranny.
[...]
Tyranny
As A Tool of
Social Engineering
On the Blog
Bobby
Subject: Communitarian Religion
Date: 3/20/2008 7:42 PM
Look what my good friend
Niki has just posted on her blog
Communitarian
Religion
Much of my study of communitarianism has been in the political and
legal arena. I tend to stick to reading the documents I am familiar
with, meaning policies and programs. I stepped outside my little
self-imposed box after a few years and devoted thousands of hours to
the philosophical foundations for the communitarian theory. That
resulted in our manifesto in 2003. But the story of communitarianism
doesn't stop there, and there is much work that has yet to even be
started. Besides being the emerging global-to-local bureaucratic
system, it also includes this whole other aspect called religion.
Communitarian economics and banking, as I explained last week, is one
of the subjects I consider to be way out of my league. Religious, or spiritual communitarianism is
another.
Therefore,
I'm very grateful to Bobby Garner for taking the time to study and
share his work on the religious theories that are the backbone for our
comunitarian spiritual evolution. He is the only person I'm aware of in
the world who has studied the connection between Christianity, Alice
Bailey, Masonry and the communitarian Plan for a New Global Economic
Order. Bobby's also done a lot of historical research and has found
several things I never heard of in connection to communitarianism. I
highly recommend his site to all my visitors who would like to read
another take on all of this, and perhaps some of you are interested in
knowing more about the history, beliefs and religious practices of the
communitarians. www.congregator.net
He also keeps a lively e-list conversation going that includes people
with many different opinions.
[...]
...MORE
Thank you Niki for such nice comments. While our efforts took different
paths, they had similar beginnings. If you recall, I had had a personal
encounter with communitarianism in my small midwestern home town, but I
didn't know it had a name. I only knew that the words "community" and
"development" seemed to be
in every other sentence in a local newsletter and in official City
and County statements. They wanted to bring in Law Enforcement, and I
thought it
was extremely interesting that the Co. Sheriff said he could support it
only if the City discarded its one hundred plus year old code and
adopted the standard Municipal Code for Kansas Cities, because it would
be
"easier to enforce". Our old code required that there be an injured
party in any crime and enforcement required that the party would be
willing to press
charges. The new code, I discovered would be more easily enforced
because the City and County would prosecute any case on the strength of
a "complaint". If one reads between the lines, as I tend to do, it
becomes clear that an anonymous phone call could be considered to be a
complaint and the target of the complaint could be prosecuted without
further process if it was determined that he was in violation of some
article of the new code. Also, under the new code, the accused does not
have the right to face his accuser. That's why I contend that it could
be anonymous, or it could be the City Council itself.
To make this story short, I was writing an article which I titled Communities
of Sustainable Fools, or maybe it was Communitarianism
vs. Synarchism, and research on some of the key words such as
"sustainable development" and community led me to the ACL, so I found
you
first, then you followed my trail and found congregator.net.
I'm not sure that a "lively e-list conversation" is the proper term for
my email (discussions?). I often wonder if I'm talking to a tree full
of owls. I keep imagining all these big eyes staring back at me, and
the silence makes me a little nervous at times. :-\
Now, why don't all you nice folks go to Niki's blog and tell her I said
Hi. She accepts comments on her posts and she's tough as nails, so I
doubt that she will be offended. Go ahead and tell her what you think.
http://nikiraapana.blogspot.com/
Bobby
Subject: Cyborg insects 'born' in DARPA project (A move toward the
Singularity)
Date: 3/20/2008 2:26 PM
Cyborg insects 'born' in DARPA project
Insects with modified body structures and embedded
micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS) have survived to adulthood in a US
Defense Advanced Reseach Projects Agency (DARPA) programme.
DARPA
wants to develop inexpensive micro air vehicles to find weapons and
explosives inside buildings or caves. Mechanical and fluidic
microsystems would allow remote control, could extend insect life, and
provide for gas, audio and even imaging sensors.
