Author, Speaker, Instructor, Radio Host
The Democrats are statists. Statism is comprised of big government "isms" like socialism, communism, liberalism, Islamism, and utopianism. In the process of creating a statist system the tool of democracy is also being used. Democracy is mob-rule, which becomes mob-violence, led by people who populate our current ineptocracy. The recipients in such a movement are the takers, the parasites who suck the life out of liberty and the free market. Eventually, the takers begin to demand a redistribution of wealth in the name of fairness. As the non-producers become fat and satisfied from the confiscation of wealth from the producers, eventually the takers outnumber the producers, and the fate of the system is set. Disaster can be the only result.
The federal government was created by the States through the U.S. Constitution to serve the people, and to protect, preserve, and promote the union of States. The servants now believe themselves to be rulers. They have become authoritarians who are there to dictate and mandate over the people. It has gone way beyond control, however. It has now become the idea that some people have a legitimate right to forcibly control others. From their point of view, theirs is the best idea, therefore all other concepts must be squashed. No concept that may challenge the superior ideas by the statists can be allowed. All citizens must have faith that the religion of big government is what must be worshiped, and must stand alone. Any dissent will be eliminated.
The validity of the liberal left's belief in the general will* is not to be questioned. The government, according to the statists, have rights that individuals do not possess. The ends justifies the means, so even actions that would be considered illegal in the private sector are legitimate activities that the government may partake in. Government is not restricted to the rules or laws that apply to the masses, and they consider themselves exempt of these rules and laws, even if it was they, themselves, who had passed them.**
The narrative by liberal leftism is that it is government's job to rule over the people without any challenge. To not obey is considered seditious. The voters who are in agreement with big government have great faith in the wisdom of their authoritarian leaders, and are willing to resort to violence, if necessary, to defend those ideas. They ritualize the actions of the government, surrounding the leaders with children and supporters whenever they sign a piece of legislation. Then, the radicals who have performed an internal coup rabble-rouse, using the uniforms of authority they have acquired, be it police, federal enforcement agencies, or judges, to accomplish their strategy. Yet, as they don the uniform, they continue to argue they are the ones who stand against the uniform. They are battling against "The Man," even though they have become "The Man."
The policing efforts of the authoritarian system are not enough. The persons tasked with policing look too much like the enemy the liberal leftists are trying to dislodge. Even the denizens of law enforcement must be broken up, retrained, and made to be in full compliance with the new order that is rising like a blossoming religion. "If you want the world fixed," the citizens are told, "you need to take to the streets, and stop those sinners who are standing in the way of a new dawn. You must be a citizen army of agitators and activists."
Democracy is mob-rule, and mob-rule is mob-violence. This is what they seek. The republic is being assassinated.
Adolf Hitler inserted his divide and conquer tactic with the brown shirts.*** The civilian force was designed to batter dissenters into submission. The same concept is being employed by the current authoritarians in government, masked with faces of good intentions. BlackLivesMatter and the Black Panthers say they exist to combat racism. How can one argue? We know that racism is bad, and so those combating it are noble, right? Except the Democrat Party method of combating racism is with their own brand of racism, using violence to target those who dare to disagree.
The violence is going beyond being against certain individuals or certain narratives. Now, law enforcement has also become a target. Chaos, after all, destroys, and then from the rubble the statists may remake society into the image they believe is the best. Cops who stand in the way will be attacked and removed. Cops who believe in the Democrat Party's cause will survive the attacks being perpetrated by the new American brownshirts. Those rare cops are considered allies. All others must be exterminated.
Attacks on police: Inspired or directed by militant groups?
New Black Panthers Seek 'Own Govt'...
'Nation within nation'...
Agencies on edge...
Detroit police arrest four for threats...
'Kill all white cops'...
Black Lives Matter supporter killed after breaking into cop's home over FACEBOOK argument...
STUDY: NO RACIAL BIAS in police shootings...
Dallas Police Chief: 'We're Asking Cops To Do Too Much In This Country'...
* The General Will: Prior to the French Revolution one of the heroes of the Jacobins, a group today that would be considered hardcore socialists, was a statist by the name of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The philosophies of Rousseau were among the catalysts that brought about the French Revolution. As a supporter of big government, Rousseau championed the concept of The General Will.
The General Will was designed to ensure the public good. Nationalists believed that the people were unable to properly maintain society. A central government power was required, according to their belief system, and a ruling elite was needed to ensure society ran smoothly, and operated in the best interest of the people. The political power was trusted by the people to serve The General Will, not their own individual interests.
