Here’s a five star article by The British Constitution Groups Roger Hayes that’s well worth a read if you want to learn something … spread it around. 8)
Common Law vs Statutes
Living by the Rule of Law
by Roger Hayes
Few of us would disagree that the world would be a better place if we all lived by the rule-of-law – but can the same be said about living by the rule of statute? The writer thinks not.
In making the case that ‘the law’ benefits our society as a whole but ‘statutes’ benefit special interest groups and have become a negative factor in our lives let me first put forward my views as to what the differences between laws and statutes are. Here follows a summary of my interpretation of the differences (not necessarily in order of importance, sometimes repeated and definitely not exhaustive) – please feel free to challenge me if you disagree.
Warning: My assumptions are based on my own logic and reasoning – I have the benefit of not having been ‘trained’ to think like a barrister or a solicitor – in fact I have not been ‘trained’ to think like anybody – I tend to think for myself, which it appears very few people do these days… most preferring it seems to being ‘guided’ conveniently to the same conclusions as the ruling elite – some might call it brainwashing, I wouldn’t be so rude. I invite you to think for yourself and make your own conclusions as to whether you think my assumptions are correct.
The basis of my thinking is that no individual on this planet has the right (or authority) to tell any other individual what to do unless they have given their consent. We are governed by consent. But we give our consent unwittingly – and that is how they control us. Withhold your consent and you take back control of your life.
Statutes
- All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law – and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.
- A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.
- The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).
- There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.
- Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.
- Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.
- Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.
- The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.
- The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people. Lawful Rebellion is a right – and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.
- A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity. The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance – but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute.
- Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work). Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation. A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.
- If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful.
- It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not laws.
- If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power.
- Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.
- Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.
- Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.
- Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.
- Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.
- We are all equal in the eyes of the law.
- We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.
Law
- Law refers to common law.
- Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.
- Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.
- Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.
- Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law.
- Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation.
- Laws are used to keep the peace.
- Without law we have anarchy.
- The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.
- Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us all.
- Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.
- Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws.
- Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.
Courts, Judges And Juries
- If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.
- Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury. The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges.
- Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.
- Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view… but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box – common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).
- The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.
- A jury can stand in judgment of anybody… nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)
- If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.
- A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge.
- The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts.
- Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution – they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional. The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment… which we must challenge.
- Magistrates Courts have become statute courts… mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights. We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control.
- Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws – their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.
- Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically – the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.
- Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.
- If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.
The courts belong to the people – they do not belong to the ushers, private security personnel,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.
- Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t forget that.
- Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we can be represented – (they certainly try). The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court (but denied to you and I) – is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us, unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’
- The courts are there to serve the interest of justice… they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We need to get them working in the interest of justice for the majority, not as revenue collection agencies for the ruling elite.
- In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to appeal… without any reason given. This projects the case into a higher court where a jury trial will be available.
- The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge.
- In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus converting the court back to a statute court (also called an admiralty court).
- You do not need permission to claim common law rights – you declare them – it is your right to do so.
- If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court… and that includes judges.
Consent
- Consent is often given by the individual due to ignorance of the fact that their consent can be withheld and their assumption of the existence of the authority of others over them. If the people found out that they can reject oppressive statutes… by withholding their consent – the ruling class would panic – because they would lose control. Watch this space.
- A loss of control by the ruling class would not result in anarchy – it would merely result in a shift of power – back to the people where it belongs. This process is underway as a consequence of our greater understanding of the difference between laws and statutes.
- The European Communities Act 1972 – is a statute. It is unlawful because it is contrary to our constitution which guarantees our right to self-governance. Just because the political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey our constitution and the rule of law – does not make them invalid. If they ignore our constitution and the rule-of-law then we have a right (and a duty) to ignore their statutes… all of their statutes… including the ones giving them the authority to tax us.
- This writer is not a member (citizen) of the European Union – because membership is determined by consent and I am withholding my consent to being governed by a foreign power.
Government
- Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation.
- Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference.
KNOW THE LAW – your freedom depends on it
This author is not opposed to ‘statutes’ per se – he is opposed to the abuse of the use of statutes which has reached staggering proportions. Statutes are now used to override and nullify our laws and put power in the hands of the governing elite… but only because we allow it. Our freedoms are our right – but we must be prepared to defend them when they are being snatched from us from right under our noses.
http://pjcjournal.wordpress.com/common-law-vs-statutes/
Thursday, 3 March 2011
Monday, 1 November 2010
LIVING BY THE RULE OF LAW
http://www.ukcolumn.org/articles/living-rule-law
Roger Hayes
Few of us would disagree that the world would be a better place if we all lived by the rule-of-law – but can the same be said about living by the rule of statute? The writer thinks not.
In making the case that ‘the law’ benefits our society as a whole but ‘statutes’ benefit special interest groups and have become a negative factor in our lives let me first put forward my views as to what the differences between laws and statutes are. Here follows a summary of my interpretation of the differences (not necessarily in order of importance, sometimes repeated and definitely not exhaustive) – please feel free to challenge me if you disagree.
Warning: My assumptions are based on my own logic and reasoning – I have the benefit of not having been ‘trained’ to think like a barrister or a solicitor – in fact I have not been ‘trained’ to think like anybody – I tend to think for myself, which it appears very few people do these days... most preferring it seems to being ‘guided’ conveniently to the same conclusions as the ruling elite - some might call it brainwashing, I wouldn’t be so rude. I invite you to think for yourself and make your own conclusions as to whether you think my assumptions are correct.
The basis of my thinking is that no individual on this planet has the right (or authority) to tell any other individual what to do unless they have given their consent. We are governed by consent. But we give our consent unwittingly – and that is how they control us. Withhold your consent and you take back control of your life.
Statutes
- All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law - and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.
- A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.
- The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).
- There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.
- Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.
- Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.
- Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.
- The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.
- The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people. Lawful Rebellion is a right - and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.
- A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity. The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance - but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute.
- Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work). Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation. A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.
- If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful.
- It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not laws.
- If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power.
- Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.
- Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.
- Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.
- Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.
- Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.
- We are all equal in the eyes of the law.
- We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.
Law
- Law refers to common law.
- Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.
- Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.
- Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.
- Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law.
- Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation.
- Laws are used to keep the peace.
- Without law we have anarchy.
- The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.
- Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us all.
- Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.
- Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws.
- Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.
Courts, Judges And Juries
- If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.
- Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury. The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges.
- Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.
- Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view... but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box - common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).
- The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.
- A jury can stand in judgement of anybody... nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)
- If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.
- A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge.
- The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts.
- Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution - they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional. The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment... which we must challenge.
- Magistrates Courts have become statute courts... mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights. We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control.
- Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws - their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.
- Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically - the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.
- Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.
- If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.
The courts belong to the people - they do not belong to the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.
- Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t forget that.
- Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we can be represented - (they certainly try). The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court (but denied to you and I) - is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us, unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’
- The courts are there to serve the interest of justice... they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We need to get them working in the interest of justice for the majority, not as revenue collection agencies for the ruling elite.
- In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to appeal... without any reason given. This projects the case into a higher court where a jury trial will be available.
- The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge.
- In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus converting the court back to a statute court (also called an admiralty court).
- You do not need permission to claim common law rights – you declare them – it is your right to do so.
- If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court... and that includes judges.
Consent
- Consent is often given by the individual due to ignorance of the fact that their consent can be withheld and their assumption of the existence of the authority of others over them. If the people found out that they can reject oppressive statutes... by withholding their consent - the ruling class would panic – because they would lose control. Watch this space.
- A loss of control by the ruling class would not result in anarchy – it would merely result in a shift of power – back to the people where it belongs. This process is underway as a consequence of our greater understanding of the difference between laws and statutes.
- The European Communities Act 1972 – is a statute. It is unlawful because it is contrary to our constitution which guarantees our right to self-governance. Just because the political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey our constitution and the rule of law – does not make them invalid. If they ignore our constitution and the rule-of-law then we have a right (and a duty) to ignore their statutes... all of their statutes... including the ones giving them the authority to tax us.
- This writer is not a member (citizen) of the European Union – because membership is determined by consent and I am withholding my consent to being governed by a foreign power.
Government
- Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation.
- Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference.
Roger Hayes
Few of us would disagree that the world would be a better place if we all lived by the rule-of-law – but can the same be said about living by the rule of statute? The writer thinks not.
In making the case that ‘the law’ benefits our society as a whole but ‘statutes’ benefit special interest groups and have become a negative factor in our lives let me first put forward my views as to what the differences between laws and statutes are. Here follows a summary of my interpretation of the differences (not necessarily in order of importance, sometimes repeated and definitely not exhaustive) – please feel free to challenge me if you disagree.
Warning: My assumptions are based on my own logic and reasoning – I have the benefit of not having been ‘trained’ to think like a barrister or a solicitor – in fact I have not been ‘trained’ to think like anybody – I tend to think for myself, which it appears very few people do these days... most preferring it seems to being ‘guided’ conveniently to the same conclusions as the ruling elite - some might call it brainwashing, I wouldn’t be so rude. I invite you to think for yourself and make your own conclusions as to whether you think my assumptions are correct.
The basis of my thinking is that no individual on this planet has the right (or authority) to tell any other individual what to do unless they have given their consent. We are governed by consent. But we give our consent unwittingly – and that is how they control us. Withhold your consent and you take back control of your life.
Statutes
- All Acts of Parliament are ‘statutes’ known variously as legislation, regulations or rules. They are not laws. Statutes are often incorrectly referred to as laws by ‘trained’ barristers and solicitors, but the correct interpretation would be ‘black letter law’ (meaning statutes) which are distinguishable from ‘law’ i.e. common law - and for a purpose, the purpose being that statutes and laws are different. If Acts of Parliament were laws they would be called ‘Laws of Parliament.’ Parliament knows the distinction which it quite rightly maintains. Look at any Act of Parliament and you will notice the absence of the word law – that will give you the first clue that there is a difference. Parliament maintains the distinction between statutes and laws because those ‘in the know’ use this knowledge for their personal benefit.
- A ‘statute’ is defined as a rule or regulation of a society – they are edicts of legislation used to govern that society. Statutes are subject to the consent of the society – and this is individual consent and not collective consent. We belong to society as a matter of choice.
- The distinction between a law and a statute is that a law applies equally to us all but statutes can be made to favour one sector of society over others, for example, people with disabilities are given preferential parking privileges (which is fair enough) and politicians have given themselves special dispensations re their expenses which the rest of us do not have (which is outrageous).
- There is a compulsion to obey laws. Laws defend our freedoms and liberties and through them we live in peace and harmony with our neighbours. Failure to comply with laws would render an individual an outlaw. If you do not respect the law then it can afford you no protection.
- Obeying statutes is voluntary i.e. with our consent. Any individual can withdraw their consent to being governed (controlled) by the statutes of a society. This might involve their exclusion from that society and the loss of benefits, but when the imposition of the liabilities outweighs the benefits, then that might be a price worth paying. The choice is and should be yours.
- Consent must be given by the individual and not by a collective on behalf of the individual – this would be dictatorship by the majority. There is no freedom in having to do whatever you are told. Each individual must have the absolute right to give and withhold their consent. This is the basis of our constitution – individual freedoms.
- Government is elected into ‘office’ not ‘power’ as they frequently like to claim.
- The ultimate constraint on the abuse of authority (office) is the peoples ability to withdraw their consent to being governed – and at any time, not just at elections. Without consent, authority enforced becomes power and government then becomes tyrannical. We never give ‘power’ to those we elect, we merely give them authority to act on our behalf. Today’s governing bodies are slowly mutating into tyrannies, because they are ignoring the principles of consent and are securing ‘power’ for themselves.
- The ‘divine right of kings’ was destroyed by rebellion – we are now living under the yoke of the ‘divine right of politicians’ who saw fit to pass the Lisbon Treaty against the will of the people. Lawful Rebellion is a right - and the means by which we deal with the abuse of office.
- A rejection of statutes does not imply a rejection of the law. A rejection of statutes is a rejection of governance. It is for those governing to make sure that the statutes they make are acceptable. The distinction between laws and statutes has been lost in the fog of time. Many long-in-the-tooth ‘legal’ practitioners will argue that statutes are laws – but if statutes were laws they would be described as such to avoid ambiguity. The ‘legal’ profession has failed in its duty to maintain and understand the distinction between laws and statutes – through ignorance - but also because ignorance of the distinction has given the ‘legal’ profession enhanced authority – why would they promote knowledge of the difference? It isn’t in their interest to do so. It is after all, the legal profession that now runs the court system – with magistrates (our representatives) having been pushed to the side by statute. (The Magistrate Court Act 1980). Magistrates having been made subservient to the decision of the legal adviser in court. This was a power-grab statute.
- Statutes do not apply equally to us all. Some sectors of society are given preferable treatment under statutes. Politicians for example have given themselves pension provisions which the rest of us can only dream of. The EU common agriculture policy (a statute) rewards wealthy land owners – but not tenant farmers. The police can park on double yellow lines (which we are told is dangerous) when they are on duty – we can’t when we are on duty (at work). Special interest groups often benefit from statutes – banks being a notable example. Politicians on leaving politics will often be rewarded by these special interest groups by way of generous salaries, director’s fees and perks as a ‘thank you’ for passing preferential legislation. A disproportionately large number of ex-Ministers of the Crown now work (I use that word advisedly) for the banks. Some would describe this as a ‘perk’ I have another word in mind.
- If a statute is passed transferring their authority (to Brussels for example) – we can withdraw our consent because such an act is unlawful.
- It has become the habit of the legal profession to describe statutes as laws. Habits, no matter how entrenched do not however create facts. Statutes are not laws.
- If statutes become overly prescriptive, restrictive, onerous and oppressive – the people not only have a right to withdraw their consent – they have an obligation and a duty to do so in order to defend themselves against tyrannical power.
- Statutes are supposed to protect society and help in fair and just governance, but from time to time (over centuries) statutes mutate to become more oppressive and work against the wider interest of the community and invariable benefit small sections of society. During these times these groups will work hard to defend the privileges they have accumulated for themselves – invariably at our expense.
- Without statutes we have greater freedoms. The ruling class do not like ordinary people having too many freedoms, it makes them nervous as it has the potential to rock their boat, thus there is always the tendency to inflict more regulations than is necessary – in order to keep control.
- Statutes refer to Acts of Parliament and legislation.
- Statutes do not protect – they are used to keep control.
- Statutes are often unjust – they can be punitive, unfair, unreasonably prescriptive and authoritarian.
- We are all equal in the eyes of the law.
- We are not all equal in the eyes of statutes.
Law
- Law refers to common law.
- Laws are always just – they protect our rights and freedoms.
- Law is based on principles – statutes are based on practicalities, albeit not always fairly assessed.
- Laws take time to evolve and remain for long periods of time. Statutes often come and go on a whim.
- Laws may be taken into statutes but if repealed in statute they remain in force in law.
- Lawful refers to the law. Legal refers to legislation.
- Laws are used to keep the peace.
- Without law we have anarchy.
- The people make the law – by acceptance and validation by jury decisions.
- Nobody is above the law. The law applies equally to us all.
- Parliament does not make law – it makes legislation.
- Judges do not make the law – they interpret legislation and keep a record of laws.
- Our constitution is the foundation of our law. Most in the legal profession are not even taught about our constitution – that should tell you all you need to know about where this is taking us.
Courts, Judges And Juries
- If Parliament made a statute and a man charged with an offence of breaking that regulation was found not guilty – that statute would be struck down. A Jury is not beholden to the system. A judge is. A jury is thus more reliable than a judge in the handing down of justice.
- Judges can be bought, blackmailed, intimidated (and have been). It is easier to corrupt a judge than a whole jury. Our jury system is protected by our constitution. It is our right to be tried by jury. The jury system protects us from arbitrary power and bent judges.
- Statutes must be in harmony with the common laws to be enforceable. If unfair statutes are pursued by the authorities a defendant can nominate to be tried by jury – which in seeing the injustice of the statute (and the potential of themselves being its victim) would find the defendant not guilty and thus strike down the statute. This is the power of a jury. Power belongs to the people.
