Saturday, November 14, 2020

The Law of Human Inertia

 Today we make it short and sweet.  I present you the Law of Human Inertia, the LoHI:

The Law of Human Inertia: 

Those habituated to freedom tend to fight to remain free. 

Those habituated to servitude tend to cleave to their chains and will often fight to preserve their status as de-facto chattel.

Those converted from one state to the other tend to cleave to the new state.

And so here you have all the reason required for maintaining a certain level of vigilance against cultural and personal corruption. I maintain that it is a prima facie obvious, valid, and truthful assertion that once a population passes a tipping point in terms of some sort of corruption, what is for all practical purposes the entire population, tilts toward it in time. I further assert that the general condition of the global human population is now, and in the best case, at that tipping point. We are therefore faced with a choice regarding what sort of people we wish to be.

Time is here, and so until next time please accept my best wishes.

Sunday, September 20, 2020

A New Political Concept?

 Today I would like to introduce a new (???) idea, or at the very least a new term, actually two.

I would like to introduce the ideal of the unamended violation.  My intention here is that the term itself be considered as political or Law jargon with a very specific meaning as it applies to anyone elected, appointed, hired, or contracted to political office or political position of any sort whatsoever.  In other words, anyone who acts in the name of the so-called "state" is someone to whom this idea, its strictures, and its consequences would apply.

Most of us are perhaps familiar with the idea of the violation of a man's civil rights, a very broad term that could refer to anything from stealing a piece of chewing gum to kidnapping and the unjust taking of life.  This notion is important, yet it gets very little attention by media, in our schools, by parents with their children, and so on down the line of issues of immediate concern to people on a daily basis, regardless of whether they are consciously aware of it.

Federal Law addresses such violations and there have been many cases, for example, where state prosecutions of individuals for crimes such as murder have gone all wrong in the courtroom.  In cases of clear miscarriages of justice where acquittals should never have happened, federal prosecutors have charged the defendants with "violation of civil rights", a rather broad sounding charge with a catchall feel to it.  Ignoring the double-jeopardy issue, as well as that of the sanctity and authority of juries, the notion of the criminal nature of such violations is not completely foreign to many of us.

Where my idea may become somehow novel rests in part with the application, which in this case would be against any government instrument or agent who, in the course of his duties as such an instrument or agent, commits a violation of the rights of those to whom they have sworn oaths of good faith and competent service.  In such cases, the individual in question is offered the opportunity to personally make amends to their victims.  In the case of amendments made, the violation would be looked upon as amended insofar as Law and governance is concerned, meaning that the guilty party has made the good faith effort to right the wrongs he has admittedly committed in the name of the "state" against his fellows.  This may or may not mean that he is free and clear of other consequences such as loss of position or prison time, as well as others.  It does, however, serve as a mitigating factor in the final disposition of such cases, come sentencing.

The other side of that coin presents the unamended violation, where the guilty party is either unwilling or incapable of making restitution to his victims.  Unamended violations are ultimately serious in terms of their gravity, as well as the punishments that await those who either refuse to restore their victims or, due to the nature of the violations in question, are unable to.  An example of each may now be in order.

In the first case, the guilty party for whatever reasons, refuses to restore his victims to wholeness.  Such refusal may be taken as prima facie proof of the absence of repentance and of either malice aforethought or depraved indifference with respect to the losses and consequent sufferings of their victims.  There is, however, one fly in that ointment: unjust conviction.  In the case of one who has been falsely accused and convicted of such a violation, the question arises as to how one deals with the convict's refusal to make amends dictated by the court in a given case.  This is no small fly, either, and I am quick to admit that I have no quick answer to the problem, an issue for another day.

In the second case, let us say that the actions of the guilty party was to cause the loss of an eye or limb of the victim.  In this case, and as of this writing, there is no way to restore missing body parts of these sorts and so the offense cannot be amended as a matter of the nature of the injury.  In that case the violation is also unamended and at sentencing there would be premiums placed upon the punishment of the convict.  Murder would be another example, as would be the destruction of a loved and irreplaceable family heirloom.

In my opinion, holding this sword of Damocles over the heads of all government workers, up to and including the President would go a long way toward stemming the torrents of corruption and wrong doings, whether it be the skimming of public funds from some revenue pile, or killing an infant during execution of a no-knock warrant at the wrong address.

It is only when the cost of committing such violations far outstrips the benefits of committing them, coupled with the promise and prospect of rock steady and consistent application of such standards of Law to government agents of all stripes, that corruption and other gross and intolerable wrong-doing by government officials, agents, and other related entities will begin to trail off with precipitous rapidity.

By the same token, anyone who falsely accuses such an individual of having committed a violation against the Public Trust will suffer trebly in the event he is discovered, charged, and convicted of having done so.  For example, Janey is angry that officer Jim issued her a parking ticket and decides to concoct a story that he pulled her over and raped her, an inordinately serious charge that, given Law in accord with the disposition of such cases would land Jim in a whole heap of very deep kimchee.  Discovery of her lie and, given sufficient evidence to charge, Janey would be given the opportunity to recant her charge and publicly admit in bold neon that she'd lied and that officer Jim was a fine and upstanding cop who never did anything to violate her inherent rights.  There might still be prison time for Janey, but the sentencing for this amended violation of officer Jim's rights would be peanuts when compared with that, had Janey refused to turn her violation into one amended.