In the latest
work a Manduca moth had its thorax truncated to reduce its mass and had
a MEMS component added where abdominal segments would have been, during
the larval stage.
Images taken by x-ray of insects with these
changes and others found that tissue growth around the inserted probes
was good. One DARPA goal is to show that during locomotion the heat and
mechanical power generated by the thorax could be harnessed to power
the MEMS.
Giving the presentation on behalf of DARPA at the 1st US-Asian assessment and
demonstration of micro aerial and unmannned ground vehicle technology,
Georgia Institute of Technology
Research Institute's
aerospace, transportation and advanced systems laboratory's principal
research engineer, emeritus, Robert Michelson said: "You'd like this
[cyborg insect] to be created out where you need it rather than in a
lab in California."
He added that drawbacks included the short
life-span of insects, which means they could be dead before they are
needed, and the fact that MEMS insertion was labour-intensive.
One
of DARPA's goals is to remote-pilot a cyborg insect to within 100m
(327ft) of a target. Control could be maintained using pheromones or
mechano-sensor activation and direct muscle or neural interfaces using
the embedded MEMS.
Keywords: Singularity,
superhuman, intelligence
Other DARPA
Programs
Subject: Reinventing Jesus Christ, New Age, Subtle but Gross Deceptions
Date: 3/20/2008 12:30 PM
As most of you know, I began investing the cause of the worlds problems
in 1994 with severely limited time and other resources. I knew that
deception would be a key component, and before I could make sense of
anything else, I would first need to understand how it works. Obviously
there would be no need for deception if there were not very much more
to the story. I had vague ideas of what it might be, but I tried to
refrain from drawing conclusions until I gain more understanding. I
remain convinced that an open mind is essential to gaining any new
knowledge.
My investigation took a big leap when I finally got hooked up to the
Internet at my home in 2002. I had been online at my place of work
beginning in 1996, but needed to take care to avoid abusing the
privilege. Then in May or June of 2003, I joined a forum where I tested
some of my discoveries against what I now know was a New Age audience.
In fact the host of the forum was the Astrophysicist and
Magician, Michael St. Clair. I selected that venue because I
recognized it as representing what I considered to be the "dark side"
in spite (or because) of their professions of seeing the Light. I
worked there covertly never divulging my true purpose. It was a very
interesting and productive adventure because both St.Clair and myself
had military experience in intelligence operations, and as he tested me
to discover my agenda, he needed to reveal things which would have
taken much longer for me to discover otherwise. After about three
months, he declared the "end of belief" and soon afterward closed the
forum. I then started congregator.net in October.
Since then I have found that many others had been doing their own more
or less parallel investigation. By the time I discovered the New Age
Movement and realized that it lay at the very center of everything that
has happened in this world since at least the early 1930's, I began
finding that several others had reached the same or similar conclusion
by their own independent investigations. Constance Cumbey, Dennis Cuddy
and Berit
Kjos to name a few.
Now add to that short list, Warren
Smith, who as you will see has authored numerous books on the
subject (How could I have missed this?). Today, thanks to one of my
alert readers, I have found "Reinventing Jesus Christ, the New Gospel"
which you can read
online or download in pdf to read
offline. To get you started, I'm including an excerpt from the
epilogue update (I always start with the back cover). I think this
illustrates very well why the subject is so difficult to broach with
most people. We simply do not understand the power of deception, and
refuse to believe that we could possible be affected by it.
My purpose at congregator.net
is to prove the fallacy of that thinking. Once again, may I remind you:
Do not believe any of this! The knowledge you will gain is so
much better.
Bobby
P.S. This message posted HERE
Excerpt from an EPILOGUE Update:
http://www.reinventingjesuschrist.com/updates/12.html
Reinventing Jesus Christ, the New Gospel by Warren Smith
An Online Book: http://www.reinventingjesuschrist.com/
PDF Version for printing or reading off line:
http://www.reinventingjesuschrist.com/reinventing.pdf
Our Adversary’s Devices
The “Jesus” of A Course in Miracles states that “the journey
to the cross should be the last ‘useless journey.’”1
New Age leader Wayne Dyer appears on a PBS special declaring that the
teachings of A Course in Miracles could bring peace to the
world.2
Yet most Christian leaders remain unaware,
unconcerned and fast asleep about what is really going on.