- Common law trumps statutes. Some in the legal profession have been heard to take a contrary view... but common sense tells us that common law is and must be superior. If a government passed legislation making itself permanent i.e. declaring itself a dictatorship (as Hitler did) – the people could act on their common law right to withdraw their consent to being governed – putting government back in its box - common law thus trumping a statute. (Common sense).
- The jury is the highest authority in the land – but beneath the law.
- A jury can stand in judgement of anybody... nobody is above the law. (Charles I could verify this.)
- If the government makes legislation and a jury thinks it is unjust, through finding a defendant not guilty they are able to demonstrate the authority of the jury over government.
- A judge cannot direct a jury in its decisions – many try but in so doing they are in breach of the law. Judges must not lead a jury to a decision. A judge must only give direction in the interpretation of the law. The jury is entirely independent of the judge. The jury must make its own mind up and not be lead by a judge.
- The people make the law through the validation or the rejection of statutes. Juries re-validate or dispense with old established laws through their verdicts.
- Juries are the people’s protection against the arbitrary power of the ruling class. Juries are a common law right and are protected by our constitution - they cannot be tampered with by government, although it has done so, their meddling is unlawful. The removal of jury trials is unlawful and unconstitutional. The ‘powers that be’ are desperately trying to dismantle our jury system – to secure more ‘power’ for themselves. What we are witnessing is a blatant power grab by the political establishment... which we must challenge.
- Magistrates Courts have become statute courts... mostly ignorant of and thus ignoring our common law rights. We must enter these courts and claim back our common law rights and push back the imposition of over-zealous regulations. We do this by claiming common law jurisdiction in these courts. Through this process we claw back our power from the government. Governments use the court system to enforce its control.
- Magistrates and judges make rulings on their interpretation of statutes and laws - their decisions are not always fair. Juries give verdicts on the basis of their interpretation of justice and are mostly fair.
- Magistrates are now trained to do the bidding of the legal adviser in court. It is questionable that they have any real value in the absence of autonomy and with limited discretion. Magistrate’s courts are being closed down in large numbers and so-called justice is being delivered by Royal Mail in the form of ‘Penalty Charge Notices’ imposed upon us by statutes. These may be legal, but they are not lawful. PCN’s are enforced with our consent (unwittingly) – withhold your consent and they cannot be enforced. Our law (specifically - the Petition and Declaration of Rights) forbids fines and forfeiture without justice in a court. The Judge that ruled that a PCN is not a fine may have had ‘other things’ on his mind when he made that ruling. (see 30 above). PCN’s are unlawful.
- Magistrate’s autonomy and full discretion must be returned to them and legal advisers subjugated to the authority of magistrates once more. PCN’s must be abandoned as an unlawful instrument of oppression.
- If a defendant claims his ‘common law’ (or inalienable) rights in a court – it becomes a common law court.
The courts belong to the people - they do not belong to the ushers, private security personne,l magistrates, legal advisers, district or circuit judges – most of whom have forgotten or probably never knew this.
- Our Monarch represents the power of the people (not the government) in our courts. The courts do not get their authority from the government. Magistrates and judges give allegiance to Her Majesty – they are in effect submitting to the power and authority of the people – don’t forget that.
- Neither judge nor legal adviser can tell us by whom we can be represented - (they certainly try). The ‘right of audience’ that is claimed by the legal profession in a court (but denied to you and I) - is a ‘statute’ imposed upon us, unwittingly and with our consent – and not written by the legal fraternity. I would call this ‘a protection racket.’
- The courts are there to serve the interest of justice... they are being used as tools to extract money from us. We need to get them working in the interest of justice for the majority, not as revenue collection agencies for the ruling elite.
- In each magistrate’s court there is an automatic right to appeal... without any reason given. This projects the case into a higher court where a jury trial will be available.
- The withholding of a jury trial is unlawful. It is a deliberate power grab and an attempt to subvert common law to statutes – this is the thin end of a very thick (and dangerous) wedge.
- In claiming common law jurisdiction in court – statutes cannot be imposed without the consent of the defendant. The defendant is often tricked into consent – thus converting the court back to a statute court (also called an admiralty court).
- You do not need permission to claim common law rights – you declare them – it is your right to do so.
- If anybody tries to deny you your common law rights in court – they are in contempt of court... and that includes judges.
Consent
- Consent is often given by the individual due to ignorance of the fact that their consent can be withheld and their assumption of the existence of the authority of others over them. If the people found out that they can reject oppressive statutes... by withholding their consent - the ruling class would panic – because they would lose control. Watch this space.
- A loss of control by the ruling class would not result in anarchy – it would merely result in a shift of power – back to the people where it belongs. This process is underway as a consequence of our greater understanding of the difference between laws and statutes.
- The European Communities Act 1972 – is a statute. It is unlawful because it is contrary to our constitution which guarantees our right to self-governance. Just because the political establishment refuses to acknowledge and obey our constitution and the rule of law – does not make them invalid. If they ignore our constitution and the rule-of-law then we have a right (and a duty) to ignore their statutes... all of their statutes... including the ones giving them the authority to tax us.
- This writer is not a member (citizen) of the European Union – because membership is determined by consent and I am withholding my consent to being governed by a foreign power.
Government
- Governments do not make, nor can they change laws. They make and change legislation.
- Governments are not above the law (they clearly think they are) – but they can and do make themselves exempt from (i.e. they are above) the provisions of statutes. It is probable that because they know they are above statutes (which they are – they make them) that they have come to assume they are also above the law This demonstrates how important it is to know the difference.
Sunday, 10 October 2010
Treason against the English
Treason against the English
English Bill Of Rights 1689
Quote
‘’And I do declare That noe forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realme Soe helpe me God.’’
ASSERTION OF OUR FREEBORN RIGHTS
We the English assert our freeborn right to live without fear or threat from the government, state and foreign powers. And we recognise no oppressive laws nor foreign laws only Just laws made by and for the people in accordance with our English Declaration of Rights and its statutory form, the English Bill of rights. We are aware of, understand and acknowledge, that English common law has primacy.
And declare our nations right to govern itself and defend our ancient and indubitable rights and liberties against internal and external powers.
It is the duty and responsibility of parliament to protect these rights, liberties and the interests of the people both now and in the future, and not in anyway infringe, remove or be prejudiced against them. To do so is a breach of the Bill of Rights and unlawful.
The Bill of Rights states that the crown, both houses of parliament and the people are parts of a single entity, and abolition of the structure and responsibility of crown and parliament in part or whole is illegal. As the Declaration of Rights 1688 and Magna Carta 1215 declare our freedoms to be self-evident that exist by right and are permanent.
We assert that the crown servants and members of the judiciary do swear and continue to swear Oaths of Allegiance to this nation and will serve our people according to our laws and customs and will be faithful to these oaths in law, action and allegiance. -And that members of our Armed Forces do likewise and continue to swear allegiance to our nation. And that crown servants members of the judiciary and the armed forces do not and shall never swear oaths of allegiance nor any other oath to parliament or other powers. And that parliament does not interfere with the duties and relationships of these oaths, as parliament has no lawful right to do so, nor shall and must never have.
The Privy Counsillors shall always swear allegiance to this nation; and will assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, and authorities granted and annexed to the crown by Acts of Parliament or otherwise, against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states and potentates. And generally in all things do swear to be a faithful and true servant and do as they ought to do.
-Any person who breaches these oaths must be removed immediately and must never again hold office or be of service to the rule and government of this nation in any form.
Such a breach of oath is the swearing of an oath on appointment as a European Union Commissioner as committed by some of this nations privy counsillors. All those that have done this have broken their oath of allegiance to this nation and do serve foreign interest and powers. They must be removed from office.
Our eternal freedoms, rights and liberties and the right to govern ourselves are enshrined in the English Bill of Rights, they are permanent and for all time. Any acts that attack these are treason and the perpetrators of such acts must be tried for treason.
We recognise that the signing of the treaties below:
The six treaties:
1. The European Communities Act 1972.
2. The Single European Act, 1986.
3. The Maastricht Treaty, 1992.
4. The Amsterdam Treaty, 1997.
5. The Nice Treaty 2001.
6. The Lisbon Treaty 2008. (Previously called the Reform Treaty)
-Are such acts, and that parliament failed and neglected its duty as established for all time in the Bill of Rights. And that this was and is a crime against the people. This breach and betrayal of our English rights and liberties as enshrined and protected within the Bill of Rights marks the assault, erosion and loss of our independence and identity, and the moment that our nation ceased to be ruled by an elected government. Where the ability for self-rule and to make and live by our laws has been temporally lost. So today foreign laws that are made overseas by the unelected power called the European Union are used to oppress us. And this organisation called European Union now ‘claims’ jurisdiction over us.
This oppression by a foreign power and the continuing collaboration of our members of parliament is both an attack on our native freedoms, rights, liberties and identity and an act of treason against this nation and shall be treated as such.
We demand that those responsible for these acts of treason and neglect should be tried under our still legally binding law: MISPRISION OF TREASON.
Misprision of Treason is an offence or misdemeanor akin to treason or felony. It is the neglect of duty by a public official who conceals a knowledge of treasonable actions or designs. At an assize it may warrant the same penalty as High Treason. A subject of the Crown is also bound to inform the magistrates if he knows that High Treason is being contemplated.
When signing the Six Treaties the then governments knew they were breaking our laws and compromised parliaments integrity and duty as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. This betrayal is responsible for all subsequent attacks and assaults against our nation. As these acts are unlawful we demand their immediate repeal and shall never recognise foreign rule nor oppression and will stand firm and resolute until our people win back all that has been taken from them.
We assert our right, as set out in our English Bill of Rights, to petition the Monarch/Crown (referendum) on the matter of being ruled from overseas and by foreign power. This right to petition the Monarch having been denied us by successive Prime Ministers (The Monarchs/Crowns Administrator)
English Bill Of Rights 1689
Quote
‘’And I do declare That noe forreigne Prince Person Prelate, State or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction Power Superiority Preeminence or Authoritie Ecclesiastical or Spiritual within this Realme Soe helpe me God.’’
ASSERTION OF OUR FREEBORN RIGHTS
We the English assert our freeborn right to live without fear or threat from the government, state and foreign powers. And we recognise no oppressive laws nor foreign laws only Just laws made by and for the people in accordance with our English Declaration of Rights and its statutory form, the English Bill of rights. We are aware of, understand and acknowledge, that English common law has primacy.
And declare our nations right to govern itself and defend our ancient and indubitable rights and liberties against internal and external powers.
It is the duty and responsibility of parliament to protect these rights, liberties and the interests of the people both now and in the future, and not in anyway infringe, remove or be prejudiced against them. To do so is a breach of the Bill of Rights and unlawful.
The Bill of Rights states that the crown, both houses of parliament and the people are parts of a single entity, and abolition of the structure and responsibility of crown and parliament in part or whole is illegal. As the Declaration of Rights 1688 and Magna Carta 1215 declare our freedoms to be self-evident that exist by right and are permanent.
We assert that the crown servants and members of the judiciary do swear and continue to swear Oaths of Allegiance to this nation and will serve our people according to our laws and customs and will be faithful to these oaths in law, action and allegiance. -And that members of our Armed Forces do likewise and continue to swear allegiance to our nation. And that crown servants members of the judiciary and the armed forces do not and shall never swear oaths of allegiance nor any other oath to parliament or other powers. And that parliament does not interfere with the duties and relationships of these oaths, as parliament has no lawful right to do so, nor shall and must never have.
The Privy Counsillors shall always swear allegiance to this nation; and will assist and defend all jurisdictions, pre-eminences, and authorities granted and annexed to the crown by Acts of Parliament or otherwise, against all foreign princes, persons, prelates, states and potentates. And generally in all things do swear to be a faithful and true servant and do as they ought to do.
-Any person who breaches these oaths must be removed immediately and must never again hold office or be of service to the rule and government of this nation in any form.
Such a breach of oath is the swearing of an oath on appointment as a European Union Commissioner as committed by some of this nations privy counsillors. All those that have done this have broken their oath of allegiance to this nation and do serve foreign interest and powers. They must be removed from office.
Our eternal freedoms, rights and liberties and the right to govern ourselves are enshrined in the English Bill of Rights, they are permanent and for all time. Any acts that attack these are treason and the perpetrators of such acts must be tried for treason.
We recognise that the signing of the treaties below:
The six treaties:
1. The European Communities Act 1972.
2. The Single European Act, 1986.
3. The Maastricht Treaty, 1992.
4. The Amsterdam Treaty, 1997.
5. The Nice Treaty 2001.
6. The Lisbon Treaty 2008. (Previously called the Reform Treaty)
-Are such acts, and that parliament failed and neglected its duty as established for all time in the Bill of Rights. And that this was and is a crime against the people. This breach and betrayal of our English rights and liberties as enshrined and protected within the Bill of Rights marks the assault, erosion and loss of our independence and identity, and the moment that our nation ceased to be ruled by an elected government. Where the ability for self-rule and to make and live by our laws has been temporally lost. So today foreign laws that are made overseas by the unelected power called the European Union are used to oppress us. And this organisation called European Union now ‘claims’ jurisdiction over us.
This oppression by a foreign power and the continuing collaboration of our members of parliament is both an attack on our native freedoms, rights, liberties and identity and an act of treason against this nation and shall be treated as such.
We demand that those responsible for these acts of treason and neglect should be tried under our still legally binding law: MISPRISION OF TREASON.
Misprision of Treason is an offence or misdemeanor akin to treason or felony. It is the neglect of duty by a public official who conceals a knowledge of treasonable actions or designs. At an assize it may warrant the same penalty as High Treason. A subject of the Crown is also bound to inform the magistrates if he knows that High Treason is being contemplated.
When signing the Six Treaties the then governments knew they were breaking our laws and compromised parliaments integrity and duty as enshrined in the Bill of Rights. This betrayal is responsible for all subsequent attacks and assaults against our nation. As these acts are unlawful we demand their immediate repeal and shall never recognise foreign rule nor oppression and will stand firm and resolute until our people win back all that has been taken from them.
We assert our right, as set out in our English Bill of Rights, to petition the Monarch/Crown (referendum) on the matter of being ruled from overseas and by foreign power. This right to petition the Monarch having been denied us by successive Prime Ministers (The Monarchs/Crowns Administrator)
Monday, 20 September 2010
Deconstructing Western Christian Civilization
This is worth reading and keeping
Deconstructing Western Christian Civilization
Created: Monday, 20 September 2010 08:08 Author: American Nationalist | Print E-mail
The Title of this article was originally intended to be Deconstructing America, but I soon realized that to quote from the Good Book, our problem is just not national but worldwide and the truth is that indeed we do not simply struggle against a few greedy men but against "principalities, powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places." It is the nature of this struggle, one as old as mankind, but one that is heating up as we approach the events catalogued in the Book of Revelations. Finally it is a struggle not only for our civilization but for our souls and those of our children.
As I get on in years, and as I spend more and more of my time studying about our collective history, it has become apparent that this struggle has been ongoing since, at least, as long as man was first able to record his deeds and thoughts for others to reflect on. A person can learn a lot of things by reading the past records. A person can also learn a lot from listening to educated men of God preach the gospel and then by taking the concepts learned to heart and observing people. one thing that can be learned is that people who are spiritually oppressed are not only in no mental position to analyze thus improve their own situation, but that the spirit that oppresses them makes them antagonistic to dealing with that very aspect of their oppression.
So when a person tries to explain what has been going on to otherwise intelligent people who have at least tried to deal constructively with the problems of modern society, as soon as that person mentions the concept of estrangement from the Lord God, and the principle role this takes in the problems in our society, the oppressive power of evil spirits, possesses people and supplies a barrage of rhetoric which always seems to drown out or interrupt logical thought. People that are oppressed in this manner will most often respond to the evil spirit that oppresses them by denying any testimony that implies that the Nation is in its present position because they have abandoned their spiritual roots.
