"When misguided public opinion honors what is despicable and despises what is honorable, punishes virtue and rewards vice, encourages what is harmful and discourages what is useful, applauds falsehood and smothers truth under indifference or insult, a nation turns its back on progress and can be restored only by the terrible lessons of catastrophe." … Frederic Bastiat

Evil talks about tolerance only when it’s weak. When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it. So it always has been. So it always will be. And America has no special immunity to becoming an enemy of its own founding beliefs about human freedom, human dignity, the limited power of the state, and the sovereignty of God. – Archbishop Chaput


Monday, November 12, 2012

Talk of an Amicable Divorce Picking up Supporters

Last week I penned a commentary noting what I believe to be an irreconciliable division growing within these DisUnited States of America. That division, in my opinion, cannot be bridged because it includes TWO MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE political ideologies.

One consists of a vision of limited, Constitutional government, as bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers, and which gave rise to the most free, most prosperous and most generous nation that this planet has ever seen or will likely ever see again.

This philosophy has at its core the ideas espoused by John Locke, namely, natural law and that which flows from it. I might add here that under this system, men are free to PURSUE HAPPINESS, not necessarily achieve it.

The other consists of a vision of an increasingly powerful and intrusive centralized government, patterned after the current European statist model, in which the idea of God-given, unalienable rights is a foreign and outdated concept. Under this model, the rights of the individual take a back seat to some current notion as to what is in the best interests of the majority of the people, which notion is of course to be decided by the current holders of political power.

The latter vision has as its roots the rallying cry of the 18th century French Revolution; "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity". Under this vision, government or the state exists to be the "GREAT LEVELER", removing inequities in wealth and producing EQUALITY amongst all the citizenry. Inherent in this theory is the concept that those who are wealthy have achieved their wealth and success at the expense of the wealth and happiness of others who are not wealthy. This is where the rise of class warfare and the pernicious theories of Marx have their origin.

While I understand how startling and how shocking it must be to some to hear talk of the dissolution of the Union, I am only stating the obvious - the two sides in this nation are in a state of near perpetual hostility towards each other because the ideas that they espouse are repugnant to the other side.

Instead of the melting pot, "E Pluribus Unum", (out of many, one), America is being Balkanized along lines of ethnicity, class, gender and a host of special interest groups. Public sector unions are now clearly pitted against those whose taxes pay for their salaries and benefits causing further resentment and further fueling the flames of resentment against their feeding at the public trough.

Time constraints prevent me from further detailing the growing divisions in this nation but suffice it for now to say that more and more there is talk of an amicable divorce between the various states in this union. This is not something to be taken lightly. Can anyone imagine this sort of thing a mere 20 years ago? Talk of separation is a last resort, an idea born out of complete frustration. Even at that, amazingly, there are now TWENTY separate petitions from the citizens of TWENTY SEPARATE states to the White House requesting a peaceful separation from the Union. Interestingly enough, by the White House's own rules, any petition reaching a required 25,000 signatures is required to be considered by a committee.

In the time that it has taken me to pen these comments, the petition from the state of Texas has already garnered another 400 signatures ( I am not that fast of a typist). The petition from Louisianna, which seems to have been the first of these petitions, is well on its way to reaching the necessary 25,000.

I think it can be safely said that these petitions will be given about 15 seconds of consideration by the current administration before being rejected but the mere fact that this sort of thing is becoming more acceptable to a growing number of citizens, is evidence that this nation is going down the same path that led to the breakup back in 1861.



  1. Interesting. Didn't know about that.
    But one aspect i want to mention, since you called Locke respecting the laws of nature:
    Locke is completely against the laws of nature, because nature doesn't know equality.
    Contrary to nature, Locke postulated that humans were born equal like a TABULA RASA.
    Stalin's preferred biologist, Lyssenko, postulated the same: the human DNA was only an artefact.
    Although Locke's marxistic views have been hidden, due to the religious tradition, the marxistic foundation of the USA, where all people were defined equal against all facts, is becoming clearer these days.
    People like you, Dan, who have always believed in the official story, will now witness, how NATURE, and the laws of nature will finish up this illusion of equality.