New Age leader Neale Donald Walsch declares in the name of God in
his
book Conversations with God that “the era of the Single
Savior is over.”3
He also declares in the name of God
that “Hitler went to heaven,”4
“Hitler didn’t
hurt anyone,”5
and that “the mistakes Hitler made did
no harm or damage to those whose deaths he caused.”6
Yet
Oprah Winfrey describes Walsch’s book Conversations with God
as her “favorite book” and Walsch as one of the ten most
“memorable thinkers” she has ever met.7
All the
while, most Christian leaders remain unaware, unconcerned and fast
asleep about what is going on.
New Age leader Barbara Marx Hubbard declares in the name of God that
in
the New Spirituality everyone who refuses to believe in their own
divinity will be purposefully killed by the “selection process.”8
Yet on September 11, 2005 she received a special Peace Builders Award
in Washington D.C.9
Meanwhile, most Christian leaders
remain unaware, unconcerned and fast asleep about what is really
going on.
It’s unbelievable. Neale Donald Walsch, Marianne Williamson and
Barbara
Marx Hubbard form a political organization to take their New Age/New
Gospel/New Spirituality into American politics. Walsch states that
“the era of the Single Savior is over” while soft-selling Adolph
Hitler’s crimes against humanity. At the same time, Maitreya
describes the necessity of eliminating everyone who refuses to
believe in their own divinity. As with Nazi Germany, the New Age/New
Gospel that is emerging in our midst is both spiritual and
political in nature. And like Hitler before them, New Age leaders
are announcing their “final solution”—the “selection
process”—way ahead of time. Who said we will never let what
happened in Germany ever happen again? It is happening now, right
under our noses, while the world and the church remain unaware,
unconcerned and fast asleep about what is really going on. Konrad
Heiden’s modern introduction to Hitler’s Mein Kampf bears
repeating. He warned:
For years Mein Kampf stood as proof of the
blindness and complacency of the world. For in its pages Hitler
announced—long before he came to power—a program of blood and
terror in a self-revelation of such overwhelming frankness that few
among its readers had the courage to believe it. Once again it was
demonstrated that there was no more effective method of concealment
than the broadest publicity.10
New Age Warning
A number of years ago even the New Age Movement itself warned that
what
happened in Germany could happen again. The entire March 1978
issue of New Age magazine was dedicated to the theme
“Perils of the Path.” In an article entitled “An Early New Age
Movement: The Wandervogel (They Gave Hitler Space),” the
author warned how an equivalent New Age Movement in Germany gave way,
in only ten short years, to the dictatorship and “mystical
community” of Adolph Hitler.11
He noted that the “Bible
circles” that “abounded” in Germany were seventy percent
pro-Nazi before Hitler even became Chancellor.12
The
article described how the seemingly innocent pursuit of people’s
spiritual dreams quickly disintegrated into a Nazi nightmare.
Ironically, New Age magazine was realistically warning
its readers that spiritual journeys can very easily be turned into
spiritual disasters. Today their words seem to be prophetic, as both
the New Age and the church slide further and further into the
spiritual deception of a New Spirituality and a One World Religion.
How many people in the world and in the church will wake up before
it’s too late?