Therefore I am going to begin this tale of how Western Civilization got to this oppressive state by a recital of facts of men and their deeds, not motives. The deeds and the data I put forth are well documented demonstrable facts. These facts have been not only ignored but all but hidden by the modern media. This in itself is the most significant fact for it shows absolutely conclusively that the role of the mainstream media in modern society is to uphold the will of the power structure. To a logical person this in turn should demonstrate the need for independent careful research.
But one cannot do unbiased independent research if at the same time a person subjects himself to a continuous bombardment of propaganda by this same media. The entire broadcast Media and the huge majority of the periodical print media, both the daily newspapers and the weekly and monthly magazines are nothing more that cover-to-cover sales brochures, touting not only the specific products but the entire "politically correct" value system. Some of the more insidious parts of that value system are the Pavlovian responses induced in the brainwashed public by certain phrases, such "Radical" "extremist" "Far Right" or "far Left" "communist" "Homophobic" or the master bogeyman label of the late twentieth, and the current part of the twenty-first century "racist". The reason that these are so effective because in our modern times once a person has been smeared with one of these epithets, it becomes socially allowable to discount anything said or written by the individual so labeled without the need for analysis or logical rebuttal.
Note the rhetorical rallying cry especially in Europe, of certain Marxist politically correct sophists, against those advocating a resurgent populist Nationalism; " No platform for Fascists"!! These prime examples of Orwell's brainwashed "sheeple" claim to be for "Freedom" and "Free speech" and claim that they are only " protecting" what they consider the poor downtrodden, what they used to call "Lumpen Proletariat", from being swayed by " right wing tricksters" who somehow if not for the 'superior' minds of these leftist activists, would be led down the garden path . In America we have on the other hand the well bribed members of congress who apply the word "communistic" to any suggestion that for instance, the massive bank bailout money should have instead gone to those who lost their homes to the banks when the so called "free trade" wiped out American Industry.
The obvious fallacy of both their arguments is the unavoidable implication that unless a person has been able to "liberate" his or her mind, and demonstrate it by parroting the entire socialist dogma de jour, or in the case of the United States, the "free enterprise" dogma of the banksters, He is treated as a subhuman, as far as his or her rights are concerned. Thus the person who has engendered the wrath of the power structures useful idiots, and declines to cry "mea culpa" in this manner can be now decried as either a dupe or a criminal, and now having been "convicted" by such a smear , is not allowed to defend or explain his or her utterances, only to either recant or become fair game for all varieties of mistreatment including being deprived of the right of reply to slanders and in many cases right now in Europe the right of protection from Physical assault .
The power structure in Europe uses the politically correct so called "progressives" as a thought police to demonize the opposition to its program, and the Power structure in America trots out all sorts of confused "small R" Republican types to blast anyone who suggests that the government has a duty to assure the people don't get robbed by the myriad of bankster tricks, is a lazy welfare cheater or some such other epithet. You must understand the power structure of the western world is essentially monolithic and its program is one of not just worldwide political domination, for that has been a fait acompli for more than 100 years, but the destruction of the wealth of the middle class western society. The people are to be increasingly deprived of their prosperity , their right to purchase property, their right to collectively bargain with their employers for a bigger slice of the wealth they create. To accomplish this the nonstop brainwashing of the people include not only all the corporate media but also the school system and the curtailment of rights in the workplace and in virtually every public setting.
Two Hundred years ago in America the forces that have now become The New World Order, or the power structure, were already at work undermining the constitutional republic that our founding fathers had established after the revolutionary war. The person most aware of this was, of course, Thomas Jefferson, who had just completed his two terms as President and had been both the author of the Declaration of Independence and the mentor of the principle author of the Constitution, James Madison.
Jefferson understood the mechanisms of power. He was born into the wealthy elite of Virginia Plantation society In addition, he possessed one of the most brilliant minds of the day, and his families resources enabled him to avail himself of an education second to none in the world. He very well understood the role of the international mercantile bankers in the power structure, and that beginning in Britain a century previously, they had largely supplanted the hereditary monarchies of most of the powerful western nations in terms of real power. He had no intention that he should of gone to all the effort and personal sacrifice of being one of the principle actors of obtaining Americas' freedom from one set of hereditary tyrants, only to see it fall under the dictatorship of a more intelligent and even more ruthless set of oligarchs.
He considered these "banksters" even more dangerous to the America Republic precisely because they operated covertly rather than overtly. The average person, then and now merely saw a bank as a safer place to store large amounts of cash, which was in the time of Jefferson, in the mostly un-inflatable form of gold and silver. The average man never understood the concept of fractional reserve banking or how through successive loans the banks simultaneously multiplies the effective supply of money and creates a vast income for the banksters out of the mechanism.
For simplicity let us say that person a who has cash deposits one thousand dollars in a bank for which he will receive an annual interest of three percent. The bankster has hundreds of these deposits and he lends out the 90 percent of the money at six per cent interest keeping only ten percent as reserves, for on the average the ups and downs of deposits and withdrawals will not draw down his cash on hand below that point. Now let us say on this particular thousand the 900 dollar loan is for someone else to purchase land and that someone pays interest at 6 percent. Then the former landowner re deposits that money in the bank and again 90 percent, 810 dollars, is loaned to someone else with an almost 3 percent profit for the bank,
He can repeat the process eighteen times before he approaches the ten percent reserve and he will garner a net 30 percent of the amount of the original deposit as interest EACH YEAR less relatively marginal overhead costs. The beauty is that that "hard "money in creates seven and a half times as much usable currency in "bank notes" which provide a vast increase in the commerce and the wealth of society than everyone simply hoarding their gold until , they have enough to pay for something in cash. The beauty for the bankster is that he make a huge pile out of someone else's money. The problem Jefferson saw was that as these banksters had huge reserves with which to purchase anything they chose, they could manipulate the price of anything at will by concerted action to "corner the market" on commodities with a limited production, and even more insidiously by exercising the control of how much "credit" to grant manipulate the price of real estate, forcing people at times of "loose credit" to pay a premium price by flooding a limited ,market with credit, then causing an economic depression by tightening up the credit supply.
Since for people in farming and ranching which is where 90 percent of the people at the time made their living this caused many forced bankruptcies in these so called "financial depression" times because the depressed prices meant they were unable to get enough money for their surplus produce to feed their families and pay the mortgage, thus causing forced sales while the prices of their property had dropped well below what they had originally paid, which resulted in wiping out their entire equity and leaving them penniless.
Jefferson saw clearly how the hugely wealthy financial combines would be able to, by turning on and off the credit taps, impoverish Americans and "render them destitute and homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered."
However Americas rich gold and silver finds had by the late nineteenth century created enough hard cash in circulation to dampen the ability of the banksters to impoverish everybody, and populists like William Jennings Bryan had struck back at these then called monopoly capitalists, or more popularly " robber barons" with the passage of the pure food and drug act, the interstate commerce act and the Sherman anti trust act . Bryan campaigned hard for the unlimited coinage of silver to counteract the ability of the banksters to play their credit games. These legislative measures which were at the time combined with the rise of trade Unions helped most of the late nineteenth century Americans achieve a standard of living which was the envy of the world.
Of course the Banksters were not defeated by these temporary setbacks, merely delayed. Their counterstroke was the triple whammy of the federal reserve system the seventeenth amendment which removed the Senate from the control of the state assemblies and the sixteenth amendment that established the income tax, which the banksters assured one and all was only meant to be applied to the incomes of the super wealthy.
Other people in Europe were struggling with the same oligarchic class which was still forcing most of the people into a life of hard toil and poverty, and the free thinkers had come up with several ideas for the supplanting of the power structure with a cadre of "progressives ". There were many different ideas at the time but the common denominator was that all the progressives had recognized that the super rich "capitalist class" were essentially parasites who were collectively responsible for much of the misery in the world.
Of course the powerful capitalists utilized all means at hand, both fair and foul, to suppress this progressive thinking but there was a practical limit to what they could do. Overt attempts a suppression resulted in many dead "revolutionaries", but also much bad will towards the power structure. Acts of sabotage and insurrection were becoming more frequent and the ability of that power structure to keep a lid on the increasing social unrest was deteriorating. the capitalists were becoming increasingly hated . It was clearly time for them to change the nature of the social paradigm that had the few capitalists on one side and the huge masses of people on the other. The worst of the Capitalist Banksters the Morgan banking family decided to apply a very sophisticated social Jujitsu and thereby turn the reform movement upon itself. The tool they used was one group of violent "revolutionaries" under the leadership of one Vladimir Lenin. They saw to it that he was funded with close to million US dollars and deposited with his group in the heart of a nation where the power structure was already disintegrating. Lenin and his Communists utilizing their funds to hire an army of ruthless thugs established a government out of the chaos in Moscow in October 1917.
This government was built on the doctrines of two twisted individuals, Marx and Engels. It involved the wholesale murder of any Aristocratic family it could find, the absolute confiscation of Private real estate and vehicles and a total lack of tolerance for the slightest deviation from the Party Line. Because the remaining forces of the Czar fought back ruthlessly and because the Czar had virtually no support amongst the Russian Peasantry, the bloody tactics of the Communists were largely thought necessary to rid Russia of a vicious oligarchy. Thus the Banksters succeeded in one blow, creating an example of socialism so extreme that it horrified most ordinary intelligent people and wiping out all the moderate social reformers in Russia , at the minimal cost of the destruction of a Russian oligarchy that was so extremely inept, it was doomed anyway.
Ten years later social paradigm had now been shifted and the banksters were no longer the primary focus of peoples unrest. The peoples of the west were exhausted from the carnage and the expense of WW1 and there was a civil war amongst their leftist intelligentsia caused by the continued Communist extremism of Lenin's successor, Joseph Stalin, and his henchmen. Practical social reform such as the distributionist doctrine of Hillaire Belloc were being smeared with the horrors of Stalinism. This lack of focus on the economic realities in America in 1927 led directly to the Crash of 29, and the great depression that followed.
This is talk of the merits of differing economic systems is confusing to those who do not know the specifics, so here we need to talk about the real consequences of living in various types of economic systems. To examine something we need to make a theoretical model. Let us make this mode two individual family farmers under five systems of government . These systems are soviet style Communism, a Swedish style socialism a Belocian system of distributionism, current US capitalism, and mid nineteenth century laisez faire capitalism. Let us make each of these models our two farm families , mom , pop 1boy and1 girl who simultaneously obtain two identical 600 acre farms. Then a year later one of these systems is imposed upon the nation where they live. We are for illustrative purpose going identify one of these families as industrious hard working and careful call them the Beavers, the other one as lazy .say the Sloths.
Since the first year of all five models is the same let us start with the Beaver family farm. Mr. Beaver carefully assesses what he needs, and he and his son work long hours to make sure every acre is sewn with as crop. He understands crop rotation and so sews his fields with three complimentary crops, He puts in long hour until dark making fences and coops so Mrs. Beaver can raise garden vegetable and chickens and hogs. When the crops have been sewn in the other wise idle periods of the summer months, the Beavers work together to patch the barn roof making their own oak shakes. so they do not have to purchase them. Mr. Beaver constantly analyzes his actual and projected cash flows always squeezing the most out of every dollar and putting i all back into the farm. When the crops come in Mr. Beaver purchases only essential items and pays down his loans but keeps a careful cash reserve in case there is a bad year.
Meanwhile over at the Sloth farm, poppa Sloth only got 3/4ths of his land in crops because poppa likes to hit the bottle in the evening. Momma Sloth and her daughter put in a small garden and they raise some chickens in the yard which live in the barn at night because they wouldn't work hard enough to built stout well fenced coops , and while poppa Sloth got the same only got 3/4ths of the money for his crops the Beavers did, and, because he didn't get his roof fixed on the barn some rain got in and spoiled part of his stored silage. Also the local foxes have been feasting quite a bit on momma Sloths "free range" chickens so her egg money was almost nothing this year. Poppa sloth met his bank payment but had to borrow more in spring for seed money.
Now it has been three years later and in what we will call alternate reality one, a soviet style communist government has taken over the nation after the first year of our two families farm life, The Sloths and the Beavers our now informed their farms belong to the state and that they are now farm workers working for a fixed pay. This new communist state has of course no money for housing but the two families are allowed to stay in their houses provided the adults still work in the fields .
For the Beavers this means all their hard work has not let them one bit better off than the Sloths. The money that they have paid down on the mortgage to both reduce their future payments and give them more equity in their farm has gone. Their carefully maintained tractor with the rebuilt engine that poppa and boy Beaver have worked all winter on goes into the collective pool with the Sloths tractor that hasn't seen an oil change for the entire year as do their barn, chicken coops, and hog pens. Some of these coops and half of the hogs and pens are moved onto other farms that had none of these. The state set compensation in food and "credits" for farm workers is fixed at a per person rate and the money and food coming in is much less than they made last year although the work is just as hard. and aside from their now very limited personal vegetable patch, they have to live on their meager allowances. They are allotted only so much chicken and pork no matter how hard they work raising these animals
Of course for the Sloths little had changed at that time and that maybe for the better they did not used to have pork and the communist government does not require anyone to work after dark so papa sloth, who was looks down on by most of the rest of the community as a slacker now can spend his idle evenings boozing without social censure. Since the Sloths did not put out enough work, the seed loans and thus their net indebtedness were increasing before communism, they were on their way to bankruptcy, so the fact that the state now owns their house means only that the Sloths still have the roof over their heads .
Meanwhile , families like the Beavers who believed that they have been robbed by the system are secretly trying to better their lives with midnight industries such as planting a small garden hidden in the near by forest and hunting.
Mrs. Sloth who hears rumors of the Beaver's industry and sees things like good quality clothes and nice curtains on the Beaver house that she doesn't have, gets jealous and joins the Socialist Peoples Committee for the Eradication of Secret Capitalist Tendencies and goes and snitches out the Beavers to the local party Secretary. She gets so good at spying on her neighbors that the Party assigns her a car and a gas allowance just so she can get around to more places and do more spying. Of course the Beavers who have their secret garden confiscated also have to pay a fine.
A few years later Poppa Sloth is dying of cirrhosis of the liver, another family has been crammed into the Sloth house as momma cannot put in the required work to make production quota, even though that quota has been drastically reduced for her family, since she has to perform her snooping activities which now include a quota of "counter revolutionary" activity to "discover". To keep her job she extorts bribes from some people to avoid reporting them and of course must pass on most of these bribes to her supervisor.
Over at the Beavers, Boy Beaver has been sent to a punishment labor camp for "harboring capitalistic ideas." There is now also another man living at the Beaver farm sharing the Beavers miserable provisions, assigned by the state because production has fallen and aging mama and papa Beaver cannot make the production quota either.
I could stretch this example out until It effectively would have drawn the picture of Soviet communism when Russia reached rock bottom in the late nineteen-eighties, but I do not feel the need to belabor the point. Let us take the next of the alternate realties, Swedish style socialism'
We enter this picture in our second alternate reality about five years down the road after the two families have bought their farms and four years in on our new socialist state. The Beaver farm has become a prosperous enterprise while the Sloth farm has barely remained out of the clutches of the bank and this only because The Sloths receive subsidies for the acreage they don't plant, as well as child care subsidies because the two sloth teenagers are deemed to be socially disadvantaged. The sloth kids inherit their parents' lack of work ethic so they have been put in special schools where they are not expected to accomplish much, but still pushed relentlessly from grade to grade so they will not suffer from feeling of inadequacy
Of course all these social services and subsidies are paid for by taxes on the Beavers and others like them so even though now the enlarged Beaver farm produces four times what the Sloth farm does the difference in net family income is not even two to one. The Beaver kids, of course, are stars in school and will go on to college and get good jobs, but after taxes will not have much of a better life style than the state furnished free apartments that the new young adult sloth kids will be moving into. The Beavers kids will have to save for years to be able to buy nice but small homes because their income taxes are so high. Then when Mr. Beaver passes on, the boy who inherits his fathers farm will have to sell his hard earned house to pay the huge inheritance taxes on that farm, or conversely pay both the inheritance tax and then sell the farm and additionally pay 75 percent of what is left to the state as income tax. Boy Beaver, who by that time will have an advanced degree in a scientific specialty, of course now wants to leave his sister the farm and sell his house and emigrate to a nation where the taxes are less confiscatory.
