Rebuilding the Social Structure (Chapter 3): "Rebuilding the Social Structure
Chris R. Vanden Bossche, Professor of English, University of Notre Dame"
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Social order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Social order - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Social order is a concept used in sociology, history and other social sciences. It refers to a set of linked social structures, social institutions and social practices which conserve, maintain and enforce 'normal' ways of relating and behaving.
A 'social order' is a relatively stable system of institutions, patterns of interactions and customs, capable of continually reproducing at least those conditions essential for its own existence. The concept refers to all those facts of society which remain relatively constant over time. These conditions could include both property, exchange and power relations, but also cultural forms, communication relations and ideological systems of values."
A 'social order' is a relatively stable system of institutions, patterns of interactions and customs, capable of continually reproducing at least those conditions essential for its own existence. The concept refers to all those facts of society which remain relatively constant over time. These conditions could include both property, exchange and power relations, but also cultural forms, communication relations and ideological systems of values."
Feds Tout New Domestic Intelligence Centers | Threat Level | Wired.com
Feds Tout New Domestic Intelligence Centers | Threat Level | Wired.com: "Federal, state and local cops are huddling together in domestic intelligence dens around the nation to fuse anti-terror information and tips in ways they never have before, and they want the American people to know about it — sort of.
Some of the nation’s top law enforcement and anti-terror officials got together to hold press briefings Tuesday and Wednesday mornings at the second annual National Fusion Center conference held in San
Francisco.
Homeland Security Under Secretary Charlie Allen, formerly of the
CIA, described how sharing threat assessments, and even the occasional raw intel, with the new fusion centers marks a cultural shift from the Cold War era. Back then, spies treated everyone, other departments and agencies included, as suspicious.
'Things have changed remarkably in Washington. We are talking to each other,' Allen said Tuesday. 'I am from the shadows of the CIA where in the Cold War, we followed a different model. That model does not apply for the kinds of threats we have today that are borderless. The threats are so different and so remarkably dangerous for our citizens.'
The fifty or so U.S. fusion centers are where the federal, state and local cops share intelligence, sift data for clues, run down reports of suspicious packages and connect dots in an effort to detect and thwart terrorism attacks, drug smuggling and gang fighting."
Some of the nation’s top law enforcement and anti-terror officials got together to hold press briefings Tuesday and Wednesday mornings at the second annual National Fusion Center conference held in San
Francisco.
Homeland Security Under Secretary Charlie Allen, formerly of the
CIA, described how sharing threat assessments, and even the occasional raw intel, with the new fusion centers marks a cultural shift from the Cold War era. Back then, spies treated everyone, other departments and agencies included, as suspicious.
'Things have changed remarkably in Washington. We are talking to each other,' Allen said Tuesday. 'I am from the shadows of the CIA where in the Cold War, we followed a different model. That model does not apply for the kinds of threats we have today that are borderless. The threats are so different and so remarkably dangerous for our citizens.'
The fifty or so U.S. fusion centers are where the federal, state and local cops share intelligence, sift data for clues, run down reports of suspicious packages and connect dots in an effort to detect and thwart terrorism attacks, drug smuggling and gang fighting."
Slavery and War by Murray N. Rothbard
Slavery and War by Murray N. Rothbard:
Slavery and War
by Murray N. Rothbard
Excerpted from a 30,000-word memo to the Volker Fund, 1961.
The Road to Civil War
The road to Civil War must be divided into two parts:
the causes of the controversy over slavery leading to secession, and
the immediate causes of the war itself.
The reason for such split is that secession need not have led to Civil War, despite the assumption to the contrary by most historians.
The basic root of the controversy over slavery to secession, in my opinion, was the aggressive, expansionist aims of the Southern "slavocracy." Very few Northerners proposed to abolish slavery in the Southern states by aggressive war; the objection – and certainly a proper one – was to the attempt of the Southern slavocracy to extend the slave system to the Western territories. The apologia that the Southerners feared that eventually they might be outnumbered and that federal abolition might ensue is no excuse; it is the age-old alibi for "preventive war." Not only did the expansionist aim of the slavocracy to protect slavery by federal fiat in the territories as "property" aim to foist the immoral system of slavery on Western territories; it even violated the principles of states' rights to which the South was supposedly devoted – and which would logically have led to a "popular sovereignty" doctrine.
Actually, with Texas in the Union, there was no hope of gaining substantial support for slavery in any of the territories except Kansas, and this had supposedly been settled by the Missouri Compromise. "Free-Soil" principles for the Western territories could therefore have been easily established without disruption of existing affairs, if not for the continual aggressive push and trouble making of the South.
If Van Buren had been president, he might have been able to drive through Congress the free-soil principles of the Wilmot Proviso, and that would have been that. As it was, President Taylor's bill would have settled the Western territory problem by simply adopting "popular sovereignty" principles in New Mexico, Utah, Oregon, and California territories – admitting them all eventually as free states. Instead, the unfortunate death of President Taylor, and the accession of Fillmore, ended this simple and straightforward solution, and brought forth the pernicious so-called "Compromise" of 1850, which exacerbated rather than reduced interstate tensions by adding to the essential Taylor program provisions for stricter enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law. Since the Fugitive Slave Law not only forced the Northern people to collaborate in what they considered – correctly – to be moral crime, but also violated Northern state rights, the strict Fugitive Slave Law was a constant irritant to the North.
