The United States was founded as a Republic. It was a gift dreamed up in antiquity, revived in revolt, and bequeathed to the sons and daughters of a fledgling nation of states. It is a concept so profound that impatience alone is powerful enough to destroy it. Imagine establishing a government where intellect and ideals trumped panic and fear; where the people under the government were safe from emotional mob rule. Imagine the strength of a society built with a Republic as her pillars.
In a republic, nothing so inspires men as the sovereignty of the self; for only in a Republic can man truly be free.
Only in a republic can the minority, even the minority of one, imagine freedom. Only in a republic can the sovereign self expect to live without persecution. Only in a republic does man stand a chance to grow beyond the menial obligations to the masses. Only in a republic can the soul truly be free.
In a republic there is hope for enlightenment, for freedom of the body, soul, and mind.
In a democracy, however, there lives fear; for democracies are the breeding ground of corruption and tyranny. Democracy is the petri dish of a disease, the disease of power. What curious draw, the power of one man over others. The power to use force at the whim of the masses. Mob rule, all else had better fall in line or fall to the sword. There is no freedom, only but what is perceived.
In a democracy hope comes only from the mob, for men will fall under the weight of the will of the masses.
In a democracy, the mob rules. In a republic, the mob advises.
The difference will be detailed in blood.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Relevent current events:
1. Uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, where the uneducated masses overthrow tyranical figures only to be forced into a democracy in the near future, where minority groups will surely be persecuted by majority - be they Christians in 'Muslim lands', Women in previously secular dictatorships, etc. In the Middle East, Democracy will lead to Civil War; Civil war will lead to regional World War.
Showing posts with label republic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label republic. Show all posts
Monday, February 21, 2011
Monday, July 21, 2008
A Free Sioux Nation?
Many of you know that I have been following the developments unfolding in the Republic of Lakota, and that I have been very sympathetic to their struggle. If you have followed the postings since December 2007, you would have noticed that first the US government rejected the legitimization of the withdrawal of the treaties, then they secretly began paperwork for return some of their land "the badlands", and now there is a referendum to the Oglala.
Russel Means is running a freedom ticket. Should he win, and become a legitimate representative of the Pine Ridge Oglala Sioux, the US government would have to take his withdrawal from the Treaties between the Sioux and the US Government seriously.
Though he is targeting the liberal and libertarian voters within the tribe, he makes great points to the conservative mind. I may contact him and suggest that he expand his target to include the conservatives as well.
There is a 20 minute video on his website in which he outlines the violations of the treaties with the Sioux... but he does more than that. He outlines cause for concern, and the cause of the Lakotah people being the poorest with the lowest life expectancy in the western hemisphere (lower than Haiti, he indicates). He notes that on the Indian Reservation, it is against the law for private property ownership, because the land is held in a public Indian trust by the US government - a socialist dictum forced upon the people by the US government. With no private property, there is no will to protect and enhance that property... economics 101. There are no banks on the reservations, no industry, no jobs... He claims that the regulations by the US government over the land and the people (they are ruled, as long as they remain on the reservation - our policy is intended to discourage Indian-ship) are to blame for discouraging innovation in Lakotah way of life... There is no motivation or innovation for fixing the education system, providing energy, and upholding the rule of law. His platform is that of independence against the archaic laws and regulations regarding Indians in America, and as such he is promising a vote for him is a referendum to the US government that the Sioux are supportive of his struggle to make them free.
It will be interesting to watch his campaign.
One thing to note is that during the wrangling of all the Indians onto reservations, regardless of the treaties signed with the US government at the time, all other tribes accepted payment for their stolen land and accepted the reservations as their homes - EXCEPT the Sioux. The Lakotah Sioux have refused to accept money for their stolen land, even though the Supreme Court ordered a payment to sit in trust for when they do accept it. This act of defiance brings further attention to the fact that the transfer of legally owned land (per the Fort Laramie Treaty) from the Sioux to the US was not legal. The land was taken at gun-point, by force, often resulting in acts of murder of unarmed Sioux women, Children, and Elderly (see Wounded Knee).