Now let us go to our third alternate reality, Belloc style distributism. We enter this reality again five years down the road . The Sloths no longer live on a farm because Mr Beaver has bought them out at a price that enabled Sloth to payoff the bank loan still have money left and purchase a smaller house on a few acres with a very much smaller loan at 2 Percent, something that he can handle, both money wise and the relatively miniscule labor the few acres require. His net income is below the tax threshold so he pays no income tax and his local taxes now are reduced and support only local services. Sloth is not a very industrious laborer but he is employed as a part time tractor driver on another farm.
Beaver has used the new minimum 2 percent interest rate on business loans to purchase lands up to the 2000 acre limit and he has all these lands producing nicely A new luxury car is parked in his new garage next to his wife's new car and his equipment barn has almost an almost new tractor. Because of his children's high grades they will get university scholarships at no cost to their parents. Boy Beaver will go on to university and become an engineer in the new tidal power industry and daughter wants to be competing for the slots of horticulturalist on the new Mars mission. Income taxes are low because the biggest driver of government budgets, national debt, has been vastly reduced and is falling each year. Virtually everything in the Beaver household is now made in their own nation or other similarly prosperous nations because the antidumping tariffs have made products built in what are comparatively slave wage nations more expensive than home built ones. This has vastly increased job opportunities and cut the welfare class down to nothing, Also it is now workfare not welfare and the recipients have to perform work for the local governments that further reduces taxes. So even though boy sloths dismal grades did not qualify for an advanced education and his family certainly has no money to pay for a private College, boy sloth either has to work in the private sector at minimum wage or work for the local government to qualify for his welfare check. It's not Heaven but it is a place where people can live and work and not worry about when the bank will foreclose on the house or what to do when the unemployment allowance won't cover food clothing and the power bill.
I mention that because that is reality number four on our list, The economic system of the USA and many other nations today has become like the company towns in the coal miners song "sixteen tons" "I load sixteen tons what do you get another day older and deeper in debt."
Mr. Sloths farmland has now been rented to Mr. Beaver because after the second year it was either that or lose it to the bank. The Farm house has been rented to a family that works in the nearby city but has three horses they need to keep so they decided to live in a rural setting. These two rentals barely cover the mortgage so the Sloths now live in a cheap house in a rundown section of town, and poppa Sloth has taken a minimum paying job as a security guard. His wife works part time at Wal Mart
But the hard working Beaver family is not much better off Because of low crop prices driven down by the foriegn imports and the ruthless practices of the Chicago commodities market The farm barely is able to meet the yearly bills. Momma Beaver has had to take a secretarial job in the city, which was her third job as two of the firms she had previously worked for closed their doors, and she must commute and though daughter Beaver tries to keep the vegetable garden going and the Chickens fed she is now almost through high school and wants to go to College. However because the Beaver parents own the farm, it doesn't matter that son and daughter have kept up high grades in school, they are not eligible for College scholarships, ( parents have assets over 150 thousand) and thus must sign for big loans which have to be cosigned by their parents. Because of the marginal returns on the farm Mr. Beaver has asked his son to delay his college education because without his sons labor he will not be able to keep the place afloat. He hopes to sell some of his land to a big corporate farm to improve his cash flow and reduce his workload until his son gets through from school but his son objects because this will render the remaining farm too small to even barely support him when he inherits it from his father.
For the fifth example the laisez fare capitalist farm I have only to go to the actual experiences of Americans in the late 1870's prior to the passage of the interstate commerce act. We enter this alternate reality at the same point five years after the two families started out.
The Sloth farm is gone and the empty farm house fall slowly into decay. The banks foreclosed on the Sloths , not by choice, because with so many foreclosures it means they can't resell the property, but after three years it was either that or give Sloth another seed loan he could not pay back and lose even more money. The Beavers are now renting some of the Sloths best land. That at least is cheap. The bank could not find another taker so Mr. Beaver gave the local bank a bare bones take it or leave it offer on the land rent. The local bank itself failed last year but before it finally closed its doors, the banks assets, the farm loans, were bought up by a rich New York Bank. That was a disaster for anyone who had cash in the bank because, after the bank failure, they lost the cash but could not subtract that from the loan balance. So the Beavers savings were in a blink of an eye gone, and they still had to make payments on the loan. Even with the cheap land rental, the Beavers now barely make ends meet because of the sky high freight charges of the railroad, that ships their crops to market in the east The Beavers, all four of them, now work long hours in their vegetable patches and spend long nights driving to haul these crops to the local farmers market in the big city where momma and daughter now spend every Friday and Saturday. The only reason the Beavers are able to survive is that they work so hard and so many of their neighbors have lost their farms to the banks, so there is still a large market in the teeming cities for their goods. However they have to compete with the newly arrived green grocers from eastern Europe who hawk their wares all over the city every day in horse drawn carts and who drive a hard bargain when they buy direct from the farms.
There are no school scholarships and no bank will loan Mr Beaver another cent, because of his precarious situation. Boy Beaver did brilliantly in school but that ended in the eighth grade. When boy Beaver marries, he will have to bring his bride to live in a small addition he will build, with his own hands and with whatever materials he can scrounge, on his parents house. There is no health insurance and if any of the Beavers should get sick there is little to pay the doctors with, and no way to replace the earnings gone because of their lost labor.
What I am trying to show with these models is that it is not just a choice between the extremes of Capitalism and Communism. That is the false paradigm, created by the banksters. to make the general public accept the Banksters oppression. In the United States, our current "Socialist" laws include social security, the interstate commerce act that regulates freight rates, the Sherman anti trust act, that when enforced, prevents monopolies from fixing prices, and the student loan program, flawed as it is , that at least enables some of the brightest kids to go to university, And the FDIC that insures deposits in banks at least up to 100, 000 dollars against bank failure. These are the common well known modifications of the capitalist system that are now universally accepted even amongst those who consider themselves true blue free enterprise types. I n the UK there is the National health, falling apart that it is, and what used to be a first class rail system but has now mostly fallen apart because of privitization.
There is no universal " right way" that one must follow to assure that the ordinary hard working people living in a society are able to have a comfortable life, The people living in every society must continually analyze the mechanisms of their society to insure that hard working productive people reap the benefits of their labor while providing a minimum social umbrella for the sick and the incompetent, and all the while on guard to assure the super wealthy do not use the power inherent with their wealth to impoverish societies productive members. That is what Distributionism means distributed ownership of capital assets with curbs place upon excessive accumulations that are destructive to society as a whole.
But the primary difference in distributionist philosophy is that it totally prohibits the existence of privately owned banks with billions of dollars of assets and this is what makes it the primary enemy of the Banksters of the New World Order. That is because it defines banking as a social service , not an opportunity for a class of parasites to grow obscenely rich by extorting anyone who needs either a safe place to deposit cash or needs to obtain a loan. The emphasis on the distributionist philosophy is to make sure that jobs homes and the opportunity to amass material wealth is available for people who wish to work hard.
The distributionist philosophy of Hillaire Belloc and others is based upon the recognition of three different but absolutely true aspects of the Human character. The First aspect is that Those people who really apply themselves and utilize their talents to create things that better mankind are of much more value to society as a whole than the slackers. The second principle is that people work hard only for rewards . These rewards can be emotional or tangible but no one works diligently if there are no rewards. That is the basic human truth that caused the downfall of Communism. Diligent hard and dedicated work resulted in no different tangible gains than doing the minimum required to avoid punishment. " They pretend to pay us and so we pretend to work" was a basic philosophy of the working class in Communist Russia
The third principle was and is evident in both communist and capitalist societies. That is by cheating and manipulation those of few scruples and cunning minds can garner large amounts of undeserved wealth, and power. In Communist Russia Unless you were a person with a powerful job or connections, everyone in a position to do you a service required a bribe before they would perform it. The powerful Russian Mafia that ravaged that nation in the Yeltsin years did not spring up overnight the minute the Yeltsin with the aid of the Army squashed the communist assault on Gorbachov. The Mafia had been their growing and almost every politburo member was supported by a secret faction. That is because there was no other way to make any extra money, than belonging to this secret ruthless society .
In our society the same ruthless criminal determination to amass wealth at any cost, has resulted in the most talented and ruthless individuals becoming well paid agents of the banksters. Some of them rationalize their betrayal of the rest of the common people with excuses like "it's a dog eat dog world out there and I am only doing what I gotta do, to get ahead"
Individual societies differ in what they consider the social duties of different classes of their members, and also the tangible rewards they allow for individuals in different positions within them. Let us look for example at what are known to most of the common people as "American Indians" . Their tribal society had a strict division of labor with the women expected to where necessary work cooperatively in tending the large fires preparing the food and sewing skins together to make clothing and tents. The men hunted cooperatively for large game and were the armed forces of the tribe power was shared in the men's council but the chiefs were chosen by consensus as well as the medicine men. Status was garnered for prowess in hunting and raiding, but there was not a lot of disparity in ones individual possessions. This is a classic example of all primitive societies
Another type of society that was common five hundred years ago is feudal society. as was common in Europe The ordinary people were divided into "freemen" and serfs with the former holding title by cash fee or military service to a patch of land and the while the latter labor either as share croppers either on individual plots or on large fields for the local "lord" who was in turn granted the land as a "fief " in return for swearing fealty to his Liege lord and supporting him with arms A "lord' who held land by his own right and not because of fealty to another lord was a king. Under this system of course the various kings were at constant war with their neighbors always seeking to aggrandize their territory.
I am not going to write a long treatise on the gradual development of the modern nation state, but suffice to say that the various struggles of history resulted in distinct areas of our worlds surface remaining under the political control of specific interrelated cultural groups. The greatest common denominator was a common language spoken throughout the particular realm and of course a geographical continuity. The various distinct cultures of our world were nurtured and protected under this system. A century ago various people recognized the need for an international council to free the world from the horror of constant wars.
The first organization they created was the League of Nations, after world war one. That organization failed because it was unable to authorize a military force to be raised from amongst its constituent nations to enter the war zone between sovereign nations and separate the combatants. After world war two, the United Nations was formed, and in Korea and in other struggles in Africa and the Balkans it has proven its worth stopping small conflicts from becoming global ones. That is because, up til recently the constituent nations of this alliance jealously guarding their sovereignty have recognized the danger in an excessively powerful or proactive force and have acted out of their own interests to limit its use of force to those situations where worldwide consensus sees the necessity to act. It has been not much of tool for the Banksters because in the general assembly each nation, big or small, has the same one vote. However it still has become somewhat of a tool for worldwide oppression of individual rights as UN world heritage zones have been used by the banksters to prevent rural people from utilizing their land resources to better their lot.
The bankster goal has to be plainly stated and understood by everyone. Their goal is a massive population reduction enabling the bankster class to live on vast estates tended by a worker class twenty times reduced from the present world population. Some of the Banksters such as Rockefeller have been occasionally indiscreet and have stated this openly. The banksters have for centuries fostered wars and not only because they get the interest on the huge loans the governments have to take out to pay for all the weaponry, but also because they see wars as a great tool to reduce the "surplus population" and indeed many have expressed their support for wars in just these genocidal terms. The Banksters hide this goal by destroying the reputations of all who publicize this. It is the main function of the Banksters paid prostitutes in the media, the entertainment industry, and the poor deluded "small r" republicans who believe all the bankster lies and confuse earning a good return for ones hard work, with unbridled cut throat capitalism.
In America the role of the Democratic Party is as paid prostitutes to these banksters. The Democratic politicians mouth phrases like "equality" and taking care of societies poor and unfortunate" and "combating racism" but" they work just like the Republicans do for the banksters. the function of the Democratic party is to provide a phony alternative to the Republicans. All administrations both Democratic and Republican since Reagan have employed banksters in their key cabinet positions. and the economic policy of the United States since nineteen eighties has been a nonstop transfer of all American wealth into the pockets of these globalist banksters.
The people are few and far between, that understand the concept that the real problems in our society are caused by greed, and made worse by people who are deluded and mentally oppressed and cling illogically to untruths, either untruths of the "left" or of the "right", as their props to blame all their personal problems on someone else,. This is because one cannot liberate one's mind sufficiently from a state of oppression if one does not have help. The devil is clever and utilizes many different lies to fool the people under his power. And if one is sufficiently mentally oppressed one cannot reason enough to m see the way out
This is where the Lord and our savior Jesus Christ come into this discussion, Jesus dictum for the kingdom of God is to Love the Lord your Heavenly father with all your might, and to love your neighbor, as yourself. And , IF YOU ASK JESUS HE WILL COME INTO YOUR HEART TO FREE YOU OF YOUR MENTAL OPPRESSION. iN OTHER WORDS HE WILL FREE YOU FROM THE HATRED THAT CORRRODES YOUR RELATIONSHIPS AND CLOUDS YOUR MINDS. In Christianity, there is no surplus population, we are all Children of God and everyone is our brother or sister. Indeed our faith in Jesus is the spiritual bulwark against this combination of powerful evil minded men.
Gods promises have already been amply demonstrated in American society. We only need to go and look at the colonies of Pilgrims that was the founding society in America. The truth is the opposite to all the tall tales told about early New England society. I have studied the writings of these people and the records they left, and can conclude that God's faithfulness to his people was abundantly demonstrated in the first century of colonial America, and it went hand in hand with the faith of Gods people living there. It was when people abandoned Gods principles such as the admonition to love and take care of ones neighbors, That America began its long decent into the corrupt violent narcissistic society we have now.
For most of us in the American political reform movements of various types, it was that desire to serve our fellow countrymen that initially brought us together , and has kept us going, despite the struggles with all the mentally deranged egoists we have encountered along the way. If we have a value to others it will be to teach them to avoid the pitfalls we have encountered The key to Politics is in the local community. That we were to set our sights on the local offices first, and to find people within our local groups to fill them.
It is my opinion that the future of America and the western world can only be saved by large number of community activists whose hearts are right with the Lord and who understand the principles that I have written about in this article. We have to understand that there can be no redemption of our economy, no cleansing of the charnel house of thieves that is now the top level of government, without a both a spiritual renewal and a clear understanding of what we hope to accomplish.
Deconstructing Western Christian Civilization
Created: Monday, 20 September 2010 08:08 Author: American Nationalist | Print E-mail
The Title of this article was originally intended to be Deconstructing America, but I soon realized that to quote from the Good Book, our problem is just not national but worldwide and the truth is that indeed we do not simply struggle against a few greedy men but against "principalities, powers, and spiritual wickedness in high places." It is the nature of this struggle, one as old as mankind, but one that is heating up as we approach the events catalogued in the Book of Revelations. Finally it is a struggle not only for our civilization but for our souls and those of our children.
As I get on in years, and as I spend more and more of my time studying about our collective history, it has become apparent that this struggle has been ongoing since, at least, as long as man was first able to record his deeds and thoughts for others to reflect on. A person can learn a lot of things by reading the past records. A person can also learn a lot from listening to educated men of God preach the gospel and then by taking the concepts learned to heart and observing people. one thing that can be learned is that people who are spiritually oppressed are not only in no mental position to analyze thus improve their own situation, but that the spirit that oppresses them makes them antagonistic to dealing with that very aspect of their oppression.
So when a person tries to explain what has been going on to otherwise intelligent people who have at least tried to deal constructively with the problems of modern society, as soon as that person mentions the concept of estrangement from the Lord God, and the principle role this takes in the problems in our society, the oppressive power of evil spirits, possesses people and supplies a barrage of rhetoric which always seems to drown out or interrupt logical thought. People that are oppressed in this manner will most often respond to the evil spirit that oppresses them by denying any testimony that implies that the Nation is in its present position because they have abandoned their spiritual roots.
Therefore I am going to begin this tale of how Western Civilization got to this oppressive state by a recital of facts of men and their deeds, not motives. The deeds and the data I put forth are well documented demonstrable facts. These facts have been not only ignored but all but hidden by the modern media. This in itself is the most significant fact for it shows absolutely conclusively that the role of the mainstream media in modern society is to uphold the will of the power structure. To a logical person this in turn should demonstrate the need for independent careful research.