The shift from free-soil principles in the Democratic Party and toward the Compromise of 1850 wrecked the old Jacksonian Democracy. The open break became apparent in Van Buren and the Free Soil candidacy of 1848; the failure of the Democratic Party to take an antislavery stand pushed the old libertarians into Free Soil or other alliances, even into the new Republican Party eventually: this tragic split in the Democratic Party lost it its libertarian conscience and drive.
Pro-southern domination of the Democratic Party in the 1850s, with Pierce and Buchanan, the opening up of the Kansas territory to slave expansion (or potential slave expansion) in 1854, led to the creation of the antislavery Republican Party. One tragedy here is that the surrender of the Democrat and Whig parties to the spirit of the Compromise of 1850 forced the free-soilers into a new party that was not only free soil, but showed dangerous signs (in Seward and others) of ultimately preparing for an abolitionist war against the South. Thus, Southern trouble making shifted Northern sentiment into potentially dangerous channels. Not only that: it also welded in the Republican Party a vehicle dedicated, multifold, to old Federalist-Whig principles: to high tariffs, to internal improvements and government subsidies, to paper money and government banking, etc. Libertarian principles were now split between the two parties.
The fantastic Dred Scott decision changed the political scene completely: for in it the Supreme Court had apparently outlawed free-soil principles, even including the Missouri Compromise. There was now only one course left to the lovers of freedom short of open rebellion against the Court, or Garrison's secession by the North from a Constitution that had indeed become a "compact with Hell"; and that escape hatch was Stephen Douglas's popular sovereignty doctrine, in its "Freeport" corollary: i.e., in quiet, local nullification of the Dred Scott decision.
At this critical juncture, the South continued on its suicidal course by breaking with Douglas, insistent on the full Dred Scott principle, and leading to the victory of their enemy Lincoln. Here again, secession was only "preventive," as Lincoln had given no indication of moving to repress slavery in the South.
It is here that we must split our analysis of the "causes of the Civil War"; for, while this analysis leads, in my view, to a "pro-Northern" position in the slavery-in-the-territories struggles of the 1850s, it leads, paradoxically, to a "pro-Southern" position in the Civil War itself. For secession need not, and should not, have been combated by the North; and so we must pin the blame on the North for aggressive war against the seceding South. The war was launched in the shift from the original Northern position (by Garrison included) to "let our erring sisters depart in peace" to the determination to crush the South to save that mythical abstraction known as the "Union" – and in this shift, we must put a large portion of the blame upon the maneuvering of Lincoln to induce the Southerners to fire the first shot on Fort Sumter – after which point, flag-waving could and did take over.
The War Against the South and Its Consequences
The Civil War was one of the most momentous events in American history, not only for its inherent drama and destruction, but because of the fateful consequences for America that flowed from it.
We have said above that the War of 1812 had devastating consequences for the libertarian movement; indeed, it might be said that it took twenty years of devotion and hard work for the Jacksonian movement to undo the étatist consequences of that utter failure of a war. It is the measure of the statist consequences of the Civil War that America never recovered from it: never again was the libertarian movement to have a party of its own, or as close a chance at success. Hamiltonian neo-Federalism beyond the wildest dreams of even a J.Q. Adams had either been foisted permanently on America, or had been inaugurated, to be later fulfilled.
Let us trace the leading consequences of the War Against the South: there is, first, the enormous toll of death, injury, and destruction. There is the complete setting aside of the civilized "rules of war" that Western civilization had laboriously been erecting for centuries: instead, a total war against the civilian population was launched against the South. The symbol of this barbaric and savage oppression was, of course, Sherman's march through Georgia and the rest of the South, the burning of Atlanta, etc. (For the military significance of this reversion to barbarism, see F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism). Another consequence, of course, was the ending of effective states' rights, and of the perfectly logical and reasonable right of secession – or, for that matter, nullification. From now on, the Union was a strictly compulsory entity.
Further, the Civil War foisted upon the country the elimination of Jacksonian hard money: the greenbacks established government fiat paper, which it took 14 long years to tame; and the National Bank Act ended the separation of government from banking, effectively quasi-nationalizing and regulating the banking system, and creating an engine of governmentally sponsored inflation.
So ruthlessly did the Lincoln administration overturn the old banking system (including the effective outlawing of state bank notes) that it became almost impossible to achieve a return – impossible that is, without a radical and almost revolutionary will for hard money, which did not exist. On the tariff, the virtual destruction of the Democratic Party led to the foisting of a high, protective tariff to remain for a generation – indeed, permanently, for the old prewar low tariff was never to return. It was behind this wall of tariff-subsidy that the "trusts" were able to form. Further, the administration embarked on a vast program of subsidies to favored businesses: land grants to railroads, etc. The Post Office was later monopolized and private postal services outlawed. The national debt skyrocketed, the budget increased greatly and permanently, and taxes increased greatly – including the first permanent foisting on America of excise taxation, especially on whiskey and tobacco.