In the unamended case, had officer Jim been sentenced to a year in prison, Janey would have to serve three.

Finally we come to the notion of partial amendment, which could also be taken into account at sentencing.  Making amends to the degree possible, though incompletely satisfactory, might serve to mitigate sentencing.

As a matter of procedure, the time for making amends would be prior to going to trial, which implies of course a plea of guilty with the promise that one will make suitable amends where possible.  If the defendant refuses the offer, upon conviction the violation is by nature unamended and sentencing is made pursuant to that condition.

If we, the people, do not fight for such restraints to be placed upon those who are supposed to serve us, but who rather presume to lord over us as masters, the abuses and hazards of tyranny will not only remain, but will continue to grow until such a pass is reached that neither will people such as myself be able to write about such concerns and issues, and people such as yourself will not be able to read or even speak about them.  And given the advances in technologies to which I am already privy, the capabilities of which will only grow in time such that one day you may not even be able to ponder them in the privacy of your own thoughts.

Think on this awhile; let it roll around in the back of your mind and digest.  The future to which you relegate not only yourself, but all your fellows including those whom you love dearly, hangs in the balance, contingent on our collective ability to force the hand of "government" such that effective measures for reining in the tyrants are made real, and are readily and handily applied by anyone against those who believe themselves to hold the authority to bring unjust harms to their fellows and to stand beyond unaccountability.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Monday, August 31, 2020


By whatever dint of fate, the free people of America now stand at a nexus.  What we choose to do with the opportunity that stands before us will determine the quality and character of our lives for a very long time to come, possibly centuries.

An ugly truth about Americans is that we have erred gravely as Freemen almost since the first days of this republic.  While we started off well enough with our Articles of Confederation, those in whom our forbears placed their trust as "leaders" quickly saw the limitations the architecture specified therein placed upon them as the trusted governors of The People.  That realization brought forth the eventual contriving and adoption of the Constitution, a weakly and vaguely written architecture for an ostensibly free land.   Fit for saints only, the vagaries of that document coupled with the power to tax (the power to destroy) made all the easier the manifold corruptions that have landed us in our current circumstance in this, the early twenty-first century.  It shall not be my purpose here to argue the veracity and validity of my opinion on the matter of our Constitution, for it is irrelevant to the facts of our current circumstances that include but are not limited to rioting, out of control politicians and their agents, corrupted courts, and many millions of people whose sanity is unquestionably and dangerously unhinged.  Freemen and freedom itself stand in grave peril that becomes more immediate by the day.

In piecemeal fashion, the parade of tyrants have through the years and since the very earliest days of the republic steadily trimmed away the rightful prerogatives of free men to the point that they now stand in real and immediate peril of losing the few shreds of remnants of the rights born into every man in all corners of the earth.  Statutes prohibiting the manufacture, possession, use, and sale of illicit drugs is a prime example of the suppression of human rights by wildly ignorant, if presumably well-intending politicians.  Prohibitions on the right to keep and bear arms is perhaps the ultimate example of the violations against men by corrupt government.  Statutes against prostitution, "hate" speech, etc. have encroached upon the rightful prerogatives of all men as those corrupt politicians and their agents trespass upon those to whom they swore solemn oaths of good faith and service.

Police have gone from keepers of the peace, questionable enough a role itself, to enforcers of arbitrary, capricious, and utterly invalid statute, devoid of any authority whatsoever beyond that of armed men able and willing to bring to harm those who fail to comply.  Statute is the product of men corrupted beyond any forgiveness, deserving of our ire, correction, and indeed in many cases, our vengeance.  And yet, we the people have mostly kowtowed to the felonious edicts of men with no valid authority to issue such fiats.  This having been the case since the first days of this land as a nation, who is really to blame for the dolorous political conditions we now face?  Hint: it's not the politicians and their vile enforcers.  They get away only with that which we allow, and it is my assertion that it is high time that such allowance comes to an abrupt and permanent end with extreme prejudice and through acts of non-equivocation.

Through our willful ignorance, complacency, self-centeredness, narrow-mindedness, cowardice, and all the other manifold corruptions that lead men from the status of Freemen to that of Weakmen, we have allowed ourselves to be debased by the false authority of "government" and "state".  Those two entities do not even exist in and of themselves, save only as scripts, the roles to which most of us have been assigned do we play with full and willful compliance, regardless of how demeaning, impoverishing, and destructive to ourselves and our fellows.  

The march to abject chattel status has been long and steady, the average American taking it all in stride as if it were innocuous; unavoidable.  "You can't fight City Hall" has been the phony baloney excuse used by our corrupted selves in order to evade individual and collective responsibility for ourselves, as well as that to our fellows.  "City Hall" issues an edict and, almost regardless of how absurd and damaging to the lives of Freemen, the people heave a sigh of dissatisfaction and proceed to comply, unwilling to rock the boat for whatever ill-considered reason.

In the past two decades, since about the time of the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon on 11 September 2001, the bites taken from us by those in power have grown steadily in size from the nibbles originally dared by the tyrants of the late eighteenth-century, to the full blown assaults upon our liberties of more recent years.

