I hope to see more of you commenting either here or there.
With regard to all who serve the Light,
Historian
I am pleased and proud to have been accepted as a member of the Outlaw Bloggers! We ask awkward questions and provide truthful answers, no matter whose sacred cows we kick, or whose preconceptions we shatter. For further information, see links here and here.
I hope to see more of you commenting either here or there. With regard to all who serve the Light, Historian
0 Comments
I've posted here previously that I think that the present regime is illegitimate; I've also made no bones about the illegitimacy of the FedGov goons in personal conversations. I thought that it was reasonably evident that this was so, especially when even the hard left has started criticizing the Obamessiah. But the other day, somebody said, ( I paraphrase somewhat for the sake of clarifying a rather emotional exchange) "Historian, I understand that you do not agree with the policies and actions of the present administration. I do not agree with most of what those bozos are doing now myself, and I admit I voted for the guy in '08. But you have to go a long way from policy disagreement to being illegitimate. How can you possibly say that the present government is not legitimate?"
A good question, which deserves a dispassionate response. The short answer was that this situation goes FAR beyond simple policy dispute. The actions of the present regime, continuing the trend of the last hundred years, strike at the roots of the tree of Liberty, and are intended to destroy it. But before we get into that too far, first let me ask the first question one must always ask when politics is discussed- What is the function of government? Once it is understood that governments are instituted to protect individual rights, then we come to this question- what is a legitimate government? What would a legitimate representative constitutional republic look like? How does that compare to what we have now? 1) A legitimate government holds everyone strictly accountable to the same standards. The rule of the common law, the idea that EVERYONE must obey the same rules, which everybody understood (at least every literate person, and most illiterates) started with Magna Carta, signed by King John at Runnymede in 1215 AD. One clause from that document, now over 799 years old, states that no free man shall be deprived of his liberty, life, limb, or property, without being promptly tried by a jury of his peers. Kipling's magnificent poem, "the Reeds of Runnymede", posted here yesterday, speaks to that specific clause. Contrast that Medieval document with the situation here in these presently united States. These days, agents of our governments kill us, maim us, steal our money and our possessions, and the perpetrators are never charged, for they are agents of the government. Is this the Rule of Law? 2) a legitimate government has objective standards that don't change quickly, and that every literate person can understand. As noted above, Magna Carta established some basic principles for protection of human liberty, some of which are still in force today in Britain. Contrast that with the current situation here in these presently united States. As I stated here, the FedGov goons busily churn out more material in a week than an average person could read in a year. All of this printed matter, most of it 'regulation' written by unelected bureaucrats, is enforced by these selfsame bureaucrats. We have FDA SWAT teams being sent out to take milk from farmers co-ops, armed Treasury agents being sent out to confiscate wood for guitar making and BLM agents trying to confiscate ranchers cattle. For what? At least on the face of the issue, for violating one of the myriad of unknowable 'regulations' published by unelected faceless government flunkies. It has been said that every single person in these presently united States is quilty of committing three felonies a day; link here. If the rules are impossible to know, and if every single person is guilty of violating them, how can such a government be legitimate? 3) Legitimate government is small. It takes very little of the people's money to run it; taxes are a tiny fraction of the productive output of each individual. In 1774, the cost of a 2% tax on a luxury item sparked outrage and violent objections, ultimately leading to the American Revolution. Today, over half of the adult population depends on government largesse, in one form or another, and over 3/4 of the price of almost everything you buy is the cost of the taxes, direct and indirect. Need I say more? Is this legitimate?? 