The propaganda behind The General Will convinced the people that the existence of The General Will was not only real, but existed in such a manner that it was not necessarily expressed by the general public. However, The General Will was presumed to be known by the ruling elite. According to Rousseau, "no aspect of human life is excluded from the control of the general will," and "whosoever refuses to obey the general will must in that instance be restrained by the body politic, which actually means that he is forced to be free."
Supporters of The General Will wished to dissolve the people into a homogeneous mass, abolish decentralization, and remove representative institutions. The Founding Fathers hated and feared the concept of The General Will, for if the concept were to invade the American System, then all voluntary associations would wind up becoming subjected to government regulation in the name of "the people," their "will," and for the "good of society." These mandates would be argued to be in The General Will, as interpreted by the ruling elite, and would enable the beginning of the end of individual liberty.
Big Government liberals believe in the existence of the public interest, placing the "good of the community" over the rights of the individual. These policies tend to benefit small, but powerful, special interests at the expense of the rest of the society, but are put into place by the ruling elite because the public doesn't understand any better, and must be forced to understand, and comply.
As Madison gave his testimony on the floor of the House of Representatives, Mr. Jackson continued to be concerned about the proposal of amendments as such an early juncture. Like Madison, his concern over an insertion of a declaration of rights into the Constitution seemed unnecessary, while also questioning Congress' involvement with proposals that originated from the States. Jackson also questioned the need for a Bill of Rights to protect the people from a group of lawmakers who themselves after two years of service will return to their homes and live under any tyranny that they may vote into place. "So why," he argued, "would members of Congress do such a thing?"
*** Brown Shirts: President Barack Obama once said, "Loving your country shouldn't just mean fireworks on the 4th of July. Loving your country must mean accepting your responsibility to do your part to change it. If you do, your life will be richer, our country will be stronger."
Barack Obama was calling for all Americans to serve directly. He was determined to create opportunities for Americans to serve. Barack Obama promised to increase AmeriCorps slots from 75,000 to 250,000, and pledged to double the size of the Peace Corps.
Obama said,"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."
Obama was calling for the implementation of a civilian force that is armed and populated with never before seen numbers of people roaming our streets in order to keep us safe and protected from dissent against his policies.
What about the implications, and the historical precedent? What may this civilian national security force, which was expected to be well-equipped and armed to the teeth with the latest weapons of war (after all, he said as powerful and strong as the military) be tasked with?
Is Obama's plan to set up something like Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps which was designed to put Americans to work during the worst of the Great Depression (1929-1936)? FDR's inner circle had also urged the new president to deputize the American Legion as an "extraconstitutional" "private army." What he did with civilian service corps put a lot of people to work, but it bordered on dangerous because of the growing bureaucracy that placed the government in a position of control over a number of lives, and could have created the private army that FDR's inner circle was calling for.
Obama's civilian national security force poses the same danger. Such a program would make the Federal government the single largest employer in the nation. The millions put to work by this addition to our growing bureaucracy would constitute the largest pro-government voting block in the country. Indirectly, it would enable Federal power to grow, and grow, and grow some more. When comparing such models to those of socialist and communist models, there are some sinister undertones.
To find the more sinister examples of civilian national security forces one must delve deep into history, but not so deep that it was very long ago. In fact, the best examples all existed less than one hundred years ago. Hitler used the Brown Shirts as his own personal civilian security force. The Brown Shirts, or Storm Troopers, in their distinctive brown uniforms, were organized first to kick out hecklers at Nazi meetings, then to break up the meetings of other parties. Mussolini's Black Shirts were mainly discontent ex-soldiers. This civilian national security force was originally organized to break up strikes, destroy trade union headquarters, and drive opposing government officials from office. It was their efforts that culminated into bringing Mussolini into power.
This is not to even mention how Soviet Russia and Communist China (in addition to numerous other communist regimes in history) have used civilian forces and youth organizations (not much unlike the Hitler Youth) to create fear in the citizens - whipping them into shape - making them more than just citizens of their nation. . . it gave them the opportunity to accept the responsibility to do their part to change their country. It was promised that if they did so their lives would be richer, and the nation would be stronger. After all, the rising leadership proclaimed, they could not any longer rely only on the devastated military in order to achieve the national security objectives they had set. They argued that they needed a strong and powerful civilian national security force to keep the citizens safe.
Post a Comment