The unexpected election of Donald Trump, however, put a twist in the fabric of American political life that I am not sure anyone would likely have predicted as probable.  I am inclined to suspect that the results we have seen over the past four years may be in some measure attributed to the Left (what some might call "Deep State") having overplayed certain hands in the aftermath of Trump's election, a result that has left them burning with the implacable fury of bitter envy.   Fueled by the inflammatory rhetoric of Democrats and the "leftys" for whom they are a front, and abetted by an apparently eagerly willing press, the useful idiots self-identifying as "left" went progressively further off the rails in their blind and knot-headed hatred for the president.  So wild has been that mindless loathing that when George Floyd was killed by police in Minneapolis Minnesota in the summer of 2020, the event became the cause célèbre of the frenzied zombies of the regressive left.  It became their pretext and excuse for the steady up-ramp of violence, destruction, and murder.  Since then there have been additional police shootings of black suspects, each adding fuel to the gaining fire that now threatens to consume the nation from sea to shining sea.

The events in question have occurred almost exclusively in places that one might conversationally call "left-", "blue-", or "Democrat-" dominated, the perpetrators of the innumerable crimes actually and openly aided and abetted by the governmental officials local to each area in which said crimes were being committed, en masse, whether through positive assistance, or negatively through the refusal to actively put an end to the criminal activities.  Predictably, the support has served to greatly embolden the rioters and looters to the point that they are now murdering innocent people in the apparent belief that they will get away with their felonies, which thus far they largely have.

All during this time, the rank and file American has bemoaned these admittedly terrible events, not only specifically, but in a more general sense in an outcry against the chaos and violence.  What most appear to have missed, however, is that because the governmental authorities local to the rioting and looting have willfully failed to discharge their duties to keep the peace, they have abdicated all authority.  Having stood down, authority has devolved once again into the hands of those to whom it ultimately belongs in any event: the people.  That would be you, me, and everyone we know.

Because "government" has failed so abominably, we the people are now presented with a once-in-centuries opportunity to snatch back our authority as individuals and communities; to rip away and deny the false authority of the "state" in favor of that which is ours; that which is true and actual authority of free men.

The implications of this opportunity are literally staggering, not only in the rights to be reasserted, but the corresponding responsibilities as well.

Men of Snohomish Washington recently took up arms in defense of their town against roving bands of looting rioters who thought they were going take their poor behavior into that town.  When they saw the armed defenders, they moved on.  No violence, no gunshots.  The men of Snohomish did what police could not or would not do.  They reclaimed their authority as free men to keep the peace in their town and this example should become the paragon for the behavior and comport of all Americans and their respective communities.

Time is here.  Time is here to take back that which has been stolen from us.  Time is here to ignore "government" and its agents, the police and sheriffs whose authority was never valid in the first place, but which they were able to assume because we allowed it. Time is here to realize that we do not need police or any other enforcers; that they are indeed great detriments to liberty.  We do not have to allow tyrants to continue.  We have the means to stop it in short order and by God we must not waste this opportunity to do so.  My great fear in all this is that things will settle one way or another and Americans will go right back to sleep, content to allow police to run amok as always they have, enforcing the invalid and injurious edicts of the governmental felons we put into office.

These events are proving that we do not need enforcers; that we the people are easily good enough to be trusted with those duties and that we are, in fact, far and away more worthy of the public trust than are any of those who have been so vested on a professional, full-time basis.

There is much more to the list of necessary changes that must occur if we are to properly and fully take advantage of this impossibly rare gift to reclaim our statuses as free men, but that is a discussion for another day, however soon to come.  For now, just let it sink into your awareness the realization that the troubles we see, while terrible on the one hand, offers us an opportunity to reassert ourselves as the masters over "government" that we will almost certainly not see again for at least ten generations to come, if even ever again it will present itself.

The rioters seem hell bent to spread their chaos to all corners of the land.  I would implore all men of good constitution and faith to stand tall, take up arms, and show not only yourselves and the rioters who is boss, but those in "government" as well, especially the enforcers.  Remove them as threats to our liberty and we will have taken a giant leap in the direction of better living.  Without the enforcers, the rest of the political elite have no means of making good on their felonious and tyrannical designs.

I daresay that we will never see this opportunity again in our lifetimes.  Please, I beg you all, do not allow it to slip through your fingers.  We can do this and I promise you that if we do it right, we will have no basis for even the least regret, for we will have rescued ourselves from what I deem the New Dark Age that is now upon us and have set ourselves upon a path toward lives of men who are free not only in principle, but in point of practical and positive fact.

May you all be blessed with the sense and desire to do the right thing.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Saturday, August 22, 2020

Nothing Of Which To Be Proud

For decades I have been listening to people justify tyrannies such as taxation on the basis of the accomplishments they yield.  Their arguments go roughly thus: "I don't mind paying taxes because of what I get in return."  This is the basis of the "muh roadz" argument.  Such people get things they want from the tax monies that are actively robbed from everyone under the threats that ultimately lead to death for those who sufficiently resist the "state's" felonious edicts.

It cannot be credibly argued that when people come together in groups as superorganisms, they are capable of accomplishing feats that most individuals cannot.  Could a single man have build the Hoover Dam?  Could a single individual erect a skyscraper; design and build a jet airliner; supply the world with iron ore or antibiotics?  No.  And so we must give due credit to the accomplishments of superorganized groups of human beings, for without them we would not have too many of those things that make our lives easier, more prosperous, healthier, and way more enjoyable.