Spiritual Parallels
The New Age/New Gospel/New Spirituality has already—for their
purposes—reinvented Jesus Christ and biblical Christianity. Rick
Warren and his Purpose-Driven Church seem to be well on their way to
doing the same thing. Will the emerging twenty-first century
New Age “Christ” become the head of the emerging
twenty-first century “Christian” church? The growing number of
parallels between the New Age/New Spirituality and the Purpose-Driven
Church are truly amazing. The New Age/New Gospel/New Spirituality
movement teaches that the foundational teaching of the New World
Religion is that God is in everything.13
Rick
Warren, in his book The Purpose-Driven Life, presents this
same teaching that God is in everything.14
The New
Age/New Spirituality claims that God has a 5-step P.E.A.C.E. Plan and
that He is in the process of introducing it to all mankind.15
Rick Warren and his Purpose-Driven Church state that God has a 5-step
PEACE PLAN and that He is in the process of introducing it to all
mankind.16
The New Age/New Spirituality is calling for
servant leaders to come together in world service to
“change the world.”17
Rick Warren is also calling for
servant leaders to come together in world service to
“change the world.”18
The New Age/New Spirituality is
calling for a “New Reformation” based on behavior and
self-esteem.19
Rick Warren is calling for a “New
Reformation” based on behavior and self-esteem.20
Alice
Bailey and the New Age/New Spirituality declare that the details of
Christ’s return are “none of our concern.”21
Rick
Warren and his Purpose-Driven Church declare that the details of
Christ’s return “are none of our business.”22
The
list goes on and on, as the emerging New Age/New Spirituality and the
emerging Purpose-Driven Church are becoming more and more like each
other in word, thought and deed. They are now both using many of the
same terms and teachings, and many of the same ideas. It seems that
step-by-step-by-step the New Age/New Gospel/New Spirituality and the
emerging “Christian” Church are in the process of becoming
one.
Like the frog in the kettle of boiling water things are happening so
incrementally most people have no idea what is happening. But a day
of reckoning is at hand. The people of the world will soon be asked
to make a choice. The ultimate dilemma that will confront each one of
us in our prayer closet is simply this: Is God presenting humanity
with a New Spirituality to save the church and save the world? Or is
the enemy of our souls presenting humanity with a New Spirituality to
deceive the church and to deceive the world? Most Christian leaders
seem to believe—because of the sheer number of churches involved—that
Rick Warren’s massive Purpose-Driven Movement must be from
God. But in God’s plan there has never been any power or strength
or dependence on numbers. There is only power and strength when we
depend on God. And there is only one mediator between man and God—Jesus
Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). Not a reinvented false New Age “Christ”
like Maitreya’s “Master Jesus,”23
but the true Jesus
Christ described in the Bible.
Subject:
District of Columbia v. Heller - a Trojan Horse inside the city walls
Date: 3/19/2008 2:54 PM
When I first heard of the
Supreme Court's decision to hear this case,
red flags immediately started going up. The problem lies in the fact
that this case has been styled as a constitutional 2nd amendment case
from the start and, the fact that Washington D.C. is Federal territory.
A further problem is the fact that Dick Anthony Heller, who sued D.C.
after it rejected his application to keep a handgun at his home, is a
federal guard in the employ of the federal government.
It should also be remembered that the Supreme Court is a branch of the
federal government with judges appointed by the federal government, and
its budget is appropriated by the federal government.This has all the
characteristics of a rigged setting in my opinion.
Why did the court decide to hear this case rather than a case from one
of the several states? To answer that we should review the
purpose and intent of the
constitution.
The question under consideration in this case is about the meaning of
the words Militia and People, and whether a government
(in this instance the United States federal government) may
impose restrictions on the private individual ownership and use of
firearms. The word People appears three times in the
constitution and it is capitalized in each instance. The word Militia
appears four times and is likewise capitalized. The term United
States appears 59 times. (not including any amendments)
The constitution mentions three distinct groups:
- The federal government cited as the United States,
consisting of three branches, each having specific authority.
- The States consisting of the governments of the
territories within their respective boundaries.
- The People consisting of the citizens of each of the
several States United.
It should be understood that the constitution defines the limits of
authority of the federal government. It does not grant any rights,
because it has none to grant. Rather it is charged with the
responsibility to protect and defend our inalienable rights. It cannot
make any law which infringes upon those rights. We have to right to be
offensive if we choose, but we recall that the offended party has the
right of redress in a constitutional court of Law. The dread of that
prospect is the only Lawful limit on our liberties. The reason it
doesn't seem to work well any more is not the fault of the
constitution, but that it has already been severely abused and many of
our rights have in fact been infringed upon.