    No political separation can stop this development. Because it is not a political development - it is a BIOLOGICAL development and it only could be solved with BIOPOLITICS.

  2. Endzeit ; thanks for the comments.

    There are differences of opinions as to exactly what Locke's views concerning natural law were but I am of the opinion that Locke viewed rights as coming from nature's God and that therefore men were under a moral obligation to respect the rights of others.

    I believe that the Founders understood Locke as ascribing to this view since one may find frequent reference to "nature's God" in their writings and particular to the beginning of the Declaration of Independence where they clearly ascribe our unalienable rights as proceeding from their Creator.

    That is a far cry from Marx who as you know was vehemently anti-religious and it is certainly in clear opposition to the guiding views of the French Revolution whose leaders hated the Roman Catholic church and its institutions and teachings with as much vehemence as they detested the monarchy.

    Either way, the main point that I am making is that of an irreconciliable difference between two antithetical governing philosophies.

    I think you might want to be very careful here since one could easily interpret you as saying that certain races are more prone to liberty and others are more prone to enslavement, or at the very least preferring a more imperial type of government with less freedom for the individual.

    That is certainly not my view.People from all backgrounds and nationalities have emigrated to this nation precisely to experience the freedom and opportunities to build a better life for themselves and their children.

    That we sadly have a large number of immigrants whom have failed to assilimate into the melting pot and come to embrace the ideals of individual responsibility and the common cultural bond that once existed in this land is a testimony to our failed immigration policies. That must change if this nation as we know it is to survive. The alternative is a further Balkanization of the citizenry into more special interest groups at war with the other as they fight over the same piece of an ever-shrinking pie.

  3. It amazes me that we were all taught (and still teach our children) that one of our greatest presidents is the very guy who brought his country to a civil war killing each other to the tune of over 600,000.

    Yeah, that's a great leader!

    History has a way of repeating, we must be careful how we vote.

  4. http://theeveningchronicle.blogspot.com/2012/01/weakness-of-modern-repuplicans.html

  5. Endzeit is clueless about Locke's ideas. "Tabula rasa" simply means that man is not born with innate ideas. It is a statement of epistemological empiricism (contra Platonic idealism), not a claim that every man is born literally equal and indistinguishable. The "equality" that Locke and Jefferson (in the Declaration) refer to is the common possession of the rational faculty by all members of the species, and the shared rights that possession of this faculty implies.

    1. DH - thanks for some excellent comments
      Trader Dan

  6. Thank you, DH. I believe Endzeit probably adheres rather closely to National Socialism, along with the "wisdom" of eugenics, based on his comment. Biopolitics=racial purity.

    Foam Ranger: Lincoln should have been tried as a war criminal, but there was as much chance of that as there is of impeaching Obama for his criminality. "Sic Semper Tyrannus" was a fitting slogan, wish it could see more frequent usage. In the sense of impeachment perhaps, rather than Booth's actions.

    Isn't it completely amazing that a man who was never even eligible to run for office should be able to bring us to this point in our history? Too bad we didn't listen more closely to McCarthy, in his day. He was more accurate than we gave him credit for being.

    Of course, it has been the socialists teaching in our schools who have lauded Lincoln and derided McCarthy. Socialism has been entrenched here since Woodrow Wilson, and expanded upon by FDR.

  7. Reg T - I concur with your assessment of Lincoln. Lincoln was a consummate politician who first argued against the slaves and then, when it was politically expedient for him, used the Emancipation Proclamation to keep Britain from coming into the War between the States as an ally of the South at a time.

    Thomas DiLorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" should be required reading for all students of American History.