4) A legitimate government has honest money. The means of exchange are stable and the government does not debase the currency or tolerate counterfeiting. In 1913, one or two silver dimes would buy a loaf of bread. In 1964, a silver dime would buy two chocolate bars. Today, a hundred years after the establishment of the Federal Reserve Bank, (which is not Federal, a reserve, or a bank) that same silver dime still has about the same buying power, but the officially sanctioned counterfeit currency being produced by the Fed has lost almost all of its buying power. When the government steals between 5 and 10% of the value of your money every year, by the hidden tax of currency debasement, AKA 'inflation', how is this legitimate? 5) A legitimate government governs with the consent of all its citizens, and does so honestly and openly, with no corruption. When 104% of the registered voters in a major Eastern city all vote for the Democratic Party, with no Republican or third party votes and no prosecutions result from this obvious and blatant voter fraud, when Federal tax agents target the current administration's political opponents, when illegal immigrants are imported by the millions and vote for the free lunch they have been promised, is this open and honest consent? These are only three of thousands of similar examples; are these the actions of a legitimate authority? 6) A legitimate government promotes and depends upon a stable culture, founded upon the principles of liberty. The principles of liberty cannot change, but there can be legitimate debate about the implementation of those principles, and how those ideals can best be recognized as technology and society do. In a legitimate free society, the government has relatively little power to affect the individual and the impetus to make change is low. In order to establish the totalitarian police state currently being built around us, turmoil and upheaval are necessary to overturn centuries of movement towards individual liberty. The fact that we see so much turmoil being fomented by agents of the government is the hallmark of tyranny. Is this, in any form, legitimate? As I have stated previously, this is a war of ideas, first and foremost. Ask yourself these questions, O gentle reader. Listen to the answers, and be true to yourself. My answer was that the present government was progressively and Progressively illegitimate. Or in other words- Oh, HELL NO! Hence this post, the first of several on this topic. With regard to all who serve the Light, Historian "The Reeds of Runnymede" (Magna Charta, June 15, 1215) "AT Runnymede, at Runnymede What say the reeds at Runnymede? The lissom reeds that give and take, That bend so far, but never break, They keep the sleepy Thames awake With tales of John at Runnymede. At Runnymede, at Runnymede, Oh, hear the reeds at Runnymede:-- "You mustn't sell, delay, deny, A freeman's right or liberty. It makes the stubborn Englishry, We saw 'em roused at Runnymede! "When through our ranks the Barons came, With little thought of praise or blame, But resolute to pay a game, They lumbered up to Runnymede; And there they launched in solid time The first attack on Right Divine-- The curt, uncompromising 'Sign!' That settled John at Runnymede. "At Runnymede, at Runnymede, Your rights were won at Runnymede! No freeman shall be fined or bound, Or dispossessed of freehold ground, Except by lawful judgment found And passed upon him by his peers. Forget not, after all these years, The Charter Signed at Runnymede." And still when Mob or Monarch lays Too rude a hand on English ways, The whisper wakes, the shudder plays, Across the reeds at Runnymede. And Thames, that knows the moods of kings, And crowds and priests and suchlike things, Rolls deep and dreadful as he brings Their warning down from Runnymede!" It has been nigh on 800 years since the Great Charter was signed by King John at Runnymede, but Magna Charta was a key step in the journey towards individual liberty. We ignore our history at our peril...... more Anon. With regard to all who serve the Light, Historian I expect that most people who find their way here are friendly to the cause of individual liberty, but that covers a wide spectrum. Here is a link to an interesting quiz on your personal political outlook. Only you and the NSA will know the answers, unless you post them, but if you aren't sure of your stance, this might spark some useful introspection. H/T to Silicon Graybeard for the link, here, by way of Borepatch's site.
Not my usual stuff, but *I* found it fun, and it sparked some interesting conversations in my family. Which I suppose really is what this site is all about, anyway. With regard to all who serve the Light, Historian I read a wide variety of blogs, as I have time, including but by no means limited to Brigid's "Home on the Range" to CA's "Western Rifle Shooters" and Vanderbough's Sipsey Street Irregulars" to Fran Porretto's "Liberty's Torch." I don't watch television, and I don't pay attention to the mainslime media, so I do have some time available for these essential efforts to stay on top of what is happening in the world around me, and to learn something new every day. I also follow various foreign news sources ranging from the BBC online to various shortwave broadcasts.