The Preamble states its principles most concisely:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a
more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure
the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The Union then will establish Justice, insure
Tranquility, secure Blessings of Liberty, provide
common defence, and promote the general Welfare. There are many
key points to be learned about this broad general statement, including
perhaps more importantly what it does NOT say.
Transitive verbs like establish, secure, and promote
have distinctly different and specific meanings and they indicate the
type of action to be taken in specific areas.
transitive - characterized by having or containing a direct
object
intransitive - characterized by
not having or containing a direct object
direct object - a word or
phrase denoting the goal or the result of the action of a verb
- establish
- transitive verb 1: to
institute (as a law) permanently by enactment or agreement
- insure - transitive verb 2 : to
make certain especially by taking necessary measures and precautions
- secure -transitive
verb 1 a: to
relieve from exposure to
danger : act to make safe against adverse
contingencies <secure a supply line from
enemy raids>
- provide
- intransitive verb 1: to take precautionary
measures <provide for the common defense
— United States Constitution>
- promote
- transitive verb 2 a: to
contribute to the growth
or prosperity of : FURTHER
Note that " promote
the general Welfare" does not mean that Welfare is to be
delivered, forced or paid for by the federal government. Why do we have
a burgeoning and in many ways oppressive, Department of Welfare in this
country?
Likewise since "provide" is intransitive, it does not have a direct
object. Therefore "common defence" is not a direct object, so the
federal government then has no constitutional requirement or mandate " to supply or make available" (which would be the
transitive case) the common
defence of the States United. Other portions of the constitution
support this conclusion.
What the constitution does require of the federal government is that it
set the rules for calling up the Militias, and that it budgets the
cost, trains and manages the Militia to "suppress Insurrections and
repel Invasions" as specified in Article 1, Section. 8. It further
stipulates that the Militias may be called into service only under
conditions of War, and that the President is to function as "Commander
in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia
of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the
United States..." - Article 2, Section 2. There is no other provision
for an Army or Navy so they would obviously be formed from the Militias
when they are called into service. Only Congress may declare War and
set this process in motion.
Its the duty of the States to " to supply or make
available" (the transitive case)
the Militias, and the Second Amendment forbids the federal government
to interfere: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the
security of a free
State (NOT the United States), the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be
infringed." This means that neither Congress (a brance of federal
government) nor any organization established or managed by Congress
(such as the District of Columbia, the City of Washington or the local
Post Office) may make any law infringing upon "the right of the people
to keep and bear Arms". PERIOD.
I can find no constitutional provision to consider the rights of the
people living in Washington DC. on any terms except as citizens of one
of the several States. The whole concept of a federal government is
that frequent elections would produce a regular turnover of those
living in the DC area. Anyone choosing to have permanent residence
there places himself under the rules of the federal government, and
agrees to be regulated by it.
The constitution sets a line of demarcation between federal territory
and territory of the States. The federal government has no authority
within the States (except as provided), and I don't believe its
authority extends to any citizen of any State who happens to be in
federal controlled territory, but not residing there. Those who choose
to make it their general home place are treated the same as citizens of
the Virgin Islands, Guam or any other federal possession or
territory,
and therefore they have whatever rights accorded to them by the federal
government but the constitution does NOT apply. Active military doesn't
have constitutional rights either. They have similar rights accorded to
them (not inalienable) by the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
However, the general public ignorance is of such proportions that this
Supreme Court could easily rule that the constitution does apply, and
apparently with the blessing of the great majority of the population.
In my opinion, that would serve to further weaken the constitution.
This could be a prelude to making Washington a State, which would be a
huge mistake in my opionion, because it would further blur the line of
distinction between Washington and the States.
But what I fear the most is that it will knock down the lower court
ruling, therefore supporting the ban on guns in DC, but for very
different reasons than the majority it seems. That would be the
constitutionally correct ruling in my opinion as I've outlined above,
and it would have no impact whatsoever on the second amendment.