But may we be proud of ourselves and the accomplishments in question, given how they are obtained through robbery and threats of harm and even destruction?  I say no.  "But, but why?", you may ask, further adding your emphasis on the greatness of the city art museum and the grand monuments all over town.   The vast halls of public "services"; courthouses, legislatures, police headquarters magnificently erected in huge Carrara marble ashlars, the state Capitol with its huge dome and fine gilding all speak to the glory of the civilization!  Well yes, they do... if one considers them most superficially.

But when one delves just a mite deeper and sees the basis upon which such feats were made possible, the picture changes drastically, and at a radical level.  All of it, and I mean ever grain and penny's worth, was had through robbery by men who have issued threats of bodily harm, financial ruin, imprisonment, and even death to anyone so much as considering non-compliance with the order to fork it over.  Those in power have gone so far as to remove one's earnings through the cooperation of his employer before he ever even sees his disbursement!

Now, you may be thinking to yourself, "So what?:  This is, after all, the way things get done and we have to do it this way in order the have these things like roads, courthouses, firehouses, etc.  Besides, it's only fair, as if fairness were a valid justification for felonious assaults upon the sovereign rights of Freemen.  I would firstly respond by challenging the assumption that this is how it must be done.  To me, this mode of thinking represents a spectacular failure of creative thought, not to mention the abject misery that is that of the attitude of subservience which is required in order to hold such beliefs.

I further ask this: are these things worth having if we must rob people in order to acquire them?  Think about that long and with great care before you come to an answer - ANY answer.

Consider the analog of a man walking along the street with a briefcase containing $100 million dollars worth of bearer-bonds.  You've always wanted to be a millionaire, and so you bang him over the head and take his briefcase, possibly killing him in the process.  Congratulations, you are now a millionaire.

But have you anything for which to be proud of yourself in that regard, because you are also a thief and possibly a murderer.  Was it worth becoming a felon and moral degenerate for the sake of acquiring such wealth, regardless of how vast and "empowering"?  Was it worth relegating yourself to the hollow existence of the criminal, knowing for the rest of your life that you have done such grave wrong to another?  Would you be able to proudly relate to your family and friends the precise means by which you acquired your wealth, or would you be spinning lies that masked the truth?

Well, my dear friends, the precise same is true regarding taxation, as well as all the other things which "government" does pursuant to the so-called "greater good", "civilization", and all the other feel-good sounding, but false justifications cited for violating our just prerogatives and property rights.

Further consider that in which police routinely engage.  Take for instance the issue of traffic summonses, particularly where the issuance is committed on weak technicalities of statute in gross violation of the ostensive spirit of such edicts.  Fail to pay and a warrant will be issued for your arrest, even for a parking ticket.  If you are discovered, you will be apprehended by armed men.  Resist and they will beat you.  Resist better than they can impose, and they will gleefully escalate.  Resist enough, and they will murder you.  Imagine being murdered for a parking ticket.

The same result will come to anyone who resists the arbitrary caprice of the "state", no matter how trivially because the armed goons will be sent for you.  The more you resist, no matter how felonious the behavior of the state agents, the more severely you will be treated, once again up to and including being murdered for having the temerity and gall to so much as question Theire authority.

Do we want safe streets and civil society?  Yes.  It is reasonable to want this?  I believe it is.  But when it is had through the abuse and violation of those who seek to exercise rights that the arbitrary caprice of the "state" has declared forbidden, we once again lose all basis for being proud of what we have accomplished.

I would rather live in a free world that was more dangerous and devoid of great public works, if that dichotomy were anything better than utter falsehood, than to live in one where we were all physically safe from the low-rent street thug, but under constant threat of the high-rent government thug.  I would gladly forgo all the nice-to-have elements in life such as roads and museums and courthouses, in favor of my rightful freedom to carry on with my life as I see fit.

The price we pay for the shiny and relatively unimportant things that we have, is far and away too high, for what is a clear conscience worth?  Good "karma"?  The ability to look oneself in the mirror without shame, knowing the evil to which one has wed himself?

There is absolutely nothing of which we can be proud in all these superficially great attainments, for we have debased ourselves as thieves for the sake of having them.  In these respects, the only thing any of us should feel is burning shame, for we have robbed and abused our fellows in order to obtain those things, thus having reduced ourselves to criminals.

I would ask you to stop a long beat and give these words serious consideration.  The truth they speak is clear, complete, and eminently correct.  We hold no right or authority to commit such acts against our fellows, regardless of how powerfully we may want the things we buy with our ill-gotten booty, or may think that need justifies our means.  Countless souls have been put to death for the sake of "need".  How many more have been reduced to ruin by the same justification?  It is criminal madness to subscribe to such dangerously bankrupt beliefs, much less to act on them or even abet.  Is rightful pride and the joy it brings to a man so valueless?

Knowing now what it is you do, will you not now work to correct the error?

Be well and until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Friday, April 10, 2020

The Phenomenon Of Lowest Denominator

Somewhere in the fourth or fifth grade, children are supposed to learn about the mathematical notion of "lowest common denominator" as they learn to execute basic arithmetic operations on fractions, such as addition and subtraction.