One of the reasons I do so is to maintain awareness of existing and developing potential threats. Every month, more or less at the start of the month, I review the information available to me with regard to potential threats to me and my family. I expect that many of you, O gentle readers, do the same, and that you review also your planned response to same. Recently, Fran Porretto wrote about his concerns for what these presently united States are facing (see link here) His article was looking more at the threats posed by the collapse of philosophy, morals and ethics, but it is worth your time to read the whole thing; Mr. Porretto's web log is worth a regular stop, BTW. Here is an excerpt of his post, which shows the following list:
I organize my threat assessment as follows- Likelihood ranges from v.low, low, moderate, high, to certain. (1 to 5) I look at threats over the short term (6 months,) near term (6 mo to 3 years,) medium term (3 years to10 years) and long term (10 years plus.) Impact ranges from negligible to low, moderate, high, severe, catastrophic, CEE, and ELE. (1 to 8) Risk is the result of multiplying likelihood by impact (1 to 40) and ranges from Very low (1-3), Low (4-8), Moderate (9-), High (16-), and Very high(25+) Threat likelihood(6 mo.) Impact overall risk on me (likelihood x impact) Natural Hazards -Wildfire V. Low (+rainfall) high low (4) -Earthquake (local) low low low (4) -Earthquake (NMSZ) moderate mod-high moderate (9-12) -Carrington event low CEE* moderate+(14+) -Hurricane ~0 (season over) moderate none -asteroidal impact V.low (no Torino>0) varies widely low(4+) -crop failure/drought moderate moderate moderate(9) Manmade -EMP mod.; increasing CEE High (21) -Fukushima in US moderate* Severe *depends on likelihood of triggering event(4-25) -Surface burst nuke low moderate moderate(6) -Nuclear exchange low+ (increasing) Severe mod-high(10+) -Economic collapse high Severe High (20+; could trigger others) -Civil war High Severe High (20+; could trigger others) -Pandemic (Ebola) Certain(ongoing) High+ High (20+; could trigger others depending on spread) This is not my whole list by any means, as there are a number of potential issues that I track that are not presently a concern, and I assess threats on a longer scale than 6 months. I wanted to share this partial list with you, O gentle reader, to point out that there are only 4 that I consider a high risk in the near term, all of which are manmade threats. One concern, that of a civil war breaking out within the next 6 months, has gone up significantly in risk. It appears, with the CT elections safely behind them, (the means by which this has been done not being germane to this article, I will not discuss them here,) that the present regime in Connecticut is rumored to be considering more aggressive enforcement of their illegal diktat with respect to laws infringing upon the individual right to own and carry weapons. By this I mean SWAT raids, illegal armed and violent breaking and entering by the 'authorities' into the peaceable homes of gun-owners who have no criminal intent, but who are determined to maintain their right to own and carry weapons. This un-Constitutional and tyrannical action is likely to kick off an extremely bloody civil war. If only 1% of the more than 300,000 newly made felons in CT decide that enough is enough, and proceed to do a "Henry Bowman" on the local Gestapo thugs and their enablers in the media and legislature, then the howling from those who think that they rule us will be deafening, and likely to result in Federal intervention to support the tyrants in CT. This, in turn, will likely broaden the conflict to adjoining states, and ultimately the entire country. Regardless of the outcome, the effects of a another civil war in these united States would be disastrous. The worst part about a civil war is that once it starts it will become extremely hard to stop, particularly so in this case as there is no leadership as such on the Patriot side, and there won't be any left on the tyrants side within a few weeks, except possibly those receiving Federal protection or who have fled abroad. Make no mistake, there will be no real winners in such a conflict. Anyone doubting this judgment is invited to read the various reports from the recent 3 sided civil war in the former Yugoslavia. Selco's cautionary tales are definitely worth a read- see link here. The fools presently in authority in Connecticut would be well advised to rethink their present course of action. If they do in fact attempt to enforce their Intolerable (and unConstitutional) Act, it will cost them very dearly. The fools on the Patriot side who seem to think that they'd prevail overnight, and who blather about "Let's get this done!" would do well to shut up and use their heads for something besides a pop-up target. I hope that both will find wisdom in time, but I expect disappointment. Per Pournelle's Iron Law, those in authority seek to continue to be in authority and to expand that authority. That is their primary goal; like cancer, they seek growth. Patriots seek to restore the rule of Law and the Constitutional limits on that authority. Like surgeons, they must remove the cancer and leave healthy tissue (or innocent civilians) intact. There has been far too much time spent discussing the tools to restore Liberty, and far too little spent on the strategy. The first step is awareness of the risk, but one must then come up with a plan. How do you plan to do this, O gentle reader? *I* do not need to know the answer to my awkward question, but you do. More in a later post, on this, but in the meantime, tempus fugit..... With regard to all who serve the Light, Historian - At the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918, the guns on the Western Front fell