However, it would be extremely unconstitutional to invert the logic of
that ruling by alleging that it does justify the imposition of the
ruling under the color of case law, elsewhere within the States. And
again because of the general public ignorance, I believe that may
well
be the plan. It is my belief that in the event it does come down that
way, and I believe it is highly probable that it will, we will soon see
even more restrictive gun laws and possilly an outright ban on
possession.
In short, this case is dressed up like a Trojan
Horse.
Bobby
References: Constitution
for the United States of America
Article 1, Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect
Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for
the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the
United States;
[...]
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
Forces; (this is rules for the operation of the federal government, and
federal land. LANDS OWNED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT)
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of
the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules
concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service
of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; (This applies only
to those "employed in the Service of the United States", such as active
duty military)
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines,
Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any
Department or Officer thereof.
___________________.
Article 1, Section. 10.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation;
grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal;
coin Money; emit Bills of Credit;
make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;
pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the
Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
[...]
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of
Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter
into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign
Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded,..
___________________.
Article 4, Section. 4. The United States shall
guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government, and
shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of
the
Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be
convened),
against domestic Violence. [Statements such as this make a clear
distinction between the " United States" and " every State in
this union" or " the several States". The "State" or
States" is clearly not the same thing as the " United States".
Article 2, Section. 2. The
President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the
United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when
called into the actual
Service of the United States;...
a social system in which the welfare of each person
becomes the responsibility of every other person in the community.
"Of all tyrannies a tyranny exercised for the good of
its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under
robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber
baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be
satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us
without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
— C.S. Lewis in The Humanitarian
Theory of Punishment, Res Judicatae (June 1953).
Example:
Etzioni concluded that the "images from Hiroshima
sufficed to confirm my belief that humanity could not possibly do
without my administering to it." He vowed to become a scholar and an
activist, a public intellectual. "Here I stand; I can do no other," he
announced to his wife, invoking Luther.
It is in the sections in My Brother's Keeper on his career as
a public intellectual that Etzioni's memoir is most revealing. He is
clearly a man who revels in the wonkish public-policy battles that take
place beyond the seminar room (which was one of the reasons he moved to
DC's George Washington University). And he is clearly a man of
conviction-the "conviction" typically being that he is correct, his
ideas on "the side of the angels." But it isn't enough to be right; it
drives him crazy when he isn't credited for his insights. A
review of Amitai Etzioni's "My Brother's Keeper"
If you aren't mad yet, may I suggest Communitarianism:
Anatomy of a Stupid Idea
The prime smokestack for Communitarianism is Norton
Garfinkle (at
George Washington University Institute for Communitarian Policy
Studies) who was of course educated at Columbia University. He is
a darling of News Hour (via Yale), Bloomberg and NPR. He
frequently teams up with other New School for Social Research
(Greenwich Village) experts and others from the Brookings Institution
and American Enterprise Institute. Garfinkle is also Chairman of
the Executive Committee of the Lamaze Institute for Family Education,
showing his need to be a meddling middleman in the human condition from
the fetal stage up to the world political stage, telling people
everything from how to breathe to how to participate in civilization.
The dubious Communitarian mission is to "build the good society based
upon
the core values of the American people as defined by the Declaration of
Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights."
That should strike the reader as an weak alloy of Platonism and
Americanism. One should, if he has his wits, also be struck by
the thought that the phrase "The Good Society" must have been ripped
off
from somewhere. Here:
"The focus of The
Good Society is on the institutions of America, or on the patterned way
in which Americans live their lives together, and how they can be used
and altered to encourage a better way of life." That is a quote
from The Good Society.
(Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, and Tipton). It oozes
long-winded neo-Marxist sociology. It smacks of Things to Come. One might
also think of the weirdos at Johns Hopkins University.
It is a no-brainer to say that "The Good Society" is a critical meme
which quickly segues into economic and specifically socio-economic
criticism, and more specifically Platonist Utopianism and the belief
that modern civilization must be changed radically in line with a
Marxist-Spartan hybrid. In keeping with Platonist Utopianism two
things must be conserved: 1) Fantasy must take precedence over reality,
2) Philosophers must be tyrannical idea-idiot kings ex machina.