Thus, on every point of the old Federalist-Whig vs. Democrat-Republican controversy, the Civil War and the Lincoln administration achieved a neo-Federalist triumph that was complete right down the line. And the crushing of the South, the military Reconstruction period, etc. assured that the Democratic Party would not rise again to challenge this settlement for at least a generation. And when it did rise, it would have a much tougher row to hoe than did Van Buren and Co. in an era much more disposed to laissez-faire.
But this was not all: for the Civil War saw also the inauguration of despotic and dictatorial methods beyond the dreams of the so-called "despots of '98." Militarism ran rampant, with the arrogant suspension of habeas corpus, the crushing and mass arrests in Maryland, Kentucky, etc.; the suppression of civil liberties and opposition against the war, among the propeace "Copperheads" – the persecution of Vallandigham, etc.; and the institution of conscription. Also introduced on the American scene at this time was the income tax, reluctantly abandoned later, but to reappear. Federal aid to education began in earnest and permanently with federal land grants for state agricultural colleges. There was no longer any talk, of course, about abolition of the standing army or the navy. Almost everything, in short, that is currently evil on the American political scene, had its roots and its beginnings in the Civil War.
Because of the slavery controversy of the 1850s, there was no longer a single libertarian party in America, as the Democratic had been. Now the free-soilers had left the Democrat ranks. But, especially after Dred Scott had pushed the Douglas "Freeport Doctrine" to the fore as libertarian policy, there was hope for a reunited Democracy, especially since the Democrat party was still very good on all questions except slavery. But the Civil War wrecked all that, and monolithic Republican rule could impress its neo-Federalist program on America to such an extent as to make it extremely difficult to uproot.
Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles/www.mises.org/mnrbib.asp>. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.
Copyright 2008 Ludwig von Mises Institute
All rights reserved.
Slavery and War
by Murray N. Rothbard
Excerpted from a 30,000-word memo to the Volker Fund, 1961.
The Road to Civil War
The road to Civil War must be divided into two parts:
the causes of the controversy over slavery leading to secession, and
the immediate causes of the war itself.
The reason for such split is that secession need not have led to Civil War, despite the assumption to the contrary by most historians.
The basic root of the controversy over slavery to secession, in my opinion, was the aggressive, expansionist aims of the Southern "slavocracy." Very few Northerners proposed to abolish slavery in the Southern states by aggressive war; the objection – and certainly a proper one – was to the attempt of the Southern slavocracy to extend the slave system to the Western territories. The apologia that the Southerners feared that eventually they might be outnumbered and that federal abolition might ensue is no excuse; it is the age-old alibi for "preventive war." Not only did the expansionist aim of the slavocracy to protect slavery by federal fiat in the territories as "property" aim to foist the immoral system of slavery on Western territories; it even violated the principles of states' rights to which the South was supposedly devoted – and which would logically have led to a "popular sovereignty" doctrine.
Actually, with Texas in the Union, there was no hope of gaining substantial support for slavery in any of the territories except Kansas, and this had supposedly been settled by the Missouri Compromise. "Free-Soil" principles for the Western territories could therefore have been easily established without disruption of existing affairs, if not for the continual aggressive push and trouble making of the South.
If Van Buren had been president, he might have been able to drive through Congress the free-soil principles of the Wilmot Proviso, and that would have been that. As it was, President Taylor's bill would have settled the Western territory problem by simply adopting "popular sovereignty" principles in New Mexico, Utah, Oregon, and California territories – admitting them all eventually as free states. Instead, the unfortunate death of President Taylor, and the accession of Fillmore, ended this simple and straightforward solution, and brought forth the pernicious so-called "Compromise" of 1850, which exacerbated rather than reduced interstate tensions by adding to the essential Taylor program provisions for stricter enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law. Since the Fugitive Slave Law not only forced the Northern people to collaborate in what they considered – correctly – to be moral crime, but also violated Northern state rights, the strict Fugitive Slave Law was a constant irritant to the North.
The shift from free-soil principles in the Democratic Party and toward the Compromise of 1850 wrecked the old Jacksonian Democracy. The open break became apparent in Van Buren and the Free Soil candidacy of 1848; the failure of the Democratic Party to take an antislavery stand pushed the old libertarians into Free Soil or other alliances, even into the new Republican Party eventually: this tragic split in the Democratic Party lost it its libertarian conscience and drive.
Pro-southern domination of the Democratic Party in the 1850s, with Pierce and Buchanan, the opening up of the Kansas territory to slave expansion (or potential slave expansion) in 1854, led to the creation of the antislavery Republican Party. One tragedy here is that the surrender of the Democrat and Whig parties to the spirit of the Compromise of 1850 forced the free-soilers into a new party that was not only free soil, but showed dangerous signs (in Seward and others) of ultimately preparing for an abolitionist war against the South. Thus, Southern trouble making shifted Northern sentiment into potentially dangerous channels. Not only that: it also welded in the Republican Party a vehicle dedicated, multifold, to old Federalist-Whig principles: to high tariffs, to internal improvements and government subsidies, to paper money and government banking, etc. Libertarian principles were now split between the two parties.