silent. The fighting of the "War to End All Wars" was over. Over 60 million combatants fought for 4 years and 4 months, and between 15 and 20 million people died, military and civilian; about 6 million military deaths on the Allied side alone. The French lost 1.4 million soldiers killed out of a prewar population of about 41 millions, or over 3 percent of their population, over 7 percent of the adult males. The British lost well over 1 million men, out of 58 million, including troops from across the Commonwealth, including Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Think about that for a moment, gentle reader. These are just those killed outright; there were more than 12 million wounded, many of them casualties of poison gas and other debilitating injuries rendering them incapable of working for the rest of their lives. If these presently united States were to have lost a similar percentage, we would have lost about 3-4 million men instead of 117,000 dead. Put another way, more people died in World War 1 than died in the Holocaust. One can easily understand that the first reaction of the Allied nations was joy that the war was over and that the Allies had won, but many people objected to the celebration as being unfitting, given the tremendous loss of life and destruction. Edward Honey, an Englishman, apparently was the first to suggest that the best way to remember the War to end all Wars was a few minutes of silence, and in 1919, George the Fifth, KIng of the Commonwealth, proclaimed two minutes of silence starting at 11 am. This was the custom for many years in the Allied nations, the first minute being in remembrance of those who died, and the second was in remembrance of those that they left behind, the families of those who gave all. That custom was observed for many years here in these presently united States, even after 'Armistice Day' was renamed 'Veteran's Day' by President Eisenhower after Korea and the second World War. Every school child was instructed in the meaning of Veterans Day, and on November 11th, at 11 am, we would all stand with our hands on our hearts, silent, for a minute in respect for those who had died in our wars. Today, however, schools do not teach respect for those who have fought for their country and I doubt that one child in a hundred understands the holiday or where it came from, children from military families perhaps excepted. My own understanding has evolved somewhat from my childhood education, for I have learned much about the history of the First World War, and the webs of deceit and lies spun by governments on all sides in that conflict and those which have followed. I know that my country is not the same thing as my government, and I know that wars do not make nations, or men, great. Notwithstanding the horror, brutality and sheer waste of war, I know that there are times when one must fight. Those who die defending the ideals of our country deserve our respect, and remembrance. So, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 2014, 96 years after the guns fell silent, and the killing stopped, I will stop whatever I am doing, will rise to my feet, and take one minute to silently remember and thank those men and women who died for the ideals that underpin this country. I will then take another minute to consider the poisonous fruit of warfare, the widows, orphans and destruction it leaves behind, and the perfidy of government, willing to kill and destroy for 'reasons of state' which often turn out to be support for crony merchantilism or fanaticism. Yet as I do these things, I will also recognize that there are indeed just wars, times when the only acceptable response to an act of overt aggression is to respond with overwhelming force to destroy your attacker. That as bad as wars are, there are worse things, one of them being submission to tyranny. In that vein, and with the memory of those who have borne arms to defend the cause of Liberty in mind, I give you Lieutenant Colonel McCrae's iconic poem: In Flanders fields the poppies grow Between the crosses, row on row, That mark our place; and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the Dead. Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. I invite you, gentle reader, to join me this coming Tuesday, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 2014, to rise and silently reflect upon the costs of war and the bravery of those who fight them. And then, I invite you to consider the following two questions: What price am *I* willing to pay to stand up for and restore Liberty? Will *I* hold the torch of Freedom high, or will I watch it be smothered? With gratitude to those who have served our country and held true to the ideals for which it stands, and with regard to those who serve the Light, Historian (edited on 11/10/2014) |
HistorianA grouchy middle aged engineer and amateur historian, blessed with a love of freedom and a plethora of opinions. Permission to excerpt or repost is granted, provided that the excerpt or repost includes a link to the original post, with attribution.
Email to Historian at MG58MG (at symbol) Yahoo (dot) com Liberty Hollow's suggested reading list:
Philosophy- "Philosophy, who needs it?" "Anthem" "Looking out for #1" Politics- "The True Believer" "Common Sense" "the Rights of Man" "The Ominous Parallels" Finance and Economics- "Economics in one lesson" "Whatever happened to Penny Candy?" "the Wealth of Nations" "The Clipper Ship Strategy" Liberty oriented Fiction- "Time Enough for Love" "Freehold" "Starship Troopers" "Atlas Shrugged" "Anthem" "A Planet for Texans" "The Ecologic Envoy" "Adiamante" The Constitution- "the Framing of the Constitution of the United States" "Hologram of Liberty" Banking- "The Creature from Jekyll Island" Archives
November 2017
Categories
All
|