In other human endeavors, there exists the phenomenon of "lowest denominator", a term that often refers pejoratively to the level to which one will stoop in order to get his way.  There are several dimensions to this idea and many ways and instances in which it is be applied, but the basic idea is that he who is least constrained in his choices of action holds a tactical advantage over his competitors or other rivals.

An excellent example of this comes from late twentieth century economics as it applied and continues to apply to the relationship between China and the world economy.

For decades the cost of labor for products manufactured in America were considered high, but were accepted as part of the general overhead of doing business.  Labor unions, with the aid of corrupted American courts, distorted the American labor markets by forcing upon employers labor costs that a free market would not have sustained.  With time, these costs were driven ever higher, resulting in constantly increasing product costs such that in 1980, top of the line tennis shoes were selling in some cases for well over $200 per pair; that at a time when a man could live well enough in New York City on $200 per week and even have enough left over for some fun on Saturday night.

Then in the 1990s something fundamental changed: "free trade" with China, which offered the competitive advantage to American companies of labor costs so low as to be almost neglible.  Instead of having to pay American employees, say, $15 per hour to make tennis shoes, they could pay Chinese laborers $0.30 cents per hour.  It must also be borne in mind that the $15/hour American labor rate typically represents approximately $45/hour in actual costs to the employer due to onerous US labor laws, requiring them to shell out all manner of fees and other taxes for what has become the privilege of doing business in America.  Your inherent right to provide for yourself has been functionally demoted to that of a privilege, requiring "state" permission, directly or otherwise.  Something wicked has this way come.

With the "miracle" of Chinese "free trade" came not only the vanishingly low labor costs, but the absence of unjust "government" requirements in the form of onerously violative labor law.  All of a sudden, labor stood to cost maybe $3 per pair total, instead of $175.

There may have been those manufacturers who, understanding the unintended consequences of going to China, initially decided they would not jump on that bandwagon.  However, the moment the first athletic shoe manufacturer made the jump to China (or perhaps more likely, Viet Nam), it was not long before the rest were faced with the choice to follow suit, or have their lunch eaten by those who had.

When that first company left for greener labor and regulatory pastures, thus lowering the denominator, so to speak, it gained an advantage over its competitors so large, thereby allowing them to produce shoes of equal quality at costs so low in comparison with their American-based counterparts, they would be able to sell their product at prices deeply undercutting that of the competition while yielding equal or even superior profit.  The competition had no choice but to act in kind, if staying in business was a corporate goal.

By descending to a "lower denominator", a state of diminished restriction, a single manufacturer of shoes is able to alter an entire global industry at its roots.

In a similar way, we can see this phenomenon at work in politics.   Another reasonable example may be taken from the Chinese.  Libertarians, anarchists, agorists, voluntarists, as well as other presumably freedom-loving idealists, often call for the dismantling of US military forces.  While a noble sentiment, the reality is not quite so simple.  It is no secret to some that China, has designs for regional hegemony that includes utter domination of the international waters of the South China Sea.  Being international waters, rather than regional to China, Beijing holds no valid claim to them.  But by lowering the level of self-checking to which the Chinese are willing to subscribe themselves, "lowering the denominator" as it were, other nations such as the USA are faced with the choice of following suit or assuming the risk of finding themselves at a gross disadvantage in the contest of keeping international shipping lanes safe and open for everyone, the loss of which would almost certainly lead to every ship passing through those waters having to pay tribute to the Middle Kingdom, the advent of which would make clear to the world in short order just how bad the global economy could become, having become materially dependent on the production of most goods in China and having not stood up to what would amount to their piracy.

This notion of the lower denominator, which translates very directly in the increased willingness to exercise power without check, is driving the human race to ever deeper extremes of political barbarity.  The implications of this for human freedom, I should hope, are painfully obvious.

Consider the fundamentalist Muslims, scurrying all about in the middle east, sawing the heads from the bodies of those they consider unworthy of life.  They toss suspected homosexuals from the rooftops to their deaths, behead "apostates", stone women who do not toe "Allah's" line of comport, and engage in all manner of other atrocities which the rest of the world condemns as felonious, using their bent interpretations of Qur'an and its false authority to justify their actions.

In places where food becomes scarce, people devolve to a lower denominator of behavior in order to survive.  We see this currently evident in Venezuela, where the imploding socialist economy has resulted in people eating their pets, zoo animals, and so forth down what I suspect is a very ugly list of behaviors to which no typical human being would lower themselves under more normal circumstances.

War is another fair example.  Good men who are otherwise peaceable, don uniforms, grab weapons and go out to murder "the enemy" en masse.  During the American Revolution, the British complained bitterly about those damnable colonists who, rather than stand tall and with honor in lines as prescribed by the "rules of war", hid behind trees and intentionally picked off Redcoat officers, often sending the ranks into some chaos as they were generally less capable of engaging in "proper" warfare without someone shouting orders at them.

And yet, this will to make that descent to the lower denominator was essential if Americans were to defeat what was at that time the most powerful military force on the planet.  And from this we see the other side of the coin, which makes plain that the ultimate assessment of the descent will vary depending on one's point of view.  For the Brits, the American behavior was reprehensible and utterly devoid of any decency and honor.  To the Americans, it was the advantage they needed in order to throw the British vampire form their necks.