But one cannot do unbiased independent research if at the same time a person subjects himself to a continuous bombardment of propaganda by this same media. The entire broadcast Media and the huge majority of the periodical print media, both the daily newspapers and the weekly and monthly magazines are nothing more that cover-to-cover sales brochures, touting not only the specific products but the entire "politically correct" value system. Some of the more insidious parts of that value system are the Pavlovian responses induced in the brainwashed public by certain phrases, such "Radical" "extremist" "Far Right" or "far Left" "communist" "Homophobic" or the master bogeyman label of the late twentieth, and the current part of the twenty-first century "racist". The reason that these are so effective because in our modern times once a person has been smeared with one of these epithets, it becomes socially allowable to discount anything said or written by the individual so labeled without the need for analysis or logical rebuttal.
Note the rhetorical rallying cry especially in Europe, of certain Marxist politically correct sophists, against those advocating a resurgent populist Nationalism; " No platform for Fascists"!! These prime examples of Orwell's brainwashed "sheeple" claim to be for "Freedom" and "Free speech" and claim that they are only " protecting" what they consider the poor downtrodden, what they used to call "Lumpen Proletariat", from being swayed by " right wing tricksters" who somehow if not for the 'superior' minds of these leftist activists, would be led down the garden path . In America we have on the other hand the well bribed members of congress who apply the word "communistic" to any suggestion that for instance, the massive bank bailout money should have instead gone to those who lost their homes to the banks when the so called "free trade" wiped out American Industry.
The obvious fallacy of both their arguments is the unavoidable implication that unless a person has been able to "liberate" his or her mind, and demonstrate it by parroting the entire socialist dogma de jour, or in the case of the United States, the "free enterprise" dogma of the banksters, He is treated as a subhuman, as far as his or her rights are concerned. Thus the person who has engendered the wrath of the power structures useful idiots, and declines to cry "mea culpa" in this manner can be now decried as either a dupe or a criminal, and now having been "convicted" by such a smear , is not allowed to defend or explain his or her utterances, only to either recant or become fair game for all varieties of mistreatment including being deprived of the right of reply to slanders and in many cases right now in Europe the right of protection from Physical assault .
The power structure in Europe uses the politically correct so called "progressives" as a thought police to demonize the opposition to its program, and the Power structure in America trots out all sorts of confused "small R" Republican types to blast anyone who suggests that the government has a duty to assure the people don't get robbed by the myriad of bankster tricks, is a lazy welfare cheater or some such other epithet. You must understand the power structure of the western world is essentially monolithic and its program is one of not just worldwide political domination, for that has been a fait acompli for more than 100 years, but the destruction of the wealth of the middle class western society. The people are to be increasingly deprived of their prosperity , their right to purchase property, their right to collectively bargain with their employers for a bigger slice of the wealth they create. To accomplish this the nonstop brainwashing of the people include not only all the corporate media but also the school system and the curtailment of rights in the workplace and in virtually every public setting.
Two Hundred years ago in America the forces that have now become The New World Order, or the power structure, were already at work undermining the constitutional republic that our founding fathers had established after the revolutionary war. The person most aware of this was, of course, Thomas Jefferson, who had just completed his two terms as President and had been both the author of the Declaration of Independence and the mentor of the principle author of the Constitution, James Madison.
Jefferson understood the mechanisms of power. He was born into the wealthy elite of Virginia Plantation society In addition, he possessed one of the most brilliant minds of the day, and his families resources enabled him to avail himself of an education second to none in the world. He very well understood the role of the international mercantile bankers in the power structure, and that beginning in Britain a century previously, they had largely supplanted the hereditary monarchies of most of the powerful western nations in terms of real power. He had no intention that he should of gone to all the effort and personal sacrifice of being one of the principle actors of obtaining Americas' freedom from one set of hereditary tyrants, only to see it fall under the dictatorship of a more intelligent and even more ruthless set of oligarchs.
He considered these "banksters" even more dangerous to the America Republic precisely because they operated covertly rather than overtly. The average person, then and now merely saw a bank as a safer place to store large amounts of cash, which was in the time of Jefferson, in the mostly un-inflatable form of gold and silver. The average man never understood the concept of fractional reserve banking or how through successive loans the banks simultaneously multiplies the effective supply of money and creates a vast income for the banksters out of the mechanism.
For simplicity let us say that person a who has cash deposits one thousand dollars in a bank for which he will receive an annual interest of three percent. The bankster has hundreds of these deposits and he lends out the 90 percent of the money at six per cent interest keeping only ten percent as reserves, for on the average the ups and downs of deposits and withdrawals will not draw down his cash on hand below that point. Now let us say on this particular thousand the 900 dollar loan is for someone else to purchase land and that someone pays interest at 6 percent. Then the former landowner re deposits that money in the bank and again 90 percent, 810 dollars, is loaned to someone else with an almost 3 percent profit for the bank,
He can repeat the process eighteen times before he approaches the ten percent reserve and he will garner a net 30 percent of the amount of the original deposit as interest EACH YEAR less relatively marginal overhead costs. The beauty is that that "hard "money in creates seven and a half times as much usable currency in "bank notes" which provide a vast increase in the commerce and the wealth of society than everyone simply hoarding their gold until , they have enough to pay for something in cash. The beauty for the bankster is that he make a huge pile out of someone else's money. The problem Jefferson saw was that as these banksters had huge reserves with which to purchase anything they chose, they could manipulate the price of anything at will by concerted action to "corner the market" on commodities with a limited production, and even more insidiously by exercising the control of how much "credit" to grant manipulate the price of real estate, forcing people at times of "loose credit" to pay a premium price by flooding a limited ,market with credit, then causing an economic depression by tightening up the credit supply.
Since for people in farming and ranching which is where 90 percent of the people at the time made their living this caused many forced bankruptcies in these so called "financial depression" times because the depressed prices meant they were unable to get enough money for their surplus produce to feed their families and pay the mortgage, thus causing forced sales while the prices of their property had dropped well below what they had originally paid, which resulted in wiping out their entire equity and leaving them penniless.
Jefferson saw clearly how the hugely wealthy financial combines would be able to, by turning on and off the credit taps, impoverish Americans and "render them destitute and homeless on the continent their forefathers conquered."
However Americas rich gold and silver finds had by the late nineteenth century created enough hard cash in circulation to dampen the ability of the banksters to impoverish everybody, and populists like William Jennings Bryan had struck back at these then called monopoly capitalists, or more popularly " robber barons" with the passage of the pure food and drug act, the interstate commerce act and the Sherman anti trust act . Bryan campaigned hard for the unlimited coinage of silver to counteract the ability of the banksters to play their credit games. These legislative measures which were at the time combined with the rise of trade Unions helped most of the late nineteenth century Americans achieve a standard of living which was the envy of the world.
Of course the Banksters were not defeated by these temporary setbacks, merely delayed. Their counterstroke was the triple whammy of the federal reserve system the seventeenth amendment which removed the Senate from the control of the state assemblies and the sixteenth amendment that established the income tax, which the banksters assured one and all was only meant to be applied to the incomes of the super wealthy.
Other people in Europe were struggling with the same oligarchic class which was still forcing most of the people into a life of hard toil and poverty, and the free thinkers had come up with several ideas for the supplanting of the power structure with a cadre of "progressives ". There were many different ideas at the time but the common denominator was that all the progressives had recognized that the super rich "capitalist class" were essentially parasites who were collectively responsible for much of the misery in the world.
Of course the powerful capitalists utilized all means at hand, both fair and foul, to suppress this progressive thinking but there was a practical limit to what they could do. Overt attempts a suppression resulted in many dead "revolutionaries", but also much bad will towards the power structure. Acts of sabotage and insurrection were becoming more frequent and the ability of that power structure to keep a lid on the increasing social unrest was deteriorating. the capitalists were becoming increasingly hated . It was clearly time for them to change the nature of the social paradigm that had the few capitalists on one side and the huge masses of people on the other. The worst of the Capitalist Banksters the Morgan banking family decided to apply a very sophisticated social Jujitsu and thereby turn the reform movement upon itself. The tool they used was one group of violent "revolutionaries" under the leadership of one Vladimir Lenin. They saw to it that he was funded with close to million US dollars and deposited with his group in the heart of a nation where the power structure was already disintegrating. Lenin and his Communists utilizing their funds to hire an army of ruthless thugs established a government out of the chaos in Moscow in October 1917.
This government was built on the doctrines of two twisted individuals, Marx and Engels. It involved the wholesale murder of any Aristocratic family it could find, the absolute confiscation of Private real estate and vehicles and a total lack of tolerance for the slightest deviation from the Party Line. Because the remaining forces of the Czar fought back ruthlessly and because the Czar had virtually no support amongst the Russian Peasantry, the bloody tactics of the Communists were largely thought necessary to rid Russia of a vicious oligarchy. Thus the Banksters succeeded in one blow, creating an example of socialism so extreme that it horrified most ordinary intelligent people and wiping out all the moderate social reformers in Russia , at the minimal cost of the destruction of a Russian oligarchy that was so extremely inept, it was doomed anyway.
Ten years later social paradigm had now been shifted and the banksters were no longer the primary focus of peoples unrest. The peoples of the west were exhausted from the carnage and the expense of WW1 and there was a civil war amongst their leftist intelligentsia caused by the continued Communist extremism of Lenin's successor, Joseph Stalin, and his henchmen. Practical social reform such as the distributionist doctrine of Hillaire Belloc were being smeared with the horrors of Stalinism. This lack of focus on the economic realities in America in 1927 led directly to the Crash of 29, and the great depression that followed.
This is talk of the merits of differing economic systems is confusing to those who do not know the specifics, so here we need to talk about the real consequences of living in various types of economic systems. To examine something we need to make a theoretical model. Let us make this mode two individual family farmers under five systems of government . These systems are soviet style Communism, a Swedish style socialism a Belocian system of distributionism, current US capitalism, and mid nineteenth century laisez faire capitalism. Let us make each of these models our two farm families , mom , pop 1boy and1 girl who simultaneously obtain two identical 600 acre farms. Then a year later one of these systems is imposed upon the nation where they live. We are for illustrative purpose going identify one of these families as industrious hard working and careful call them the Beavers, the other one as lazy .say the Sloths.
Since the first year of all five models is the same let us start with the Beaver family farm. Mr. Beaver carefully assesses what he needs, and he and his son work long hours to make sure every acre is sewn with as crop. He understands crop rotation and so sews his fields with three complimentary crops, He puts in long hour until dark making fences and coops so Mrs. Beaver can raise garden vegetable and chickens and hogs. When the crops have been sewn in the other wise idle periods of the summer months, the Beavers work together to patch the barn roof making their own oak shakes. so they do not have to purchase them. Mr. Beaver constantly analyzes his actual and projected cash flows always squeezing the most out of every dollar and putting i all back into the farm. When the crops come in Mr. Beaver purchases only essential items and pays down his loans but keeps a careful cash reserve in case there is a bad year.
Meanwhile over at the Sloth farm, poppa Sloth only got 3/4ths of his land in crops because poppa likes to hit the bottle in the evening. Momma Sloth and her daughter put in a small garden and they raise some chickens in the yard which live in the barn at night because they wouldn't work hard enough to built stout well fenced coops , and while poppa Sloth got the same only got 3/4ths of the money for his crops the Beavers did, and, because he didn't get his roof fixed on the barn some rain got in and spoiled part of his stored silage. Also the local foxes have been feasting quite a bit on momma Sloths "free range" chickens so her egg money was almost nothing this year. Poppa sloth met his bank payment but had to borrow more in spring for seed money.
Now it has been three years later and in what we will call alternate reality one, a soviet style communist government has taken over the nation after the first year of our two families farm life, The Sloths and the Beavers our now informed their farms belong to the state and that they are now farm workers working for a fixed pay. This new communist state has of course no money for housing but the two families are allowed to stay in their houses provided the adults still work in the fields .
For the Beavers this means all their hard work has not let them one bit better off than the Sloths. The money that they have paid down on the mortgage to both reduce their future payments and give them more equity in their farm has gone. Their carefully maintained tractor with the rebuilt engine that poppa and boy Beaver have worked all winter on goes into the collective pool with the Sloths tractor that hasn't seen an oil change for the entire year as do their barn, chicken coops, and hog pens. Some of these coops and half of the hogs and pens are moved onto other farms that had none of these. The state set compensation in food and "credits" for farm workers is fixed at a per person rate and the money and food coming in is much less than they made last year although the work is just as hard. and aside from their now very limited personal vegetable patch, they have to live on their meager allowances. They are allotted only so much chicken and pork no matter how hard they work raising these animals
Of course for the Sloths little had changed at that time and that maybe for the better they did not used to have pork and the communist government does not require anyone to work after dark so papa sloth, who was looks down on by most of the rest of the community as a slacker now can spend his idle evenings boozing without social censure. Since the Sloths did not put out enough work, the seed loans and thus their net indebtedness were increasing before communism, they were on their way to bankruptcy, so the fact that the state now owns their house means only that the Sloths still have the roof over their heads .
Meanwhile , families like the Beavers who believed that they have been robbed by the system are secretly trying to better their lives with midnight industries such as planting a small garden hidden in the near by forest and hunting.
Mrs. Sloth who hears rumors of the Beaver's industry and sees things like good quality clothes and nice curtains on the Beaver house that she doesn't have, gets jealous and joins the Socialist Peoples Committee for the Eradication of Secret Capitalist Tendencies and goes and snitches out the Beavers to the local party Secretary. She gets so good at spying on her neighbors that the Party assigns her a car and a gas allowance just so she can get around to more places and do more spying. Of course the Beavers who have their secret garden confiscated also have to pay a fine.
A few years later Poppa Sloth is dying of cirrhosis of the liver, another family has been crammed into the Sloth house as momma cannot put in the required work to make production quota, even though that quota has been drastically reduced for her family, since she has to perform her snooping activities which now include a quota of "counter revolutionary" activity to "discover". To keep her job she extorts bribes from some people to avoid reporting them and of course must pass on most of these bribes to her supervisor.
Over at the Beavers, Boy Beaver has been sent to a punishment labor camp for "harboring capitalistic ideas." There is now also another man living at the Beaver farm sharing the Beavers miserable provisions, assigned by the state because production has fallen and aging mama and papa Beaver cannot make the production quota either.
I could stretch this example out until It effectively would have drawn the picture of Soviet communism when Russia reached rock bottom in the late nineteen-eighties, but I do not feel the need to belabor the point. Let us take the next of the alternate realties, Swedish style socialism'
We enter this picture in our second alternate reality about five years down the road after the two families have bought their farms and four years in on our new socialist state. The Beaver farm has become a prosperous enterprise while the Sloth farm has barely remained out of the clutches of the bank and this only because The Sloths receive subsidies for the acreage they don't plant, as well as child care subsidies because the two sloth teenagers are deemed to be socially disadvantaged. The sloth kids inherit their parents' lack of work ethic so they have been put in special schools where they are not expected to accomplish much, but still pushed relentlessly from grade to grade so they will not suffer from feeling of inadequacy
Of course all these social services and subsidies are paid for by taxes on the Beavers and others like them so even though now the enlarged Beaver farm produces four times what the Sloth farm does the difference in net family income is not even two to one. The Beaver kids, of course, are stars in school and will go on to college and get good jobs, but after taxes will not have much of a better life style than the state furnished free apartments that the new young adult sloth kids will be moving into. The Beavers kids will have to save for years to be able to buy nice but small homes because their income taxes are so high. Then when Mr. Beaver passes on, the boy who inherits his fathers farm will have to sell his hard earned house to pay the huge inheritance taxes on that farm, or conversely pay both the inheritance tax and then sell the farm and additionally pay 75 percent of what is left to the state as income tax. Boy Beaver, who by that time will have an advanced degree in a scientific specialty, of course now wants to leave his sister the farm and sell his house and emigrate to a nation where the taxes are less confiscatory.