I have heard that the stance of conservatives is that Indian-ship is a racist mentality... and that Indians should embrace the free market capitalist society that America has become. Though I agree that the Indians should join the world market, it is the US government holding reservations in Trust that keeps them from doing so... But if the government cancelled their handling of the tribes, it would have to indicate that the US government is finally granting them freedom, and the option to join the Union peacefully and legally...
If they do not... if they decide to form their own government, free from over regulation of the US government - is that not their right? Don't our treaties recognize them as sovereign entities? If not, if we never thought of them as sovereign, why ever sign a treaty with them?
Food for thought... but November in South Dakota is going to be interesting.
Russel Means is running a freedom ticket. Should he win, and become a legitimate representative of the Pine Ridge Oglala Sioux, the US government would have to take his withdrawal from the Treaties between the Sioux and the US Government seriously.
Though he is targeting the liberal and libertarian voters within the tribe, he makes great points to the conservative mind. I may contact him and suggest that he expand his target to include the conservatives as well.
There is a 20 minute video on his website in which he outlines the violations of the treaties with the Sioux... but he does more than that. He outlines cause for concern, and the cause of the Lakotah people being the poorest with the lowest life expectancy in the western hemisphere (lower than Haiti, he indicates). He notes that on the Indian Reservation, it is against the law for private property ownership, because the land is held in a public Indian trust by the US government - a socialist dictum forced upon the people by the US government. With no private property, there is no will to protect and enhance that property... economics 101. There are no banks on the reservations, no industry, no jobs... He claims that the regulations by the US government over the land and the people (they are ruled, as long as they remain on the reservation - our policy is intended to discourage Indian-ship) are to blame for discouraging innovation in Lakotah way of life... There is no motivation or innovation for fixing the education system, providing energy, and upholding the rule of law. His platform is that of independence against the archaic laws and regulations regarding Indians in America, and as such he is promising a vote for him is a referendum to the US government that the Sioux are supportive of his struggle to make them free.
It will be interesting to watch his campaign.
One thing to note is that during the wrangling of all the Indians onto reservations, regardless of the treaties signed with the US government at the time, all other tribes accepted payment for their stolen land and accepted the reservations as their homes - EXCEPT the Sioux. The Lakotah Sioux have refused to accept money for their stolen land, even though the Supreme Court ordered a payment to sit in trust for when they do accept it. This act of defiance brings further attention to the fact that the transfer of legally owned land (per the Fort Laramie Treaty) from the Sioux to the US was not legal. The land was taken at gun-point, by force, often resulting in acts of murder of unarmed Sioux women, Children, and Elderly (see Wounded Knee).
I have heard that the stance of conservatives is that Indian-ship is a racist mentality... and that Indians should embrace the free market capitalist society that America has become. Though I agree that the Indians should join the world market, it is the US government holding reservations in Trust that keeps them from doing so... But if the government cancelled their handling of the tribes, it would have to indicate that the US government is finally granting them freedom, and the option to join the Union peacefully and legally...
If they do not... if they decide to form their own government, free from over regulation of the US government - is that not their right? Don't our treaties recognize them as sovereign entities? If not, if we never thought of them as sovereign, why ever sign a treaty with them?
Food for thought... but November in South Dakota is going to be interesting.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Tasteless Tirade or Free Speech?
When did the United States become a country full of citizens void of rational independent thought?
When did we cease to have the ability to comprehend the deeper meaning of free expression, art, poetry, or literature?
The answer is clear: Rational thought went out the window when Political Correctness became king!
Political Correctness is a dangerous tool used by the "ruling" class to attack crimes of the mind - thoughtcrimes, if you will. Just like this Orwellian paradox, Political Correctness is used to attack the idea that free expression can be used to invoke independent reasonable conclusions.
Take, for example, the Danish cartoonist depicting Muhammad as wearing a bomb turban. The intent behind the cartoon is to invoke a cognitive debate by making the emotional argument so extreme - however, the mind of the masses have been made to think like children [1], unable to reason beyond the initial emotional instinct, thus unable (or unwilling for fear of committing thoughtcrime) to progress beyond the baser ability of the mind and participate in rational thought. [1. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways - 1 Corinth 13:11]
So when the New Yorker magazine publishes it's Barack Obama cover, are we to react in such ways that the Obama Campaign has reacted, attacking the overtly ridiculous emotional intention of the art as "tasteless and offensive", or should we consider the intent behind the cartoon - rational thought about the politics of fear? Again, I ask, when did we lose our ability of rational thought, of cognitive ability?