The descent is a two-edged sword, the same as most other things in life.  What is not the same, however, is the potential hazard that is presents.  Once a precedent is set, breaking the restraints people place upon themselves, it becomes perilously difficult to return to them.  We humans enjoy expansions of our personal and, in sadly far too many cases, collective powers.  We are bemused with power, even obsessed with it.  This is readily observable in children, watching them learn, which translates directly into greater individual power.  So long as we maintain a level head about such endeavors, we stand to remain well, both individually and as societal conglomerations.  The problem as I have come to see it, is that in far too many instances, we run off the rails in an instant, bedazzled by the lure of newly acquired powers.

Making the descent to a lower denominator more often results in the bad, especially in longer term considerations.  Take, for example, the so-called "war tax" imposed upon Americans in 1942.  It was justified on the basis that the nation was under peril at the hands of the evil Japanese Empire.  The promise made to the American people at that time was that it was a "temporary" tax that would be repealed the moment hostilities concluded.  That, of course, turned out to be a lie.  At war's end, the federal "government" was not about to relinquish the power of so vast an income stream as that afforded them by the good fortune of Japan's terribly ill-considered decision to attack Pearl Harbor.  They now had control of almost incomprehensible sums and, in typical human fashion, were not about to let go of so much as penny of it.

But in the wake of peace, how were the powers that were at that time going to justify such a move, especially in the face of a well-armed population who'd just come out of four years of warfare, had suffered terrible losses, and were most likely in no mood for such chicanery?  The answer was a classic: the Hegelian dialectic, and what better one to choose than the "red menace" of soviet Russia?  Oh yes, they were by all means a threat, but nothing as was blown up in the American press.  But once convinced and sufficiently terrified, Americans blithely obeyed the Master and made no fuss, for they had become willing to trade freedom for an illusion of security.

In the previous case, the descent has proven devastating to freedom because people of low moral character got their hands on power, refused to relinquish it, and have used it to sour ends in ever gaining measure, year over year.

Have we as the human gestalt learned the key lessons from all this dangerous political buffoonery?  No.  If anything, the Meaner (mean or average man) has become habituated to the corruptions of the Tyrant to such a degree that he now defends those perfidies to the point of his own destruction, and beyond, having lost the habit and inclination to ask "what sort of a world do I wish to leave to my grandchildren?"  The circumstance is now so decayed, that Johnny Q Meaner even rationalizes the corruptions of those who presume to lord over him (and the lordship to which he accedes via his lack of meaningful protest), telling himself and teaching his own issue that it's all for the "greater good".  It is unclear that humanity could devolve much further down the ladder of behavior, yet I would not assume it.

And so we return to one of the perennial truths for Freemen: freedom requires of a man a strong moral underpinning such that he is not overly tempted by the charms of his own lower self, which beckons him to make the descent to the equally low recesses of his character, always taunting and tempting him with the lie that it will have no cost associated.  It ALWAYS has a cost, and unfortunately the price associated with the descent is most often more than liberty can afford to pay, men's freedoms and their self-respect ultimately having to pay the price for those lapses of judgment and self-control that lead to that plunge to the lower denominator of human action.

This truth should be taught to every child.  They should not be told that they may never indulge in the descent, but that it always carries with it great risk and hazard.  They should be taught to keep an eye not only on their own choices in such matters, but upon those around them such that they will refuse to tolerate the perfidious acts of their fellow men.  It is only by this cooperative checking of the self and of and by others that we keep each other within the metes and bounds of proper human relations.  Conversely, it is through our willingness to turn blind eyes toward that which we do and, most importantly perhaps, that which is done by others, that it is made possible the rise of personalities such as Lenin, Stalin, and Mao.  To be taken in by the lies, bent truths, and false promises of one's fellows is an all too human failing.  The promise of free stuff or things too good to be true seems to get us every time.  How else were communists, fascists, NAZIs, Muslims, and all other flavors of authoritarian tyrants able to bring humanity to so low as pass as that in which we now find ourselves?

The sin lies mainly not with those who would become your masters, for how can one blame the snake for biting?  The error lies with us; with our willingness to tolerate that which is intolerable: the violation of our individual freedoms by external parties, pursuant to some idealized lie that usually speaks to the "collective good".

We painted ourselves into this corner and only we can get ourselves out.  And make no mistake about it: we the people of this world, certainly of America, could be free by close of business today, if that is what we decided we wanted in sufficient measure.  Theye have almost no power of their own over us, but mainly that which we willingly hand to them, which they immediately turn back upon ourselves to their advantage, and our loss.  That is the ultimate effect when would be do-gooders and other tyrants are allowed their latitude with no threat of destruction erected against them.

As the denominator lowers ever further, the checks upon the actions of tyrants become ever more sparse and the hazards to Freemen ever greater.

Please consider this and what it means in terms of decisions that you make, whether you make them proactively as a Freeman, or through the default of inaction as someone less than free by your own choice.  What do you really want to be?  Do you want to be free?  If not, then bless you and may the galaxies take pity upon thee.  But if so, what are you willing to do to be free?  What are you willing to sacrifice in order to throw the vampires who suck the life from you from your neck?  Only you can choose for yourself, but make no mistake about the fact that doing nothing is still making a choice: the one to be a slave, kept in his cage like a pet and whose prerogatives exist only at the whim and caprice of other human beings, not a single one of whom holds the least authority to impose their wills upon you.

Be well, preferable freely so, and as always please accept my best wishes.