Now let us go to our third alternate reality, Belloc style distributism. We enter this reality again five years down the road . The Sloths no longer live on a farm because Mr Beaver has bought them out at a price that enabled Sloth to payoff the bank loan still have money left and purchase a smaller house on a few acres with a very much smaller loan at 2 Percent, something that he can handle, both money wise and the relatively miniscule labor the few acres require. His net income is below the tax threshold so he pays no income tax and his local taxes now are reduced and support only local services. Sloth is not a very industrious laborer but he is employed as a part time tractor driver on another farm.
Beaver has used the new minimum 2 percent interest rate on business loans to purchase lands up to the 2000 acre limit and he has all these lands producing nicely A new luxury car is parked in his new garage next to his wife's new car and his equipment barn has almost an almost new tractor. Because of his children's high grades they will get university scholarships at no cost to their parents. Boy Beaver will go on to university and become an engineer in the new tidal power industry and daughter wants to be competing for the slots of horticulturalist on the new Mars mission. Income taxes are low because the biggest driver of government budgets, national debt, has been vastly reduced and is falling each year. Virtually everything in the Beaver household is now made in their own nation or other similarly prosperous nations because the antidumping tariffs have made products built in what are comparatively slave wage nations more expensive than home built ones. This has vastly increased job opportunities and cut the welfare class down to nothing, Also it is now workfare not welfare and the recipients have to perform work for the local governments that further reduces taxes. So even though boy sloths dismal grades did not qualify for an advanced education and his family certainly has no money to pay for a private College, boy sloth either has to work in the private sector at minimum wage or work for the local government to qualify for his welfare check. It's not Heaven but it is a place where people can live and work and not worry about when the bank will foreclose on the house or what to do when the unemployment allowance won't cover food clothing and the power bill.
I mention that because that is reality number four on our list, The economic system of the USA and many other nations today has become like the company towns in the coal miners song "sixteen tons" "I load sixteen tons what do you get another day older and deeper in debt."
Mr. Sloths farmland has now been rented to Mr. Beaver because after the second year it was either that or lose it to the bank. The Farm house has been rented to a family that works in the nearby city but has three horses they need to keep so they decided to live in a rural setting. These two rentals barely cover the mortgage so the Sloths now live in a cheap house in a rundown section of town, and poppa Sloth has taken a minimum paying job as a security guard. His wife works part time at Wal Mart
But the hard working Beaver family is not much better off Because of low crop prices driven down by the foriegn imports and the ruthless practices of the Chicago commodities market The farm barely is able to meet the yearly bills. Momma Beaver has had to take a secretarial job in the city, which was her third job as two of the firms she had previously worked for closed their doors, and she must commute and though daughter Beaver tries to keep the vegetable garden going and the Chickens fed she is now almost through high school and wants to go to College. However because the Beaver parents own the farm, it doesn't matter that son and daughter have kept up high grades in school, they are not eligible for College scholarships, ( parents have assets over 150 thousand) and thus must sign for big loans which have to be cosigned by their parents. Because of the marginal returns on the farm Mr. Beaver has asked his son to delay his college education because without his sons labor he will not be able to keep the place afloat. He hopes to sell some of his land to a big corporate farm to improve his cash flow and reduce his workload until his son gets through from school but his son objects because this will render the remaining farm too small to even barely support him when he inherits it from his father.
For the fifth example the laisez fare capitalist farm I have only to go to the actual experiences of Americans in the late 1870's prior to the passage of the interstate commerce act. We enter this alternate reality at the same point five years after the two families started out.
The Sloth farm is gone and the empty farm house fall slowly into decay. The banks foreclosed on the Sloths , not by choice, because with so many foreclosures it means they can't resell the property, but after three years it was either that or give Sloth another seed loan he could not pay back and lose even more money. The Beavers are now renting some of the Sloths best land. That at least is cheap. The bank could not find another taker so Mr. Beaver gave the local bank a bare bones take it or leave it offer on the land rent. The local bank itself failed last year but before it finally closed its doors, the banks assets, the farm loans, were bought up by a rich New York Bank. That was a disaster for anyone who had cash in the bank because, after the bank failure, they lost the cash but could not subtract that from the loan balance. So the Beavers savings were in a blink of an eye gone, and they still had to make payments on the loan. Even with the cheap land rental, the Beavers now barely make ends meet because of the sky high freight charges of the railroad, that ships their crops to market in the east The Beavers, all four of them, now work long hours in their vegetable patches and spend long nights driving to haul these crops to the local farmers market in the big city where momma and daughter now spend every Friday and Saturday. The only reason the Beavers are able to survive is that they work so hard and so many of their neighbors have lost their farms to the banks, so there is still a large market in the teeming cities for their goods. However they have to compete with the newly arrived green grocers from eastern Europe who hawk their wares all over the city every day in horse drawn carts and who drive a hard bargain when they buy direct from the farms.
There are no school scholarships and no bank will loan Mr Beaver another cent, because of his precarious situation. Boy Beaver did brilliantly in school but that ended in the eighth grade. When boy Beaver marries, he will have to bring his bride to live in a small addition he will build, with his own hands and with whatever materials he can scrounge, on his parents house. There is no health insurance and if any of the Beavers should get sick there is little to pay the doctors with, and no way to replace the earnings gone because of their lost labor.
What I am trying to show with these models is that it is not just a choice between the extremes of Capitalism and Communism. That is the false paradigm, created by the banksters. to make the general public accept the Banksters oppression. In the United States, our current "Socialist" laws include social security, the interstate commerce act that regulates freight rates, the Sherman anti trust act, that when enforced, prevents monopolies from fixing prices, and the student loan program, flawed as it is , that at least enables some of the brightest kids to go to university, And the FDIC that insures deposits in banks at least up to 100, 000 dollars against bank failure. These are the common well known modifications of the capitalist system that are now universally accepted even amongst those who consider themselves true blue free enterprise types. I n the UK there is the National health, falling apart that it is, and what used to be a first class rail system but has now mostly fallen apart because of privitization.
There is no universal " right way" that one must follow to assure that the ordinary hard working people living in a society are able to have a comfortable life, The people living in every society must continually analyze the mechanisms of their society to insure that hard working productive people reap the benefits of their labor while providing a minimum social umbrella for the sick and the incompetent, and all the while on guard to assure the super wealthy do not use the power inherent with their wealth to impoverish societies productive members. That is what Distributionism means distributed ownership of capital assets with curbs place upon excessive accumulations that are destructive to society as a whole.
But the primary difference in distributionist philosophy is that it totally prohibits the existence of privately owned banks with billions of dollars of assets and this is what makes it the primary enemy of the Banksters of the New World Order. That is because it defines banking as a social service , not an opportunity for a class of parasites to grow obscenely rich by extorting anyone who needs either a safe place to deposit cash or needs to obtain a loan. The emphasis on the distributionist philosophy is to make sure that jobs homes and the opportunity to amass material wealth is available for people who wish to work hard.
The distributionist philosophy of Hillaire Belloc and others is based upon the recognition of three different but absolutely true aspects of the Human character. The First aspect is that Those people who really apply themselves and utilize their talents to create things that better mankind are of much more value to society as a whole than the slackers. The second principle is that people work hard only for rewards . These rewards can be emotional or tangible but no one works diligently if there are no rewards. That is the basic human truth that caused the downfall of Communism. Diligent hard and dedicated work resulted in no different tangible gains than doing the minimum required to avoid punishment. " They pretend to pay us and so we pretend to work" was a basic philosophy of the working class in Communist Russia
The third principle was and is evident in both communist and capitalist societies. That is by cheating and manipulation those of few scruples and cunning minds can garner large amounts of undeserved wealth, and power. In Communist Russia Unless you were a person with a powerful job or connections, everyone in a position to do you a service required a bribe before they would perform it. The powerful Russian Mafia that ravaged that nation in the Yeltsin years did not spring up overnight the minute the Yeltsin with the aid of the Army squashed the communist assault on Gorbachov. The Mafia had been their growing and almost every politburo member was supported by a secret faction. That is because there was no other way to make any extra money, than belonging to this secret ruthless society .
In our society the same ruthless criminal determination to amass wealth at any cost, has resulted in the most talented and ruthless individuals becoming well paid agents of the banksters. Some of them rationalize their betrayal of the rest of the common people with excuses like "it's a dog eat dog world out there and I am only doing what I gotta do, to get ahead"
Individual societies differ in what they consider the social duties of different classes of their members, and also the tangible rewards they allow for individuals in different positions within them. Let us look for example at what are known to most of the common people as "American Indians" . Their tribal society had a strict division of labor with the women expected to where necessary work cooperatively in tending the large fires preparing the food and sewing skins together to make clothing and tents. The men hunted cooperatively for large game and were the armed forces of the tribe power was shared in the men's council but the chiefs were chosen by consensus as well as the medicine men. Status was garnered for prowess in hunting and raiding, but there was not a lot of disparity in ones individual possessions. This is a classic example of all primitive societies
Another type of society that was common five hundred years ago is feudal society. as was common in Europe The ordinary people were divided into "freemen" and serfs with the former holding title by cash fee or military service to a patch of land and the while the latter labor either as share croppers either on individual plots or on large fields for the local "lord" who was in turn granted the land as a "fief " in return for swearing fealty to his Liege lord and supporting him with arms A "lord' who held land by his own right and not because of fealty to another lord was a king. Under this system of course the various kings were at constant war with their neighbors always seeking to aggrandize their territory.
I am not going to write a long treatise on the gradual development of the modern nation state, but suffice to say that the various struggles of history resulted in distinct areas of our worlds surface remaining under the political control of specific interrelated cultural groups. The greatest common denominator was a common language spoken throughout the particular realm and of course a geographical continuity. The various distinct cultures of our world were nurtured and protected under this system. A century ago various people recognized the need for an international council to free the world from the horror of constant wars.
The first organization they created was the League of Nations, after world war one. That organization failed because it was unable to authorize a military force to be raised from amongst its constituent nations to enter the war zone between sovereign nations and separate the combatants. After world war two, the United Nations was formed, and in Korea and in other struggles in Africa and the Balkans it has proven its worth stopping small conflicts from becoming global ones. That is because, up til recently the constituent nations of this alliance jealously guarding their sovereignty have recognized the danger in an excessively powerful or proactive force and have acted out of their own interests to limit its use of force to those situations where worldwide consensus sees the necessity to act. It has been not much of tool for the Banksters because in the general assembly each nation, big or small, has the same one vote. However it still has become somewhat of a tool for worldwide oppression of individual rights as UN world heritage zones have been used by the banksters to prevent rural people from utilizing their land resources to better their lot.
The bankster goal has to be plainly stated and understood by everyone. Their goal is a massive population reduction enabling the bankster class to live on vast estates tended by a worker class twenty times reduced from the present world population. Some of the Banksters such as Rockefeller have been occasionally indiscreet and have stated this openly. The banksters have for centuries fostered wars and not only because they get the interest on the huge loans the governments have to take out to pay for all the weaponry, but also because they see wars as a great tool to reduce the "surplus population" and indeed many have expressed their support for wars in just these genocidal terms. The Banksters hide this goal by destroying the reputations of all who publicize this. It is the main function of the Banksters paid prostitutes in the media, the entertainment industry, and the poor deluded "small r" republicans who believe all the bankster lies and confuse earning a good return for ones hard work, with unbridled cut throat capitalism.
In America the role of the Democratic Party is as paid prostitutes to these banksters. The Democratic politicians mouth phrases like "equality" and taking care of societies poor and unfortunate" and "combating racism" but" they work just like the Republicans do for the banksters. the function of the Democratic party is to provide a phony alternative to the Republicans. All administrations both Democratic and Republican since Reagan have employed banksters in their key cabinet positions. and the economic policy of the United States since nineteen eighties has been a nonstop transfer of all American wealth into the pockets of these globalist banksters.
The people are few and far between, that understand the concept that the real problems in our society are caused by greed, and made worse by people who are deluded and mentally oppressed and cling illogically to untruths, either untruths of the "left" or of the "right", as their props to blame all their personal problems on someone else,. This is because one cannot liberate one's mind sufficiently from a state of oppression if one does not have help. The devil is clever and utilizes many different lies to fool the people under his power. And if one is sufficiently mentally oppressed one cannot reason enough to m see the way out
This is where the Lord and our savior Jesus Christ come into this discussion, Jesus dictum for the kingdom of God is to Love the Lord your Heavenly father with all your might, and to love your neighbor, as yourself. And , IF YOU ASK JESUS HE WILL COME INTO YOUR HEART TO FREE YOU OF YOUR MENTAL OPPRESSION. iN OTHER WORDS HE WILL FREE YOU FROM THE HATRED THAT CORRRODES YOUR RELATIONSHIPS AND CLOUDS YOUR MINDS. In Christianity, there is no surplus population, we are all Children of God and everyone is our brother or sister. Indeed our faith in Jesus is the spiritual bulwark against this combination of powerful evil minded men.
Gods promises have already been amply demonstrated in American society. We only need to go and look at the colonies of Pilgrims that was the founding society in America. The truth is the opposite to all the tall tales told about early New England society. I have studied the writings of these people and the records they left, and can conclude that God's faithfulness to his people was abundantly demonstrated in the first century of colonial America, and it went hand in hand with the faith of Gods people living there. It was when people abandoned Gods principles such as the admonition to love and take care of ones neighbors, That America began its long decent into the corrupt violent narcissistic society we have now.
For most of us in the American political reform movements of various types, it was that desire to serve our fellow countrymen that initially brought us together , and has kept us going, despite the struggles with all the mentally deranged egoists we have encountered along the way. If we have a value to others it will be to teach them to avoid the pitfalls we have encountered The key to Politics is in the local community. That we were to set our sights on the local offices first, and to find people within our local groups to fill them.
It is my opinion that the future of America and the western world can only be saved by large number of community activists whose hearts are right with the Lord and who understand the principles that I have written about in this article. We have to understand that there can be no redemption of our economy, no cleansing of the charnel house of thieves that is now the top level of government, without a both a spiritual renewal and a clear understanding of what we hope to accomplish.
Saturday, 17 January 2009
A Communism for the 21st Century
logo
Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
A Communism for the 21st Century
By Fjordman
Created 2007-05-14 16:45
I’ve received some criticism for trying to figure out the ideological and historical roots of Multiculturalism. Critics claim that it’s all about hate, about a desire to break down the Established Order at any cost. Many of the proponents don’t believe in the doctrine of Multiculturalism themselves, so we shouldn’t waste any time analyzing the logic behind it, because there is none. A desire to break down Western society is certainly there, but I do believe there are some ideas about the desired end result articulated as well.
On one hand, we’re supposed to “celebrate” our differences at the same time as it is racist and taboo to recognize that any differences between groups of people exist at all. This is hardly logically coherent, which is why Multiculturalism can only be enforced by totalitarian means. Perhaps it boils down to the fact there are no major differences, just minor quirks, all cute, which should be celebrated at the same time as we gradually eradicate them.
We are told to treat cultural and historical identities as fashion accessories, shirts we can wear and change at will. The Multicultural society is “colorful,” an adjective normally attached to furniture or curtains. Cultures are window decorations of little or no consequence, and one might as well have one as the other. In fact, it is good to change it every now and then. Don’t you get tired of that old sofa sometimes? What about exchanging it for the new sharia model? Sure, it’s slightly less comfortable than the old one, but it’s very much in vogue these days and sets you apart from the neighbors, at least until they get one, too. Do you want a sample of the latest Calvin Klein perfume to go with that sharia?
We should remember that this view of culture as largely unimportant is essentially a Marxist view of the world, which has now even been adopted by segments of the political Right, united with Leftists in the belief that man is homo economicus, the economic man, the sum of his functions as worker and consumer, nothing more. Marxism doesn’t say that cultures or ideas are of absolutely no consequence, but that they are of minor or secondary importance next to structural and economic conditions.