Communitarians as hermaphrodites meld the masculine and the feminine
desires, one, to insert something (in this case 'community') into all
politics, and two, to harmonously resolve, albeit irrationally
individualism and the needs of mother hen to ensure the safety of the
brood.
The roots of Communitarianism are found in the Utopian ideology of
Martin Buber who was a mentor to Amitai Etzioni, accepting him at his
university when other universities were turning him away:
Martin Buber (1878-1965) was, arguably, the most important
Jewish religious philosopher of the 20th century and one of the most
important modern representatives of the human spirit. He wrote widely
in the fields of art, education, sociology, philosophy, politics,
religion, biblical interpretation, Judaism and Zionism. His work, I and
Thou, has been universally recognized as one of the major classics of
20th century thought. Buber was concerned with the question of how to
bring the reality of the Divine into the contemporary secular world.
Through his writing and activism he was able to bear witness to the
continued existence of the Holy. Throughout his mature life he
translated the message of the Bible in ways that would matter to modern
men and women. Buber also discovered the 18th century Jewish mystical
movement called Hasidism; and, through his work, these marvelous tales
and spiritual teachings were revealed to the Western world for the
first time. Buber believed that spiritually-grounded human
relationships between individuals needed to be the core of any genuine
community. In political and economic terms this meant that small
intentional communities were the ideal forms of social existence. This
has been called utopian or communitarian socialism.
Buber was critical of the excessive individualism of
capitalist countries and the excessive authoritarianism of communist
nations. Buber became a Zionist in 1898, believing that European
anti-Semitism made it necessary for Jews to have their own homeland. He
soon became disenchanted with Theodore Herzl's brand of nationalistic
political Zionism. Instead, he favored the form of Zionism developed by
Ahad Ha'am, based on the fundamental moral and spiritual values of
Judaism. Zionism was to be no less than a Jewish path to bring about
tikkun olam -- redemption of the world-- through establishment of truth
and justice in all of the institutions and activities of the Jewish
settlement in Palestine. In this way Zionism could contribute to human
civilization as a whole and avoid self-centered nationalism. Thus, it
becomes clear why Buber became an early advocate for Jewish-Arab
cooperation. How could the Jewish people establish a state that did not
provide justice and security for all of its inhabitants, Jews and
non-Jews? He hoped for deep and continuing solidarity of genuine
interests between the two peoples. When friction did arise, he wrote
that the Arab question would be the moral litmus test of Zionism. In
1921 he proposed a federation of Middle Eastern states to link the
Jewish community with its Arab neighbors.
Buber was still living in Germany in 1925 when a
number of his followers in Palestine started an organization called
Brit Shalom (A Covenant of Peace). The founders of Brit Shalom based
their ideology on Buber's writings, advocating a democratic bi-national
state in which Jews and Arabs would be completely equal. Buber became
the leading Zionist leader in Germany in the 1930's. When Hitler came
into power, Buber traveled to different Jewish communities and worked
to strengthen the people's spirits. In 1938 he finally came to
Palestine, where he became a professor at the Hebrew University. He and
his comrades, including Rabbi Judah Magnes, worked with moderate Arabs
to try to forge links between the two peoples. They tried to influence
the direction of Zionism, but very unfortunately they never received a
fair hearing. Had Buber's views been taken seriously, the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict might have been averted.
[...]
Martin
Buber, Zionism and the Palestinians
Where Buber's ideas
failed to take root in Zionism, Etzioni found fertile ground for them
by appealing to the natural human social behavior of living peacefully
with our neighbors. We aren't supposed to notice that loving one's
neighbor as oneself is outwardly directed by self motivation from each
individual to the community, while communitarianism is the exact
opposite and forces the individual to forgo his personal choice and
submit to the will of the community. This is the equivalent of forced
servitude to the community.
For more see What The Communitarians
Stand For
|