Saturday, April 4, 2020

War Should Be Hell

Human beings are the oddest creatures.

We have been gifted with the power of reason, and yet we abuse it, misuse it, or turn our backs to it completely.  Consider the ways in which the purportedly "evolved" nations view warfare.  The mere fact that they sign agreements that limit the ways in which war may be waged seems to me prima facie proof that they are gone mad.

In the most general terms, what is the objective of war?  It is to defeat one's enemy.  Why would one fight without the intention of prevailing, regardless of cost?  Yet we are constrained by agreements such as the Geneva Conventions wherein we agree to never do X and to always do Y.  For example, we cannot target civilians and must always house and feed prisoners of war, treat them humanely, and so forth.  This, I declare, is pure rubbish.

So why, then, do we do it?  It is the pure hedging of our bets, that's why.

The thinking goes basically this way: "well, if we kill all the prisoners we take, they will do the same with our people whom the enemy takes prisoner."  We want to fight wars but do not want to pay the price of warring.  This, of course, is absurd beyond absurdity.

If you do not want to pay the price of warring, then do not wage war.  The one exception to this lies in defensive fighting and in that case if you are facing an existential threat, which I will here suggest is the case any time a nation attacks you, then you should be fighting like mad bastards with the intention of committing utter and complete genocide against everyone bearing arms against you.  This is especially the case when you know you have committed no violation against your antagonist.

War should become so ghastly a prospect that nobody on the planet would wish to partake, precisely because the potential and sufficiently likely outcome would be the extinction of your bloodline and those of everyone you know, and for whom you care.  Were this the central concern, how many rulers and their vile, butt-smooching, hand-wringing sycophants would be eager to enter into mortal combat?  Knowing that their children would be hunted and slaughtered, as well as those of every member of their families out to, say, third or fourth cousins, how many of these great heroes of the people would be so eager to press Fearless Leader to send troops into neighboring lands?

How many troops would be eager to obey such orders, knowing their families would be hunted to extinguishment in the event they did not prevail?  How much of an incentive would it be for them to see the virtues of defensive-only action?  How clearly might they see war, not as a chance for glory, but for the thing that it truly is: utter barbarity?

Human history is littered with examples of young men champing at the bit to go to war for the sake of "glory".  The Great War was example enough, the result being an endless sea of regret from troop, sailor, submariner, and pilot alike after realizing the impossible waste that war represents in every imaginable term.  And yet, by the time the next generation comes of age, the lessons of that previous herd are lost or, sadder still, disregarded because the young always know better.  They know what dolts and nitwits were their parents or grandparents and that they will be able to do it right this time.  It is, of course, pure nonsense, and when the waves of mangled bodies and corpses return home, the cycle of bitter regret at lives wasted repeats itself.  It is almost as if we cannot help ourselves.  Almost.

Was should be hell.  It should be waged as bloody annihilation of every human being, including civilians - perhaps especially them - on the losing side.  Make it the rule to commit pure genocide against anyone raising arms against you, knowing that they will do the same in return.

If the spectre of everyone we know and love being brutally murdered in a systematic genocide does not abate our willingness to war, much less our thirst for it, then we as a species are unworthy of our existences in the first place and humanity should then extinguish itself as an obvious matter of basic propriety.  At the very least, we should all shut our yaps and stop complaining about it because we get what we tolerate, so onus rests squarely with every last one of us.

War should be hell.  The very thought of it should fill the minds of men with revulsion and wild fear that everything for which they care will be written from the face of the earth in scorch and death and disease and misery and ultimate disappearance into the mists of eternity.

The very suggestion of going to war for non-defensive purposes should cause a people to immediately rise against those in power who would dare suggest it and kill them and their entire families without hesitation or mercy.

War should be hell.  But once engaged in, defensively speaking, the very roots of the attackers genetic lines should be killed off in totality such that never again will they pose a threat to one's own blood.

It is a horrible way to consider it, but I submit that the current way is far more so, for so long as war entails "reasonable" risks (to whom, exactly?), and those risks amount to near-zero for those driving others into it, we will continue to bloody the innocent for reasons that are never valid.

War should be hell.  Any people worth their moral salt would rise against leaders who aggress against other nations, killing them with prejudice, resolve, and no mercy.  Any people failing to do so are perforce complicit, thereby equally guilty, and therefore worthy of total annihilation.   Make this the rule of humankind, the violation of which brings upon the felons the fruits of their choices, and humankind would change as a pure matter of practical survival not only of the individual's thoughts for himself, but for those around him for whom his affections live.

War should be hell.  Make it so and the human race would undergo a quantum alteration in its views on many matters, the dictates of survival becoming the first-order canon of practical living.

War should be hell.  Not for a few, but for all.  Were it so, one can only speculate as to how eager would the people of Germany been to back the war-mongering Hitler.  As for the Soviets and Communist Chinese, those were internal affairs, horrible as they were, to be left to the people of their respective nation-states, though it is my considered opinion that had they treated Lenin and Mao in the same ways, things would have turned out notably better for both peoples.

War should be hell.  The incentives should lead people to avoid war at nearly any cost with a ready will to slaughter their "leaders" any time it is suggested they enter into a war of aggression.

Have I mentioned that war should be hell?