I have heard individuals state point blank that even if Muslims become the majority in our countries in the future, this doesn’t matter because all people are equal and all cultures are just a mix of everything else, anyway. And since religions are just fairy-tales, replacing one fairy-tale, Christianity, with another fairy-tale, Islam, won’t make a big difference. All religions basically say that the same things in different ways. However, not one of them would ever dream of saying that all political ideologies “basically mean the same thing.” They simply don’t view religious or cultural ideas as significant, and thus won’t spend time on studying the largely unimportant details of each specific creed. This is Marxist materialism.
The unstated premise behind this is that the age of distinct cultures is over. All peoples around the world will gradually blend into one another. Ethnic, religious and racial tensions will disappear, because mankind will be one and equal. It’s cultural and genetic Communism. Nation states who create their own laws and uphold their own borders constitute “discrimination” and an obstacle to this new Utopia, and will gradually have to be dismantled, starting with Western nations of course, replaced by a world where everybody has the right to move wherever they want to and where international legislation and human rights resolutions define the law, upheld by an elite of — supposedly well-meaning — transnational bureaucrats managing our lives.
What the proponents of this ideology don’t say is that even if it were possible to melt all human beings into one people, which is in my view neither possible nor desirable, this project would take generations or centuries, and in the intervening time there would be numerous wars and enormous suffering caused by the fact that not everybody would quietly allow themselves to be eradicated.
All aspects of your person, from language via culture to skin color and religion, are treated as imaginary social constructs. We are told that “all cultures are hybrids and borrow from each other,” that we were “all immigrants” at one point in time and hence nobody has a right to claim any specific piece of land as “theirs.”
Since “we” are socially constructed, we can presumably also be socially deconstructed. The Marxist “counter-culture”of the 1960s and 70s has been remarkably effective at attacking the pillars of Western civilization. It is, frankly, scary to notice how much damage just one single generation can inflict upon a society. Maybe it’s true that no chain is stronger than its weakest link. Our education system is now used to dismantle our culture, not to uphold it, and has moved from the Age of Reason to the Age of Deconstruction. Socialism has destroyed the very fabric of society. Our countries have become so damaged that people feel there is nothing left fighting for, which no doubt was the intention. Our children leave school as disoriented wrecks and ideological cripples with no sense of identity, and are met with a roar of outrage if they demonstrate the slightest inkling of a spine.
Codie Stott, a white English teenage schoolgirl, was arrested on suspicion of committing a section five racial public order offense after refusing to sit with a group of South Asian students because some of them did not speak English. She was taken to Swinton police station, had her fingerprints taken and was thrown into a cell before being released. Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank said: “A lot of these arrests don’t result in prosecutions – the aim is to frighten us into self-censorship until we watch everything we say.”
Bryan Cork of Carlisle, Cumbria in the Lake District, was sentenced to six months in jail for standing outside a mosque shouting, “Proud to be British,” and “Go back to where you came from.” This happened while Muslims were instituting sharia laws in British cities and got state sponsorship for having several wives.
Antifascistisk Aktion in Sweden, a group that supposedly fights against “racists,” openly brag about numerous physical attacks against persons with their full name and address published on their website. According to AFA, this is done in order to fight against global capitalism and for a classless society. They subscribe to an ideology that killed one hundred million people during a few generations, and they are the good guys. Those who object to being turned into a minority in their own country through mass immigration are the bad guys.
The extreme Left didn’t succeed in staging a violent revolution in the West, so they decided to go for a permanent, structural revolution instead. They now hope that immigrants can provide raw material for a violent rebellion, especially since many of them are Muslims who have displayed such a wonderful talent for violence and destruction. The Western Left are importing a new proletariat, since the previous one disappointed them.
A poll carried out on behalf of the Organization for Information on Communism found that 90 percent of Swedes between the ages of 15 and 20 had never heard of the Gulag, although 95 percent knew of Auschwitz. “Unfortunately we were not at all surprised by the findings,” Ander Hjemdahl, the founder of UOK, told website The Local. In the nationwide poll, 43 percent believed that Communist regimes had claimed less than one million lives. The actual figure is estimated at 100 million. 40 percent believed that Communism had contributed to increased prosperity in the world. Mr. Hjemdahl states several reasons for this massive ignorance, among them that “a large majority of Swedish journalists are left-wingers, many of them quite far left.”
I have personally read statements by leading media figures not just in Sweden, but all over Western Europe, who openly brag about censoring coverage of issues related to mass immigration and the Multicultural society.
The Muslim writer Abdelwahab Meddeb believes that as a result of French influence, the whole of the Mediterranean region “is suited to becoming a laboratory for European thought.” First of all, I don’t think Islam can be reformed, and even if it could, France currently lacks the cultural confidence to lead such an effort. Behind their false pride, they are a nation deeply unsure about themselves, and still carry psychological wounds from their great Revolution of 1789. And second: A bridge can be crossed two ways. Will France be a bridge for European thought into the Islamic world or for Islamic thought into Europe? Right now, the latter seems more likely. And finally: I greatly resent seeing tens of millions of human beings described as a “laboratory.” Unfortunately, Mr. Meddeb is not alone in entertaining such ideas.
Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has said: “Belgium is the laboratory of European unification.” What kind of confidence does it inspire in citizens that their supposed leader talks about their country as a laboratory? Are their children guinea pigs? Apparently, yes.
In 1960, 7.3% of the population of Belgian capital Brussels was foreign. Today the figure is 56.5%. Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist, can hardly hide his excitement over this great experiment in social engineering, and believes this population replacement “is an impressive and unique development from a European, or even a world perspective.” Yes, it is probably the first time in human history that a nation demographically has handed over its capital city to outsiders without firing a single shot, but judging from trends in the rest of Europe, it won’t be the last. The European Union and the local, Multicultural elites will see to that.
The Dutch writer Margriet de Moor provides another example of why Multiculturalism is a massive experiment in social engineering, every bit as radical and dangerous as Communism. Ms. de Moor lives in some kind of alternate reality where “Europe’s affluence and free speech” will create an Islamic Reformation. But Muslim immigration constitutes a massive drain on the former, and is slowly, but surely destroying the latter:
“When I’m feeling optimistic I sometimes see the Netherlands, a small laconic country not inclined towards the large-scale or the theatrical, as a kind of laboratory on the edge of Europe. Now and then the mixture of dangerous, easily inflammable substances results in a little explosion, but basically the process of ordinary chemical reactions just continues.”
What kind of person refers to her own country as a laboratory? Ms. de Moor sounds like a scientist, dispassionately studying an interesting specimen in her microscope. I’m sure Theo van Gogh would be pleased to hear that he was basically a lab rat when he ended up with a knife in his chest for having “insulted” Islam, along with that of the “racist” Pim Fortuyn the first political murder in Holland for centuries. What was once one of the most tolerant nations in the world is now being ruined by Muslim immigration. But hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? These murders were an unfortunate business, no doubt, but one mustn’t call off the entire Multicultural experiment because of a few minor setbacks.
We all told that Arabs triggered the Renaissance in Europe. Michelangelo was commissioned by the Pope to paint the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel within the Vatican. He painted God creating Adam. Did any of the Caliphs or Sultans ever commission an artist to pant the image of Allah in Mecca? Why not, if all cultures are one and the same? Likewise, the political works of the ancient Greeks were never translated to Arabic, as they presented systems such as democracy where men ruled themselves according to their own laws. This was considered blasphemous to Muslims. The same texts were later studied with great interest in the West.
Far from being irrelevant, culture is a massively important factor in shaping a society. Islam’s hostility to free speech is why Muslims never had any Scientific or Industrial Revolution, for instance. If you believe in evolution, isn’t it then also likely that some cultures are more evolved than others? That kind of blows Multiculturalism away, doesn’t it?
British PM Tony Blair is stepping down after having ruined his country more in one decade than arguably any other leader has done before him. He ran on the platform of New Labour, but as it turned out, his party was still wed to the same old ideas of international Socialism.
According to the writer Melanie Phillips, “He is driven by a universalist world view which minimises the profound nature of the conflicts that divide people. He thinks that such divisions belong essentially to a primitive past. (...) Hence his closely-related obsession with ‘universal’ human rights law. Hence also his belief that national borders no longer matter, that mass immigration is a good thing and that Britain’s unique identity must give way to multiculturalism. This is the way, he thinks, to eradicate conflict, prejudice and war, and create a global utopia. What a profound misjudgment. It is, instead, the way to destroy democracy and the independent nations that create and sustain it.”
Marie Simonsen, the political editor of the Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, wrote in March 2007 that it should be considered a universal human right for all people everywhere to migrate wherever they want to. This statement came just after a UN report had predicted a global population growth of several billion people to 2050.
It doesn’t take much skill to calculate that unlimited migration will spell certain death for a tiny Scandinavian nation — not in a matter of generations, but theoretically even within a few weeks. Ms. Simonsen is thus endorsing the eradication of her own people, and she does so almost as an afterthought. Her comments received no opposition from anyone in the media establishment, which could indicate that most of them share her views, or at least have resigned themselves to the fact that our death as a people is already inevitable.
Karl Marx has defined the essence of Socialism as abolishing private property. Let’s assume for a moment that a country can be treated as the “property” of its citizens. Its inhabitants are responsible for creating its infrastructure. They have built its roads and communications, its schools, universities and medical facilities. They have created its political institutions and instilled in its people the mental capacities needed for upholding them. Is it then wrong for the citizens of this country to want to enjoy the benefits of what they have themselves created?
According to Marxist logic, yes.
Imagine you have two such houses next to each other. In House A, the inhabitants have over a period of generations created a tidy and functioning household. They have limited their number of children because they wanted to give all of them a proper education. In House B, the inhabitants live in a dysfunctional household with too many children who have received little higher education. One day they decide to move to their neighbors’. Many of the inhabitants of House A are protesting, but some of them think this might be a good idea. There is room for more people in House A, they say. In addition to this, Amnesty International, the United Nations and others claim that it is “racist” and “against international law” for the inhabitants of House A to expel the intruders. Pretty soon, House A has been turned into an overpopulated and dysfunctional household just like House B.
This is what is happening to the West today. Europe itself could become a failed continent by importing the problems of Africa and the Islamic world. The notion that everybody should be free to move anywhere they want to, and that preventing them from moving into your country is “racism, xenophobia and bigotry,” is the Communism of the 21st century. And it will probably lead to immense human suffering.
One of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist thinking has penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the universities to the media. While the “hard” Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the “soft” Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we mistakenly deemed it to be less threatening.
Ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse. By hiding behind labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship they could never have achieved had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.
According to the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, “the lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what Communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence.”
Alexander Boot, a Russian by birth, left for the West in the 1970s, only to discover that the West he was seeking was no longer there. This led him to write the book How the West Was Lost. Boot believes that democracy, or in the words of Abraham Lincoln, the government of the people, by the people and for the people, has been replaced by glossocracy, the government of the word, by the word and for the word.
In a culture where language is power and words are used as weapons, those who control the most fearsome of these weapons control society. In the West, where equality in all walks of life is the highest virtue and “discrimination” is a mortal sin, the “racist” is the worst of creatures. Those who control the definition of “racist,” the nuclear bomb of glossocracy, have a powerful weapon they can utilize to intimidate opponents. The mere utterance of the word can destroy careers and ruin lives, with no trial and no possibility of appeal.
Currently, the power of definition largely rests in the hands of a cartel of anti-racist organizations dominated by the extreme Left, often in cooperation with Muslims. By silencing all opposition to mass immigration as “racism,” they can stage a transformation of society every bit as massive as that of Communism, yet virtually shut down debate about it.
Boot totally rejects the claim that Marxism has been misunderstood:
“Any serious study will demonstrate that Marx based his theories on industrial conditions that either were already obsolete at the time or had never existed in the first place. That is no wonder, for Marx never saw the inside of a factory, farm or manufactory. [...] Whatever else he was, Marx was not a scientist. […] Marx ideals are unachievable precisely because they are so monstrous that even Bolsheviks never quite managed to realize them fully, and not for any lack of trying. For example, the [Communist] Manifesto (along with other writings by both Marx and Engels) prescribes the nationalization of all private property without exception. Even Stalin’s Russia of the 1930s fell short of that ideal. In fact, a good chunk of the Soviet economy was then in private hands [...] Really, compared with Marx, Stalin begins to look like a humanitarian. Marx also insisted that family should be done away with, with women becoming communal property. Again, for all their efforts, Lenin and Stalin never quite managed to achieve this ideal either. So where the Bolsheviks and Nazis perverted Marxism, they generally did so in the direction of softening it.”
The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who has warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, thinks that while the West won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in the context of ideas: “Communism might have been dead, but the communists remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc countries, while their Western collaborators came to power all over the world (in Europe in particular). This is nothing short of a miracle: the defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left in world politics, while a defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a shift to the Left, this time quite illogically.”
Bukovksy is right: We never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2, and we are now paying the price for this. Many Marxist ideas have been allowed to endure and mutate, such as the notion that culture is unimportant or that it is OK to stage massive social experiments on hundreds of millions of people. The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm has stated that had the Soviet Union managed to create a functioning Socialist society, tens of millions of deaths would have been a worthwhile price to pay. But Marxist ideals of forced equality can only be enforced by a government with totalitarian powers, and will thus inevitably lead to a totalitarian society. There is no “enlightened Marxism,” and the idea that there is has ruined more lives than probably and other ideology in modern history.
Marxism is an organized crime against humanity.
The Australian writer Keith Windschuttle warns that the consequence of cultural relativism is that if there can be no absolute truths, there can be no absolute falsehoods, either, which explains Western weakness when confronted with Islamic Jihad. Our sense of right and wrong has been deeply damaged by Marxist thinking. Windschuttle praises Greek historian Thucydides’ writings about The History of the Peloponnesian War from the 5th century BC:
“Rather than being impelled by great impersonal forces, political history reveals the world is made by men and, instead of being ‘absolved of blame’, men are responsible for the consequences of their actions. This was the very point that informed Thucydides’ study of the Peloponnesian War: the fate of Athens had been determined not by prophets, oracles or the gods, but by human actions and social organisation.”
Ideas matter. Individuals matter. Cultures matter. Truth matters, and truth exists. We used to know that. It’s time we get to know it again, and reject false ideas about the irrelevance of culture. We are not racists for desiring to pass on our heritage to future generations, nor are we evil for resisting to be treated as lab rats in social experiments on a horrific scale. We must nip the ideology of transnational Multiculturalism and unlimited mass migration in the bud by exposing it for what it is: A Communism for the 21st century.
cover of How the West Was Lost How the West Was Lost
Author: Alexander Boot
ASIN: 1850439850
Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2125
Published on The Brussels Journal (http://www.brusselsjournal.com)
A Communism for the 21st Century
By Fjordman
Created 2007-05-14 16:45
I’ve received some criticism for trying to figure out the ideological and historical roots of Multiculturalism. Critics claim that it’s all about hate, about a desire to break down the Established Order at any cost. Many of the proponents don’t believe in the doctrine of Multiculturalism themselves, so we shouldn’t waste any time analyzing the logic behind it, because there is none. A desire to break down Western society is certainly there, but I do believe there are some ideas about the desired end result articulated as well.
On one hand, we’re supposed to “celebrate” our differences at the same time as it is racist and taboo to recognize that any differences between groups of people exist at all. This is hardly logically coherent, which is why Multiculturalism can only be enforced by totalitarian means. Perhaps it boils down to the fact there are no major differences, just minor quirks, all cute, which should be celebrated at the same time as we gradually eradicate them.
We are told to treat cultural and historical identities as fashion accessories, shirts we can wear and change at will. The Multicultural society is “colorful,” an adjective normally attached to furniture or curtains. Cultures are window decorations of little or no consequence, and one might as well have one as the other. In fact, it is good to change it every now and then. Don’t you get tired of that old sofa sometimes? What about exchanging it for the new sharia model? Sure, it’s slightly less comfortable than the old one, but it’s very much in vogue these days and sets you apart from the neighbors, at least until they get one, too. Do you want a sample of the latest Calvin Klein perfume to go with that sharia?