Have we become so controlled that we are as children - even those seeking the highest office in these United States?
In fact, the cover of the New Yorker is a beautiful representation of free speech being used to challenge political correctness and subsequent childish thinking, such as fear mongering.
Obama is not a terrorist, not a Muslim, and not going to invite Osama over for tea and crumpets.
What he will do, however, is establish policy in the United States putting emphasis on the new form of government slowly taking over in this country - Socialist Democracy. The evolution of the United States is one that began as a Republic, became a Democracy, and is inching dangerously close towards Socialism. Electing leaders such as Obama will ensure a march away from freedom, and ensure the end of this great experiment of freedom and liberty. (Tools are already in place to silence the opposition against the Socialist Savior)
*Republic, if you can keep it - Benjamin Franklin
*Republic vs. Democracy
*Socialism
Are we a nation now of child-minded mobs, such that makes a democracy in decline? Are we a people who believe in collective ownership of property, in any capacity - such that makes a socialist society?
Or are we a nation that supports the liberty of free expression, personal responsibility, and personal ownership - such that makes a true republic?
For a republic to survive, her people must be intelligent enough to recognize hysteria associated with ideals such as Political Correctness and Though Crimes.
Join with me in applauding the fight for intelligent thought that the New Yorker is attempting to maintain.
When did we cease to have the ability to comprehend the deeper meaning of free expression, art, poetry, or literature?
The answer is clear: Rational thought went out the window when Political Correctness became king!
Political Correctness is a dangerous tool used by the "ruling" class to attack crimes of the mind - thoughtcrimes, if you will. Just like this Orwellian paradox, Political Correctness is used to attack the idea that free expression can be used to invoke independent reasonable conclusions.
Take, for example, the Danish cartoonist depicting Muhammad as wearing a bomb turban. The intent behind the cartoon is to invoke a cognitive debate by making the emotional argument so extreme - however, the mind of the masses have been made to think like children [1], unable to reason beyond the initial emotional instinct, thus unable (or unwilling for fear of committing thoughtcrime) to progress beyond the baser ability of the mind and participate in rational thought. [1. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, thought like a child, and reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up my childish ways - 1 Corinth 13:11]
So when the New Yorker magazine publishes it's Barack Obama cover, are we to react in such ways that the Obama Campaign has reacted, attacking the overtly ridiculous emotional intention of the art as "tasteless and offensive", or should we consider the intent behind the cartoon - rational thought about the politics of fear? Again, I ask, when did we lose our ability of rational thought, of cognitive ability?Have we become so controlled that we are as children - even those seeking the highest office in these United States?
In fact, the cover of the New Yorker is a beautiful representation of free speech being used to challenge political correctness and subsequent childish thinking, such as fear mongering.
Obama is not a terrorist, not a Muslim, and not going to invite Osama over for tea and crumpets.
What he will do, however, is establish policy in the United States putting emphasis on the new form of government slowly taking over in this country - Socialist Democracy. The evolution of the United States is one that began as a Republic, became a Democracy, and is inching dangerously close towards Socialism. Electing leaders such as Obama will ensure a march away from freedom, and ensure the end of this great experiment of freedom and liberty. (Tools are already in place to silence the opposition against the Socialist Savior)
*Republic, if you can keep it - Benjamin Franklin
*Republic vs. Democracy
*Socialism
Are we a nation now of child-minded mobs, such that makes a democracy in decline? Are we a people who believe in collective ownership of property, in any capacity - such that makes a socialist society?
Or are we a nation that supports the liberty of free expression, personal responsibility, and personal ownership - such that makes a true republic?
For a republic to survive, her people must be intelligent enough to recognize hysteria associated with ideals such as Political Correctness and Though Crimes.
Join with me in applauding the fight for intelligent thought that the New Yorker is attempting to maintain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)