The fantastic Dred Scott decision changed the political scene completely: for in it the Supreme Court had apparently outlawed free-soil principles, even including the Missouri Compromise. There was now only one course left to the lovers of freedom short of open rebellion against the Court, or Garrison's secession by the North from a Constitution that had indeed become a "compact with Hell"; and that escape hatch was Stephen Douglas's popular sovereignty doctrine, in its "Freeport" corollary: i.e., in quiet, local nullification of the Dred Scott decision.
At this critical juncture, the South continued on its suicidal course by breaking with Douglas, insistent on the full Dred Scott principle, and leading to the victory of their enemy Lincoln. Here again, secession was only "preventive," as Lincoln had given no indication of moving to repress slavery in the South.
It is here that we must split our analysis of the "causes of the Civil War"; for, while this analysis leads, in my view, to a "pro-Northern" position in the slavery-in-the-territories struggles of the 1850s, it leads, paradoxically, to a "pro-Southern" position in the Civil War itself. For secession need not, and should not, have been combated by the North; and so we must pin the blame on the North for aggressive war against the seceding South. The war was launched in the shift from the original Northern position (by Garrison included) to "let our erring sisters depart in peace" to the determination to crush the South to save that mythical abstraction known as the "Union" – and in this shift, we must put a large portion of the blame upon the maneuvering of Lincoln to induce the Southerners to fire the first shot on Fort Sumter – after which point, flag-waving could and did take over.
The War Against the South and Its Consequences
The Civil War was one of the most momentous events in American history, not only for its inherent drama and destruction, but because of the fateful consequences for America that flowed from it.
We have said above that the War of 1812 had devastating consequences for the libertarian movement; indeed, it might be said that it took twenty years of devotion and hard work for the Jacksonian movement to undo the étatist consequences of that utter failure of a war. It is the measure of the statist consequences of the Civil War that America never recovered from it: never again was the libertarian movement to have a party of its own, or as close a chance at success. Hamiltonian neo-Federalism beyond the wildest dreams of even a J.Q. Adams had either been foisted permanently on America, or had been inaugurated, to be later fulfilled.
Let us trace the leading consequences of the War Against the South: there is, first, the enormous toll of death, injury, and destruction. There is the complete setting aside of the civilized "rules of war" that Western civilization had laboriously been erecting for centuries: instead, a total war against the civilian population was launched against the South. The symbol of this barbaric and savage oppression was, of course, Sherman's march through Georgia and the rest of the South, the burning of Atlanta, etc. (For the military significance of this reversion to barbarism, see F.J.P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism). Another consequence, of course, was the ending of effective states' rights, and of the perfectly logical and reasonable right of secession – or, for that matter, nullification. From now on, the Union was a strictly compulsory entity.
Further, the Civil War foisted upon the country the elimination of Jacksonian hard money: the greenbacks established government fiat paper, which it took 14 long years to tame; and the National Bank Act ended the separation of government from banking, effectively quasi-nationalizing and regulating the banking system, and creating an engine of governmentally sponsored inflation.
So ruthlessly did the Lincoln administration overturn the old banking system (including the effective outlawing of state bank notes) that it became almost impossible to achieve a return – impossible that is, without a radical and almost revolutionary will for hard money, which did not exist. On the tariff, the virtual destruction of the Democratic Party led to the foisting of a high, protective tariff to remain for a generation – indeed, permanently, for the old prewar low tariff was never to return. It was behind this wall of tariff-subsidy that the "trusts" were able to form. Further, the administration embarked on a vast program of subsidies to favored businesses: land grants to railroads, etc. The Post Office was later monopolized and private postal services outlawed. The national debt skyrocketed, the budget increased greatly and permanently, and taxes increased greatly – including the first permanent foisting on America of excise taxation, especially on whiskey and tobacco.
Thus, on every point of the old Federalist-Whig vs. Democrat-Republican controversy, the Civil War and the Lincoln administration achieved a neo-Federalist triumph that was complete right down the line. And the crushing of the South, the military Reconstruction period, etc. assured that the Democratic Party would not rise again to challenge this settlement for at least a generation. And when it did rise, it would have a much tougher row to hoe than did Van Buren and Co. in an era much more disposed to laissez-faire.
But this was not all: for the Civil War saw also the inauguration of despotic and dictatorial methods beyond the dreams of the so-called "despots of '98." Militarism ran rampant, with the arrogant suspension of habeas corpus, the crushing and mass arrests in Maryland, Kentucky, etc.; the suppression of civil liberties and opposition against the war, among the propeace "Copperheads" – the persecution of Vallandigham, etc.; and the institution of conscription. Also introduced on the American scene at this time was the income tax, reluctantly abandoned later, but to reappear. Federal aid to education began in earnest and permanently with federal land grants for state agricultural colleges. There was no longer any talk, of course, about abolition of the standing army or the navy. Almost everything, in short, that is currently evil on the American political scene, had its roots and its beginnings in the Civil War.
Because of the slavery controversy of the 1850s, there was no longer a single libertarian party in America, as the Democratic had been. Now the free-soilers had left the Democrat ranks. But, especially after Dred Scott had pushed the Douglas "Freeport Doctrine" to the fore as libertarian policy, there was hope for a reunited Democracy, especially since the Democrat party was still very good on all questions except slavery. But the Civil War wrecked all that, and monolithic Republican rule could impress its neo-Federalist program on America to such an extent as to make it extremely difficult to uproot.
Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was the author of Man, Economy, and State, Conceived in Liberty, What Has Government Done to Our Money, For a New Liberty, The Case Against the Fed, and many other books and articles/www.mises.org/mnrbib.asp>. He was also the editor – with Lew Rockwell – of The Rothbard-Rockwell Report.
Copyright 2008 Ludwig von Mises Institute
All rights reserved.
Jim R. Schwiesow -- A two party system of slavery governs our voting choices
Jim R. Schwiesow -- A two party system of slavery governs our voting choices: "A TWO PARTY SYSTEM OF SLAVERY GOVERNS OUR VOTING CHOICES
By Jim R. Schwiesow
January 2, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
A recent poll by WorldNetDaily asked the question, “Whom should be the Constitution Party nominate?” A list of names was presented, which included the following patriotic Americans:
1. Tom Tancredo
2. Ron Paul
3. Alan Keyes
4. Jim Gilchrist
5. Jerome Corsi
6. Howard Phillips
7. Chuck Baldwin
There were several other choices on the menu, which included some alternative choices to the naming of a particular candidate, they were:
1. “The name doesn’t matter so much, I’ve had it with the two major parties, and will vote for a third party.”
2. “Someone of even more profile than these names.”
3. “A vote for any Constitution candidate will virtually assure that Hillary or another Democrat will win.”
Guess which of the ten options the majority of the respondents selected. You guessed it; they chose number three from the alternative options. Nearly forty percent of the poll participants expressed that they would cast their vote for the lesser of the two evils presented by the two national parties. What an extraordinarily sad state of affairs this is. To ignore a superior third party candidate in order to vote for the less deficient of two clearly deficient candidates is ludicrous. This is just the silliest justification for a vote that I can think of. To illustrate the absurdity of such thinking, consider the following.
Suppose that you had a daughter, a beautiful young lady who was the apple of your eye. And since she was your pride and joy, you wanted only the very best for her. Now suppose that your nubile young daughter was being courted by three eligible young men about town, two of who came from very rich and influential families, but who you knew to be of reprehensible character. In fact one of these was, if possible, a tad bit more reprehensible than the other. The third suitor came from modest circumstances, and although he was not from a wealthy and powerfully influential family, he was nevertheless possessed of wonderful intelligence and character, and was imbued with unquestionable integrity. Would you, in deference to the wealth and influence of the families of the two young men with no moral scruples, encourage your daughter to marry the lesser of these two reprobates, or would you do everything in your power to see to it that your beautiful young daughter, the apple of your eye, was delivered into the capable and loving hands of the young man who would care for her, provide for her, and cherish her?
That should be a simple question to answer. If you chose the former over the latter, then there is something wrong with your thinking. You are not going to reform a reprobate, and if you think that you can, you are in for many years of misery and grief. When we choose a president, why would we not want the very best to represent our interests, and to act as our commander in chief? If we think that we can elect the lesser of two evils, and then reform him once he is in office, we deserve the grief that will surely follow. This should be clearly evident when one assesses the damage done to the people’s sovereignty by the current administration, which is headed up by a lesser of two evils.
The fact is that the political tenets of our national two-party system are contributing to the rapid decay of society, and have been doing so for some time. This necessary and brilliant contrivance ensures that the corrupted will endeavor to limit the choices for national office to a choice between the perverted and the likewise perverted. The differences in the two parties are cosmetic at best. They are horses of the same likeness internally, but with different outward appearances. These appearances are carefully devised and cultured so as to fool the people into believing that they have alternative choices within a limited two-party system. This is brilliant and effective and has serious implications for the nation.
Any of the above named potential third-party candidates would be infinitely superior to those who comprise the long list of prospects of the two national parties. Unlike all of the potentials of the Republican and the Democrat parties they are not internationalists, and are not motivated by a quest for one-world governance. They understand the implications of our continual drift into a socialistic system, and they understand the dangers of flirting with the inducements to abandon a commitment to a governance, which is guided by the principles set forth by the Constitution in order to chase after the godless dogma of international new world order advocates.
Above all else these people, unlike their contemporaries of the national parties, have a sincere and steadfast fixity of purpose in regard to the absolutes of morality, and are able to differentiate between right and wrong. The likes of Obama, Clinton, Kerry and ilk of both parties represent the evil of the godless one-world internationalists. A look at their voting habits on moral issues should convince even the most intractable that they are devoid of moral scruples. Their consistent pursuit of the legalization of abortion under any circumstance bespeaks a deviant soul. Only the most wretched of medical practitioners can coldly, and with human detachment, push a sharp instrument into the soft malleable skull of a fully-formed living baby and suction the brain in the perpetration of a most heinous act of murder. And that political leaders of any persuasion would not only condone, but also encourage, such an act points up an utterly depraved inner being.