We should remember that this view of culture as largely unimportant is essentially a Marxist view of the world, which has now even been adopted by segments of the political Right, united with Leftists in the belief that man is homo economicus, the economic man, the sum of his functions as worker and consumer, nothing more. Marxism doesn’t say that cultures or ideas are of absolutely no consequence, but that they are of minor or secondary importance next to structural and economic conditions.
I have heard individuals state point blank that even if Muslims become the majority in our countries in the future, this doesn’t matter because all people are equal and all cultures are just a mix of everything else, anyway. And since religions are just fairy-tales, replacing one fairy-tale, Christianity, with another fairy-tale, Islam, won’t make a big difference. All religions basically say that the same things in different ways. However, not one of them would ever dream of saying that all political ideologies “basically mean the same thing.” They simply don’t view religious or cultural ideas as significant, and thus won’t spend time on studying the largely unimportant details of each specific creed. This is Marxist materialism.
The unstated premise behind this is that the age of distinct cultures is over. All peoples around the world will gradually blend into one another. Ethnic, religious and racial tensions will disappear, because mankind will be one and equal. It’s cultural and genetic Communism. Nation states who create their own laws and uphold their own borders constitute “discrimination” and an obstacle to this new Utopia, and will gradually have to be dismantled, starting with Western nations of course, replaced by a world where everybody has the right to move wherever they want to and where international legislation and human rights resolutions define the law, upheld by an elite of — supposedly well-meaning — transnational bureaucrats managing our lives.
What the proponents of this ideology don’t say is that even if it were possible to melt all human beings into one people, which is in my view neither possible nor desirable, this project would take generations or centuries, and in the intervening time there would be numerous wars and enormous suffering caused by the fact that not everybody would quietly allow themselves to be eradicated.
All aspects of your person, from language via culture to skin color and religion, are treated as imaginary social constructs. We are told that “all cultures are hybrids and borrow from each other,” that we were “all immigrants” at one point in time and hence nobody has a right to claim any specific piece of land as “theirs.”
Since “we” are socially constructed, we can presumably also be socially deconstructed. The Marxist “counter-culture”of the 1960s and 70s has been remarkably effective at attacking the pillars of Western civilization. It is, frankly, scary to notice how much damage just one single generation can inflict upon a society. Maybe it’s true that no chain is stronger than its weakest link. Our education system is now used to dismantle our culture, not to uphold it, and has moved from the Age of Reason to the Age of Deconstruction. Socialism has destroyed the very fabric of society. Our countries have become so damaged that people feel there is nothing left fighting for, which no doubt was the intention. Our children leave school as disoriented wrecks and ideological cripples with no sense of identity, and are met with a roar of outrage if they demonstrate the slightest inkling of a spine.
Codie Stott, a white English teenage schoolgirl, was arrested on suspicion of committing a section five racial public order offense after refusing to sit with a group of South Asian students because some of them did not speak English. She was taken to Swinton police station, had her fingerprints taken and was thrown into a cell before being released. Robert Whelan of the Civitas think-tank said: “A lot of these arrests don’t result in prosecutions – the aim is to frighten us into self-censorship until we watch everything we say.”
Bryan Cork of Carlisle, Cumbria in the Lake District, was sentenced to six months in jail for standing outside a mosque shouting, “Proud to be British,” and “Go back to where you came from.” This happened while Muslims were instituting sharia laws in British cities and got state sponsorship for having several wives.
Antifascistisk Aktion in Sweden, a group that supposedly fights against “racists,” openly brag about numerous physical attacks against persons with their full name and address published on their website. According to AFA, this is done in order to fight against global capitalism and for a classless society. They subscribe to an ideology that killed one hundred million people during a few generations, and they are the good guys. Those who object to being turned into a minority in their own country through mass immigration are the bad guys.
The extreme Left didn’t succeed in staging a violent revolution in the West, so they decided to go for a permanent, structural revolution instead. They now hope that immigrants can provide raw material for a violent rebellion, especially since many of them are Muslims who have displayed such a wonderful talent for violence and destruction. The Western Left are importing a new proletariat, since the previous one disappointed them.
A poll carried out on behalf of the Organization for Information on Communism found that 90 percent of Swedes between the ages of 15 and 20 had never heard of the Gulag, although 95 percent knew of Auschwitz. “Unfortunately we were not at all surprised by the findings,” Ander Hjemdahl, the founder of UOK, told website The Local. In the nationwide poll, 43 percent believed that Communist regimes had claimed less than one million lives. The actual figure is estimated at 100 million. 40 percent believed that Communism had contributed to increased prosperity in the world. Mr. Hjemdahl states several reasons for this massive ignorance, among them that “a large majority of Swedish journalists are left-wingers, many of them quite far left.”
I have personally read statements by leading media figures not just in Sweden, but all over Western Europe, who openly brag about censoring coverage of issues related to mass immigration and the Multicultural society.
The Muslim writer Abdelwahab Meddeb believes that as a result of French influence, the whole of the Mediterranean region “is suited to becoming a laboratory for European thought.” First of all, I don’t think Islam can be reformed, and even if it could, France currently lacks the cultural confidence to lead such an effort. Behind their false pride, they are a nation deeply unsure about themselves, and still carry psychological wounds from their great Revolution of 1789. And second: A bridge can be crossed two ways. Will France be a bridge for European thought into the Islamic world or for Islamic thought into Europe? Right now, the latter seems more likely. And finally: I greatly resent seeing tens of millions of human beings described as a “laboratory.” Unfortunately, Mr. Meddeb is not alone in entertaining such ideas.
Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt has said: “Belgium is the laboratory of European unification.” What kind of confidence does it inspire in citizens that their supposed leader talks about their country as a laboratory? Are their children guinea pigs? Apparently, yes.
In 1960, 7.3% of the population of Belgian capital Brussels was foreign. Today the figure is 56.5%. Jan Hertogen, a Marxist sociologist, can hardly hide his excitement over this great experiment in social engineering, and believes this population replacement “is an impressive and unique development from a European, or even a world perspective.” Yes, it is probably the first time in human history that a nation demographically has handed over its capital city to outsiders without firing a single shot, but judging from trends in the rest of Europe, it won’t be the last. The European Union and the local, Multicultural elites will see to that.
The Dutch writer Margriet de Moor provides another example of why Multiculturalism is a massive experiment in social engineering, every bit as radical and dangerous as Communism. Ms. de Moor lives in some kind of alternate reality where “Europe’s affluence and free speech” will create an Islamic Reformation. But Muslim immigration constitutes a massive drain on the former, and is slowly, but surely destroying the latter:
“When I’m feeling optimistic I sometimes see the Netherlands, a small laconic country not inclined towards the large-scale or the theatrical, as a kind of laboratory on the edge of Europe. Now and then the mixture of dangerous, easily inflammable substances results in a little explosion, but basically the process of ordinary chemical reactions just continues.”
What kind of person refers to her own country as a laboratory? Ms. de Moor sounds like a scientist, dispassionately studying an interesting specimen in her microscope. I’m sure Theo van Gogh would be pleased to hear that he was basically a lab rat when he ended up with a knife in his chest for having “insulted” Islam, along with that of the “racist” Pim Fortuyn the first political murder in Holland for centuries. What was once one of the most tolerant nations in the world is now being ruined by Muslim immigration. But hey, you have to break a few eggs to make an omelet, right? These murders were an unfortunate business, no doubt, but one mustn’t call off the entire Multicultural experiment because of a few minor setbacks.
We all told that Arabs triggered the Renaissance in Europe. Michelangelo was commissioned by the Pope to paint the ceiling of The Sistine Chapel within the Vatican. He painted God creating Adam. Did any of the Caliphs or Sultans ever commission an artist to pant the image of Allah in Mecca? Why not, if all cultures are one and the same? Likewise, the political works of the ancient Greeks were never translated to Arabic, as they presented systems such as democracy where men ruled themselves according to their own laws. This was considered blasphemous to Muslims. The same texts were later studied with great interest in the West.
Far from being irrelevant, culture is a massively important factor in shaping a society. Islam’s hostility to free speech is why Muslims never had any Scientific or Industrial Revolution, for instance. If you believe in evolution, isn’t it then also likely that some cultures are more evolved than others? That kind of blows Multiculturalism away, doesn’t it?
British PM Tony Blair is stepping down after having ruined his country more in one decade than arguably any other leader has done before him. He ran on the platform of New Labour, but as it turned out, his party was still wed to the same old ideas of international Socialism.
According to the writer Melanie Phillips, “He is driven by a universalist world view which minimises the profound nature of the conflicts that divide people. He thinks that such divisions belong essentially to a primitive past. (...) Hence his closely-related obsession with ‘universal’ human rights law. Hence also his belief that national borders no longer matter, that mass immigration is a good thing and that Britain’s unique identity must give way to multiculturalism. This is the way, he thinks, to eradicate conflict, prejudice and war, and create a global utopia. What a profound misjudgment. It is, instead, the way to destroy democracy and the independent nations that create and sustain it.”
Marie Simonsen, the political editor of the Norwegian left-wing newspaper Dagbladet, wrote in March 2007 that it should be considered a universal human right for all people everywhere to migrate wherever they want to. This statement came just after a UN report had predicted a global population growth of several billion people to 2050.
It doesn’t take much skill to calculate that unlimited migration will spell certain death for a tiny Scandinavian nation — not in a matter of generations, but theoretically even within a few weeks. Ms. Simonsen is thus endorsing the eradication of her own people, and she does so almost as an afterthought. Her comments received no opposition from anyone in the media establishment, which could indicate that most of them share her views, or at least have resigned themselves to the fact that our death as a people is already inevitable.
Karl Marx has defined the essence of Socialism as abolishing private property. Let’s assume for a moment that a country can be treated as the “property” of its citizens. Its inhabitants are responsible for creating its infrastructure. They have built its roads and communications, its schools, universities and medical facilities. They have created its political institutions and instilled in its people the mental capacities needed for upholding them. Is it then wrong for the citizens of this country to want to enjoy the benefits of what they have themselves created?
According to Marxist logic, yes.
Imagine you have two such houses next to each other. In House A, the inhabitants have over a period of generations created a tidy and functioning household. They have limited their number of children because they wanted to give all of them a proper education. In House B, the inhabitants live in a dysfunctional household with too many children who have received little higher education. One day they decide to move to their neighbors’. Many of the inhabitants of House A are protesting, but some of them think this might be a good idea. There is room for more people in House A, they say. In addition to this, Amnesty International, the United Nations and others claim that it is “racist” and “against international law” for the inhabitants of House A to expel the intruders. Pretty soon, House A has been turned into an overpopulated and dysfunctional household just like House B.
This is what is happening to the West today. Europe itself could become a failed continent by importing the problems of Africa and the Islamic world. The notion that everybody should be free to move anywhere they want to, and that preventing them from moving into your country is “racism, xenophobia and bigotry,” is the Communism of the 21st century. And it will probably lead to immense human suffering.
One of the really big mistakes we made after the Cold War ended was to declare that Socialism was now dead, and thus no longer anything to worry about. Here we are, nearly a generation later, discovering that Marxist thinking has penetrated every single stratum of our society, from the universities to the media. While the “hard” Marxism of the Soviet Union may have collapsed, at least for now, the “soft” Marxism of the Western Left has actually grown stronger, in part because we mistakenly deemed it to be less threatening.
Ideas about Multiculturalism and de-facto open borders have achieved a virtual hegemony in public discourse. By hiding behind labels such as “anti-racism” and “tolerance,” Leftists have achieved a degree of censorship they could never have achieved had they openly stated that their intention was to radically transform Western civilization and destroy its foundations.
According to the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, “the lofty idea of ‘the war on racism’ is gradually turning into a hideously false ideology. And this anti-racism will be for the 21st century what Communism was for the 20th century: A source of violence.”
Alexander Boot, a Russian by birth, left for the West in the 1970s, only to discover that the West he was seeking was no longer there. This led him to write the book How the West Was Lost. Boot believes that democracy, or in the words of Abraham Lincoln, the government of the people, by the people and for the people, has been replaced by glossocracy, the government of the word, by the word and for the word.
In a culture where language is power and words are used as weapons, those who control the most fearsome of these weapons control society. In the West, where equality in all walks of life is the highest virtue and “discrimination” is a mortal sin, the “racist” is the worst of creatures. Those who control the definition of “racist,” the nuclear bomb of glossocracy, have a powerful weapon they can utilize to intimidate opponents. The mere utterance of the word can destroy careers and ruin lives, with no trial and no possibility of appeal.
Currently, the power of definition largely rests in the hands of a cartel of anti-racist organizations dominated by the extreme Left, often in cooperation with Muslims. By silencing all opposition to mass immigration as “racism,” they can stage a transformation of society every bit as massive as that of Communism, yet virtually shut down debate about it.
Boot totally rejects the claim that Marxism has been misunderstood:
“Any serious study will demonstrate that Marx based his theories on industrial conditions that either were already obsolete at the time or had never existed in the first place. That is no wonder, for Marx never saw the inside of a factory, farm or manufactory. [...] Whatever else he was, Marx was not a scientist. […] Marx ideals are unachievable precisely because they are so monstrous that even Bolsheviks never quite managed to realize them fully, and not for any lack of trying. For example, the [Communist] Manifesto (along with other writings by both Marx and Engels) prescribes the nationalization of all private property without exception. Even Stalin’s Russia of the 1930s fell short of that ideal. In fact, a good chunk of the Soviet economy was then in private hands [...] Really, compared with Marx, Stalin begins to look like a humanitarian. Marx also insisted that family should be done away with, with women becoming communal property. Again, for all their efforts, Lenin and Stalin never quite managed to achieve this ideal either. So where the Bolsheviks and Nazis perverted Marxism, they generally did so in the direction of softening it.”
The former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who has warned that the European Union is on its way to becoming another Soviet Union, thinks that while the West won the Cold War in a military sense, we lost it in the context of ideas: “Communism might have been dead, but the communists remained in power in most of the former Warsaw bloc countries, while their Western collaborators came to power all over the world (in Europe in particular). This is nothing short of a miracle: the defeat of the Nazis in 1945 quite logically brought a shift to the Left in world politics, while a defeat of communism in 1991 brought again a shift to the Left, this time quite illogically.”
Bukovksy is right: We never had a thorough de-Marxification process after the Cold War, similar to the de-Nazification after WW2, and we are now paying the price for this. Many Marxist ideas have been allowed to endure and mutate, such as the notion that culture is unimportant or that it is OK to stage massive social experiments on hundreds of millions of people. The Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm has stated that had the Soviet Union managed to create a functioning Socialist society, tens of millions of deaths would have been a worthwhile price to pay. But Marxist ideals of forced equality can only be enforced by a government with totalitarian powers, and will thus inevitably lead to a totalitarian society. There is no “enlightened Marxism,” and the idea that there is has ruined more lives than probably and other ideology in modern history.
Marxism is an organized crime against humanity.
The Australian writer Keith Windschuttle warns that the consequence of cultural relativism is that if there can be no absolute truths, there can be no absolute falsehoods, either, which explains Western weakness when confronted with Islamic Jihad. Our sense of right and wrong has been deeply damaged by Marxist thinking. Windschuttle praises Greek historian Thucydides’ writings about The History of the Peloponnesian War from the 5th century BC:
“Rather than being impelled by great impersonal forces, political history reveals the world is made by men and, instead of being ‘absolved of blame’, men are responsible for the consequences of their actions. This was the very point that informed Thucydides’ study of the Peloponnesian War: the fate of Athens had been determined not by prophets, oracles or the gods, but by human actions and social organisation.”
Ideas matter. Individuals matter. Cultures matter. Truth matters, and truth exists. We used to know that. It’s time we get to know it again, and reject false ideas about the irrelevance of culture. We are not racists for desiring to pass on our heritage to future generations, nor are we evil for resisting to be treated as lab rats in social experiments on a horrific scale. We must nip the ideology of transnational Multiculturalism and unlimited mass migration in the bud by exposing it for what it is: A Communism for the 21st century.
cover of How the West Was Lost How the West Was Lost
Author: Alexander Boot
ASIN: 1850439850
Source URL:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2125
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