I have no illusions about people coming to sense on this matter.  Warring will continues as always it has and people will meekly and corruptly accept it as matters of their cowardice, ignorance, desire, and convenience.  But they can no longer claim that they were not given the better idea on how to proceed with respect to aggression waged on a national basis.  It could be stopped today, if we cared enough.  That we do not is prima facie proof of the need for war being made hell for one and all.

Give it some thought before rejecting the notion out of hand.  Look deeply into the issue and I believe you will see the virtue in what it is that I suggest.

Until next time, please accept my best wishes.

Language, Conceptual Stores, And Mental Health

I have noticed through the decades how many people fail to understand the expressive styles of people from ages long past.

The average man seems to regard such styles as those even as recent as Victorian english as "quaint", at best; often "corny", and even "stupid". That of Shakespeare is indecipherable to most and even modernized interpretations of ancient passages such as Song to Inanna, what is generally considered the world's first poem, in the same ill-considered and ignorant ways.

So I will mention this: men of yore departed from us in two essential ways where language is concerned.

Firstly, they respected language, whereas most of us regard it casually, with disregard, and even dismissal. They understood the power of words; their central importance in the lives of humanity, whereas the contemporary meaner has little to no clue whatsoever. Sadly, it appears he has no desire to learn this most centrally important aspect of human life.

Secondly, men of yore were less beset by conceptual noise - the myriad of ideas swimming about in their heads that lead them astray from a more essential mental bearing. The people of ancient Sumer knew nothing of cell phones and the political idiocies of our contemporary times, such as communism for example. The swamping of men's minds with noise that separates them from essential thought cannot be helped, so far as I can tell. It is an unavoidable consequence of the gaining of new knowledge, for better or worse. As that body of concepts grows, the new knowledge and its attendant thought-volume revolves around the more highly-abstracted, newer ideas perforce because they seem more practically relevant to everyday living. This places distance between the mind of the individual and more basic considerations - ideas that were central to the mental lives of the people of ages past.

The farther back in time one goes, the less "polluted" were the minds of people, simply because the store of human knowledge was smaller.

While in some ways we find advantage in this augmented body of conceptual stores, there is a price to pay, which is precisely the fact that the most basic sense becomes foreign to us. My suspicion is that this presents a deep and abiding problem for humanity and my proof of this lies in the fact that the world of humanity is a hot mess and getting messier, rather than less so.

And that is why I have been writing about the basics, in the effort to at least make available little reminders of the most fundamental notions that SHOULD be serving as anchors for our mental and spiritual health.

We do still find such reminders in places such as in religious texts, but those suffer from serious drawbacks, mostly related to language, it's style and how that style deviates from our contemporary usage. Christian writings, the Bible in particular, is a good example of this. The catastrophic example is well represented in Al Qur'an, which has sown more destruction and misery than any other tome, save perhaps the body that represents communist/socialist/progressive philosophy and attendant thought.

The Christian church attempted, however ham-fistedly, to keep people well anchored through the imposition of their political might upon the mass of humanity under their aegis. This, of course, failed miserably in the end precisely because it was forcefully imposed and not made attractive such that people wanted to maintain virtuous relations with the sacred, rather than toeing a line due to fear of dire punishments, whether in this life or that hereafter.

The Muslims took the Christian model and stepped it up several orders of magnitude in error via sheer viciousness, the results being plain to see in places such as the middle-east, which is a study in human disaster.

An interesting aspect of this mental noise is that it is very effectively employed, consciously or otherwise, as a fog into which politico-social chicanery is injected into the minds of men, leaving them less able to understand the truer nature of what is being presented. This is how the scourges of all modern authoritarian thought and action have been so successfully foisted upon the people of the world since the twentieth century, at the very least. When people are separated from basic sense, they are less able to discern nonsense when presented to them, further leaving them unarmed and consequently unable to repel the assaults of the Tyrant upon their innate rights and liberties. When people do not know better, how can they even be inclined to fight the violation of their individual sovereignty?

Retaining the basics is essential to the health and prosperity of the human race. The depressingly absent health and happiness of men is the direct indicator of just how little we as a race of beings have retained of that basic knowledge. That we are so widely separated from the basics bodes deep ill for humanity's future, which is why my suspicion hovers about the thought that nothing short of reset will save the race of men.

Individuals can think their ways out of this sort of trouble, for illumination is the necessary condition for setting then right once more. But such enlightenment means nothing to men as a body gestalt if sufficient numbers fail to come to sense. By that failure are the good dragged into the pit with the rest, and so it appears to me at this time that reset is the only hope remaining to us; an even so deeply and unforgivingly disruptive of daily life that the choice becomes immediately clear to all but perhaps the most stubbornly dull among us: come to sense now, or have your name stricken from the Book of Life.

That, I fear, is the fate that awaits us because I see just this side of zero possibility of a critical mass of humanity so much as wanting to come to sense, much less making the actual effort to do so.

Perhaps none of it matters, but I cannot help but feel deep sorrow for the innocents, the children mainly, who will pay for the sins of the rest.

Ask yourself where you stand on this issue: do you want to know what is right for all men?; how to live properly amid the throng without destroying them and yourself, or being destroyed by the others... or does it just not matter? To that last question, I have no answers for you, but will suggest you turn your thoughts to those whom you love and regard with fondness and care and then consider the question once more.

Be well, and as always please accept my best wishes.