I have repeatedly stated my belief that we are on the cusp of tipping over into a communistic form of governance. In fact the unsophisticated internationalists among us, whether they know it or not, promote the doctrines espoused by Marx and Lenin when they advocate for a one-world order. They are, most assuredly being used by the true believers in this evil doctrine, which advocates the destruction of humanity and the institution of worldwide slavery to a Godless system of communism. Too many of our political leaders are unwitting dupes of truly evil men who would build their utopian world upon the carcasses of untold millions of God’s people. And others are not so unwitting; they push for a one-world order knowing full well the consequences.
If you, as a voter, want to hasten the fulfillment of the wishes of the utterly depraved, and usher in that new world order, keep voting for the lesser of two evils, and you will surely help bring to fruition the ultimate destruction of not only this nation, but the slavery of all mankind.
© 2007 - Jim R. Schwiesow - All Rights Reserved
By Jim R. Schwiesow
January 2, 2006
NewsWithViews.com
A recent poll by WorldNetDaily asked the question, “Whom should be the Constitution Party nominate?” A list of names was presented, which included the following patriotic Americans:
1. Tom Tancredo
2. Ron Paul
3. Alan Keyes
4. Jim Gilchrist
5. Jerome Corsi
6. Howard Phillips
7. Chuck Baldwin
There were several other choices on the menu, which included some alternative choices to the naming of a particular candidate, they were:
1. “The name doesn’t matter so much, I’ve had it with the two major parties, and will vote for a third party.”
2. “Someone of even more profile than these names.”
3. “A vote for any Constitution candidate will virtually assure that Hillary or another Democrat will win.”
Guess which of the ten options the majority of the respondents selected. You guessed it; they chose number three from the alternative options. Nearly forty percent of the poll participants expressed that they would cast their vote for the lesser of the two evils presented by the two national parties. What an extraordinarily sad state of affairs this is. To ignore a superior third party candidate in order to vote for the less deficient of two clearly deficient candidates is ludicrous. This is just the silliest justification for a vote that I can think of. To illustrate the absurdity of such thinking, consider the following.
Suppose that you had a daughter, a beautiful young lady who was the apple of your eye. And since she was your pride and joy, you wanted only the very best for her. Now suppose that your nubile young daughter was being courted by three eligible young men about town, two of who came from very rich and influential families, but who you knew to be of reprehensible character. In fact one of these was, if possible, a tad bit more reprehensible than the other. The third suitor came from modest circumstances, and although he was not from a wealthy and powerfully influential family, he was nevertheless possessed of wonderful intelligence and character, and was imbued with unquestionable integrity. Would you, in deference to the wealth and influence of the families of the two young men with no moral scruples, encourage your daughter to marry the lesser of these two reprobates, or would you do everything in your power to see to it that your beautiful young daughter, the apple of your eye, was delivered into the capable and loving hands of the young man who would care for her, provide for her, and cherish her?
That should be a simple question to answer. If you chose the former over the latter, then there is something wrong with your thinking. You are not going to reform a reprobate, and if you think that you can, you are in for many years of misery and grief. When we choose a president, why would we not want the very best to represent our interests, and to act as our commander in chief? If we think that we can elect the lesser of two evils, and then reform him once he is in office, we deserve the grief that will surely follow. This should be clearly evident when one assesses the damage done to the people’s sovereignty by the current administration, which is headed up by a lesser of two evils.
The fact is that the political tenets of our national two-party system are contributing to the rapid decay of society, and have been doing so for some time. This necessary and brilliant contrivance ensures that the corrupted will endeavor to limit the choices for national office to a choice between the perverted and the likewise perverted. The differences in the two parties are cosmetic at best. They are horses of the same likeness internally, but with different outward appearances. These appearances are carefully devised and cultured so as to fool the people into believing that they have alternative choices within a limited two-party system. This is brilliant and effective and has serious implications for the nation.
Any of the above named potential third-party candidates would be infinitely superior to those who comprise the long list of prospects of the two national parties. Unlike all of the potentials of the Republican and the Democrat parties they are not internationalists, and are not motivated by a quest for one-world governance. They understand the implications of our continual drift into a socialistic system, and they understand the dangers of flirting with the inducements to abandon a commitment to a governance, which is guided by the principles set forth by the Constitution in order to chase after the godless dogma of international new world order advocates.
Above all else these people, unlike their contemporaries of the national parties, have a sincere and steadfast fixity of purpose in regard to the absolutes of morality, and are able to differentiate between right and wrong. The likes of Obama, Clinton, Kerry and ilk of both parties represent the evil of the godless one-world internationalists. A look at their voting habits on moral issues should convince even the most intractable that they are devoid of moral scruples. Their consistent pursuit of the legalization of abortion under any circumstance bespeaks a deviant soul. Only the most wretched of medical practitioners can coldly, and with human detachment, push a sharp instrument into the soft malleable skull of a fully-formed living baby and suction the brain in the perpetration of a most heinous act of murder. And that political leaders of any persuasion would not only condone, but also encourage, such an act points up an utterly depraved inner being.
I have repeatedly stated my belief that we are on the cusp of tipping over into a communistic form of governance. In fact the unsophisticated internationalists among us, whether they know it or not, promote the doctrines espoused by Marx and Lenin when they advocate for a one-world order. They are, most assuredly being used by the true believers in this evil doctrine, which advocates the destruction of humanity and the institution of worldwide slavery to a Godless system of communism. Too many of our political leaders are unwitting dupes of truly evil men who would build their utopian world upon the carcasses of untold millions of God’s people. And others are not so unwitting; they push for a one-world order knowing full well the consequences.