  8. Thanks guys.

    Indeed, the victors do get to write the history books.
    Sadly, the bad guys sometimes win.

  9. I will respectfully disagree. President Lincoln did what he thought he had too, and if the Confederate States of America (CSA) were not led by a bunch of racists it would most likely be an separate nation today. And Endzeit, does sound a bit “racial.” Please describe bio-politics and please tell me about how it is a “biological development.” We in the current Patriot movement cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. The Progressive opposition will have the entire power of big media and the government behind them and we know they will try portray the Patriot movement as a bunch of angry white racists. The reason they will do this is _if_ the majority of the American people (and the world) believe it is a racist movement, (which the vast majority despises) they will look the other way as the federal government does “whatever is required” to crush it. If we don’t have an answer for such an obvious attack, then we don’t deserve a chance to right these wrongs.

    Because the CSA defended this sick, evil institution those who wanted a more powerful central government were able to portray them as evil. Thus they “motivated” the rest of the nation to wage war upon them and got the rest of the world to look the other way. The idiot notion of White Supremacy prevented the CSA from being successful. Great Britain wanted revenge for the Revolutionary war and told the CSA that if they would just get rid of the institution of slavery that Great Britain would recognize the CSA and its money.

    We in the modern Patriot movement must not repeat the mistakes of the past when it comes to White Supremacy. We know they will attempt to paint us with that brush, we must be ready for it. Ensure we exclude from our leadership any racial bigots. Promote any trustworthy Liberty minded racial minorities and women into leadership position specifically when dealing with the media. Ensure we have a people that represent our cause that are clean, well kept and can answer the question “…you are just a bunch of angry white men…”

    The Bard of the American Redoubt

    1. Sounds like you have something against white guys
      who love America.

      Typical liberal response - call whitey a racist.

      Sorry, but i could give a rats ass about ones race.
      Gotta give it to Lincoln on the words of his address....
      "the proposition that all men are created equal".
      Still, a good leader does not divide his country... think about that.

  10. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  11. Dan,
    i respectfully disagree with the "melting pot"-thesis:
    The USA have never been a melting pot, it has always been a white, mostly germanic high power country and the blacks did not come freely, but as slaves.
    They have never and will never want to assimilate to this "melting pot", which in fact has been a white culture.

    What you white US-americans now are witnessing, is the falling apart of the lie of the "melting pot", because of the colouring of the USA. This makes you believe, that immigration laws were not working as they should, but i can tell you:
    The USA have been the model for mass immigration into all white countries and NOWHERE in the world it ever worked - and now it comes back to the USA itself.

    Just look at South Africa: it is becoming a black country again and any mining investor, who is falling into the marxistic lies and is investing in the SA mining industry, will lose his money. It's that simple: people are NOT equal.

    Why should they? Climate is the No.1 factor on evolution. Who ignores the different evolution of the different races, may import blacks into his country, but should not be wondering, that with the growing dominance of this population, the character of the country changes:
    Politics and culture follows biology.

    And the argument, that Locke was opposed to the marxists from the French Revolution could not be further from the truth:
    The USA itself is a freemason invention. Freemasons were the main force behind the French Revolution.
    When Locke is speaking about equality ofcourse he means the marxistic equality, because there is no other equality: also the christian equality is marxistic.
    This can clearly be shown, by the support of the marxists, the christians for mass immigration. It's logical: since all people are born equal and races and nations are not respected by them as VIOCES OF GOD, why should a white or a black society be protected from genocide by mass immigration?
    All people are equal.

    If someone like Locke hides behind religion or others pray the same content in a anti-religious manner, doesn't matter.
    What counts is one aspect:

    Do you respect the plurality, races and nations, not only for animals, but also for the human SPECIES (there exists no uman race, although brainwashing media use this term), or do you believe the DNA of father and mother were not decisive where you were born and the color of skin is only like the color of a car and not reflecting a completely different metabolism and reality of life.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.