If you, as a voter, want to hasten the fulfillment of the wishes of the utterly depraved, and usher in that new world order, keep voting for the lesser of two evils, and you will surely help bring to fruition the ultimate destruction of not only this nation, but the slavery of all mankind.
© 2007 - Jim R. Schwiesow - All Rights Reserved
Chains of Slavery
by Joe Blow
Political parties — comprised of incumbents, candidates, voters, agendas, special interests, and platforms — are the tools that the State uses to forge the chains of slavery for its citizens. The popular fiction of differences between political parties also perpetuates the enduring myth that citizens have only one means of governing themselves — by voting for a proxy. Not only is this notion patently false, the only real winner in the game is the State itself. The entire process consists of nothing more than mass delusion every time an election is held.
Political parties are very useful tools of the State, which is why they exist in the first place. Political parties can accomplish what the nebulous State cannot achieve by itself without bloodshed. Primary missions of political parties include: a.) transferring power from the people to the State; b.) pandering to special interests; c.) seizing and holding power; d.) crushing all competition; e.) fostering and maintaining the illusion that voters are governing themselves; f.) spreading propaganda; g.) demonizing the perceived political enemy of the day; and h.) lending some semblance of legitimacy to the State, however imaginary.
The Founders eschewed political parties, fearing the worst, and rightly so. John F. Bibby writes, “When the founders of the American republic wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they did not envision a role for political parties in the governmental order. Indeed, they sought through various constitutional arrangements such as separation of powers, checks and balances, and indirect election of the president by an electoral college to insulate the new republic from political parties and factions. In spite of the founders’ intentions, the United States was the first nation to develop parties organized on a national basis and to transfer executive power from one faction to another via an election in 1800.” [Emphasis added.]
“Many of America's Founding Fathers hated the thought of political parties, quarreling ‘factions’ they were sure would be more interested in contending with each other than in working for the common good. They wanted individual citizens to vote for individual candidates, without the interference of organized groups — but this was not to be.
“By the 1790s, different views of the new country's proper course had already developed, and those who held these opposing views tried to win support for their cause by banding together . . . . By [1860], parties were well established as the country's dominant political organizations, and party allegiance had become an important part of most people's consciousness. Party loyalty was passed from fathers to sons, and party activities — including spectacular campaign events, complete with uniformed marching groups and torchlight parades — were a part of the social life of many communities.” [Emphasis added.]
Does this sound vaguely familiar? It should because just 60 years later Adolf Hitler used these same American political party methods to great success.
“The 25 points of the NSDAP Program were composed by Adolf Hitler and Anton Drexler. They were publicly presented on 24 February 1920 "to a crowd of almost two thousand and every single point was accepted amid jubilant approval.". . . Hitler explained their purpose in the fifth chapter of the second volume of Mein Kampf: The program of the new movement was summed up in a few guiding principles, twenty-five in all. They were devised to give, primarily to the man of the people, a rough picture of the movement's aims. They are in a sense a political creed, which on the one hand recruits for the movement and on the other is suited to unite and weld together by a commonly recognized obligation those who have been recruited.
“Hitler was intent on having a community of mutual interest that desired mutual success instead of one that was divided over the control of money or differing values.
THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST--THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST - THAT IS THE KERNEL OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
“In these straightforward statements of intent, Hitler translated his ideology into a plan of action which would prove its popularity with the German people throughout the coming years. For many, the abruptness of its departure from the tradition of politics as practiced in the western world was as much of a shock as its liberal nature and foresight of the emerging problems of western democracy.”
Of course, common interest is merely code for special interest and self-interest must fall to party loyalty. Once that is achieved it is a short step to swearing loyalty oaths to the party leader himself.
Propaganda is not only a primary mission of political parties, it is the best means of achieving the political goals of the party, as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. The NSDAP was largely successful due to the extensive propaganda machine that it employed.
In 1931, Joseph Goebbels wrote in his “Will and Way” article, “Political methods always presume a political goal. Only when the goal is crystal clear and unchangeable is it possible to determine the foundations of practical work. The means one uses to reach the goal is political will.
“There are a variety of ways to gain power. There are illegal means to gain power through brute force; one can also gain power legally by winning a majority in an election. There are revolutions, Putsches, uprisings. But each of these methods requires a political group to win the sympathies of the broad masses, if it wishes over the long run to maintain its power. But the sympathy of the people does not come of itself; it must be won.
“The means of gaining that support is propaganda . . . . The goal of propaganda is to make what the theorists have discovered clear to the broad masses . . . . The great accomplishment of the National Socialist movement is that it created a synthesis of both elements [will and way] of the art of politics.”
Hitler was among the least likely of individuals to rise to power when he did. He was unimposing, a poor student, flat broke, and a failed painter. He lived like a bum for months on the streets of Vienna and he had no special gifts, other than an ability to speak in public. If not for the NSDAP, he would have gone nowhere. It was a political party that enabled Hitler to rise to power.
"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings." [Emphasis added.]
~ Adolf Hitler to Herman Rauschning in Why Does Socialism Continue to Appeal to Anyone? by Robert Hessen.
Hitler was much smarter than most Americans are today. He at least understood that the political party is the tool that the State uses to forge the chains of slavery for its citizens.
Political parties — comprised of incumbents, candidates, voters, agendas, special interests, and platforms — are the tools that the State uses to forge the chains of slavery for its citizens. The popular fiction of differences between political parties also perpetuates the enduring myth that citizens have only one means of governing themselves — by voting for a proxy. Not only is this notion patently false, the only real winner in the game is the State itself. The entire process consists of nothing more than mass delusion every time an election is held.
Political parties are very useful tools of the State, which is why they exist in the first place. Political parties can accomplish what the nebulous State cannot achieve by itself without bloodshed. Primary missions of political parties include: a.) transferring power from the people to the State; b.) pandering to special interests; c.) seizing and holding power; d.) crushing all competition; e.) fostering and maintaining the illusion that voters are governing themselves; f.) spreading propaganda; g.) demonizing the perceived political enemy of the day; and h.) lending some semblance of legitimacy to the State, however imaginary.
The Founders eschewed political parties, fearing the worst, and rightly so. John F. Bibby writes, “When the founders of the American republic wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787, they did not envision a role for political parties in the governmental order. Indeed, they sought through various constitutional arrangements such as separation of powers, checks and balances, and indirect election of the president by an electoral college to insulate the new republic from political parties and factions. In spite of the founders’ intentions, the United States was the first nation to develop parties organized on a national basis and to transfer executive power from one faction to another via an election in 1800.” [Emphasis added.]
“Many of America's Founding Fathers hated the thought of political parties, quarreling ‘factions’ they were sure would be more interested in contending with each other than in working for the common good. They wanted individual citizens to vote for individual candidates, without the interference of organized groups — but this was not to be.
“By the 1790s, different views of the new country's proper course had already developed, and those who held these opposing views tried to win support for their cause by banding together . . . . By [1860], parties were well established as the country's dominant political organizations, and party allegiance had become an important part of most people's consciousness. Party loyalty was passed from fathers to sons, and party activities — including spectacular campaign events, complete with uniformed marching groups and torchlight parades — were a part of the social life of many communities.” [Emphasis added.]
Does this sound vaguely familiar? It should because just 60 years later Adolf Hitler used these same American political party methods to great success.
“The 25 points of the NSDAP Program were composed by Adolf Hitler and Anton Drexler. They were publicly presented on 24 February 1920 "to a crowd of almost two thousand and every single point was accepted amid jubilant approval.". . . Hitler explained their purpose in the fifth chapter of the second volume of Mein Kampf: The program of the new movement was summed up in a few guiding principles, twenty-five in all. They were devised to give, primarily to the man of the people, a rough picture of the movement's aims. They are in a sense a political creed, which on the one hand recruits for the movement and on the other is suited to unite and weld together by a commonly recognized obligation those who have been recruited.
“Hitler was intent on having a community of mutual interest that desired mutual success instead of one that was divided over the control of money or differing values.
THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST--THAT IS THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM. BREAKING OF THE THRALDOM OF INTEREST - THAT IS THE KERNEL OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.
“In these straightforward statements of intent, Hitler translated his ideology into a plan of action which would prove its popularity with the German people throughout the coming years. For many, the abruptness of its departure from the tradition of politics as practiced in the western world was as much of a shock as its liberal nature and foresight of the emerging problems of western democracy.”
Of course, common interest is merely code for special interest and self-interest must fall to party loyalty. Once that is achieved it is a short step to swearing loyalty oaths to the party leader himself.
Propaganda is not only a primary mission of political parties, it is the best means of achieving the political goals of the party, as Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf. The NSDAP was largely successful due to the extensive propaganda machine that it employed.
In 1931, Joseph Goebbels wrote in his “Will and Way” article, “Political methods always presume a political goal. Only when the goal is crystal clear and unchangeable is it possible to determine the foundations of practical work. The means one uses to reach the goal is political will.
“There are a variety of ways to gain power. There are illegal means to gain power through brute force; one can also gain power legally by winning a majority in an election. There are revolutions, Putsches, uprisings. But each of these methods requires a political group to win the sympathies of the broad masses, if it wishes over the long run to maintain its power. But the sympathy of the people does not come of itself; it must be won.
“The means of gaining that support is propaganda . . . . The goal of propaganda is to make what the theorists have discovered clear to the broad masses . . . . The great accomplishment of the National Socialist movement is that it created a synthesis of both elements [will and way] of the art of politics.”
Hitler was among the least likely of individuals to rise to power when he did. He was unimposing, a poor student, flat broke, and a failed painter. He lived like a bum for months on the streets of Vienna and he had no special gifts, other than an ability to speak in public. If not for the NSDAP, he would have gone nowhere. It was a political party that enabled Hitler to rise to power.
"Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings." [Emphasis added.]
~ Adolf Hitler to Herman Rauschning in Why Does Socialism Continue to Appeal to Anyone? by Robert Hessen.
Hitler was much smarter than most Americans are today. He at least understood that the political party is the tool that the State uses to forge the chains of slavery for its citizens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)