Legions of Princes: Machiavellians in the Information Age
Introduction
Cars break down and rust out. Some are damaged by the force of a collision. Homes and buildings, too, eventually become uninhabitable. Or burn.
Governments and empires do likewise.
Should we haul the car to the junkyard and crush it? Should we tear down the old building? Or are there some that are classic enough, valuable enough, to be worth restoring?
A “full restoration” is more than just the exterior and paint. A car may be taken down to the bare frame and then reassembled piece by piece, with new or restored parts, many times with modern brakes, electrical systems, and seat belts, for example, especially if they are to be driven on modern highways.
To fully restore a home, the blueprints are reviewed, the foundation is repaired, the walls come off, and the wiring and plumbing and insulation are updated, so that the internal structure is sound and safe. Only then can it be put back together.
Thus fully restored cars and homes are better in many ways than the original, will likely last longer and certainly be more valuable. At the same time, they not only help us better appreciate them, but are also able to function again as intended.
The blueprint for our Union of States became official in 1787, with the signing of the proposed contract that we call the Constitution. It was agreed to (ratified) by the thirteen independent autonomous States in 1788. And began operations in 1789. Just 232 years later, the original Idea of America has eroded and broken down. The Rule of Law simply no longer functions as it once did, as was intended; authoritarianism, like rust, has overwhelmed it. For those that believe in liberty, it is on the verge of becoming uninhabitable.
Forward
500 years ago, when Machiavelli penned his advice on how Rulers should govern, there were no newspapers or television, let alone internet. And no public libraries; for that matter, few citizens could read.
In his book, The Prince, published in 1513, he recommended that Rulers – he called them “Princes” – must use whatever means necessary to establish and maintain their power. Lying, cheating, stealing, and murder were not only OK, but necessary – nothing was off the table. The ends always justify the means. However, he said, there is a critical caveat: the Prince must always maintain the appearance of being noble and upright, honorable and honest.
Michael Franzese, a reformed former mafia boss, explains that is exactly how the mafia operates; he knows, he was part of it. And he further observes that our government functions that way today, like the mob.
I agree – we are now dominated by legions of Princes, in the Machiavellian tradition.
In the Information Age, everyone who desires it has access to The Prince. And to an earlier work, Sun Tzu’s The Art of War. And to the Ten Planks that Karl Marx says will convert a country to Marxism. And to Saul D. Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. The strategies and tactics for becoming a Prince are readily available. The foundational principle is that the ends always justify the means; good intentions, or the appearance of noble intent, are all that matters.
Counter-arguments for morality and ethics and religion are more abundant than those “anything goes” standards. But most people who ascribe to underlying values such as the golden rule, who truly believe and live them, do not seek power over others; that is, most principled folks do not choose to go into professional politics or government. And the few people who do are quickly and effectively rendered impotent, or forced to comply, by the legions.
The Idea of America, a Republic governed under the Rule of Law, is on its deathbed. The Constitution is ignored and violated day in and day out. We now live under the Laws of Rulers, of Princes. Is that what we want? Is that the best we can do?
“A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”
The founders knew that the very nature of governments is to grow and to expand their reach and power – after all, those who govern are mere mortals, with human weaknesses. Thus the Constitution divided the new government into four separate “branches”; severely restricted the authority of the President; and included numerous checks and balances that they hoped would insure and protect the rights of the citizens, as well as the autonomy of the independent States.
It is important to note that the citizens of many States were skeptical, reluctant to join the Union, afraid that it would simply turn into authoritarianism. After much debate, the Constitution was finally accepted, but only on the condition that it was further amended to include what we now call the Bill of Rights.
Three: Anarchy and Utopia
Another alternative to the Laws of Rulers is anarchy; that is, no government at all. The people live in peace, without Princes. It can sound very appealing when Rulers become oppressive; it seems like utopia In fact, doesn’t our own Declaration of Independences say that we not only have the right but also the duty to alter or abolish any government that does not secure our unalienable rights?
But there are two major issues with anarchy. The first is how to achieve it, to displace or overthrow the Rulers. No Prince, or group of Princes, is just going to walk away. But the real problem with anarchy is that it is not sustainable. The utopians talk of a society where everyone is free to do as they please, so long as they are not hurting others or taking their stuff, a great goal, perhaps the stuff of Lennon’s Imagine.
But given the current state of humans, which is unlikely to change in any foreseeable future, someone will begin hurting others and taking their stuff. By force. In short order the people most driven, the folks with the biggest guns, will begin making rules, and enforcing them. Anarchy is just a brief interlude between authoritarians. Unless the people somehow agree to a new government and a new Rule of Law, which is something that the anarchists would not do.
Interestingly anarchy – no government – is also the stated goal of Communism, that at some point the people would be happy and content and the government would fade away. It can sound very appealing when Rulers become oppressive; it seems like utopia.
Under Communism, though, authoritarianism comes first. Either by infiltration or by force. The Communist Princes take ownership of all property, operate the economy and control people’s lives, with an iron-fisted approach. No input. No voice. No dissent. No objection. No rights. The idea is to mold the people, and to create, by force, an environment where they are all content, all working together – utopia. And then the Princes will ride off into the sunset.
But given the current state of humans, that never seems to work. The first part gets done, but the Princes never go away. There are always people who want freedom, who want choices, who want to own their stuff. So the iron hand, the force, remains. At the end of the day, all they have is a poor and sad society with elite Princes living in luxury.
The utopias of the Anarchists and the Communists are simply not achievable. Nor for that matter, if to a lesser degree, the Socialists (“democratic” or otherwise) and the Fascists. And the costs of foolish attempts to govern in that manner are extreme.
Four: Individual or Anthill?
Are we humans self-directed individuals? Do we all have the same basic rights? Do we deserve the freedom to choose how we live our lives?
Or are we just cogs in the wheel, like ants in a colony, or bees in a hive? Are we to have specific, predetermined functions? Do I only have value if and when I do as prescribed and contribute to the perpetuation of the Queen? Am I otherwise dispensable?
This is an important question that each of us must answer for ourselves. Because that foundational belief takes us down two very different paths. Because if we are truly like bees and ants, then Communism would be entirely appropriate, perhaps the only way to structure societies. And the fools who think they have rights and choices would be eliminated.
On the other hand, if we have some some value as individuals, if we have some Rights, then there are two questions: what Rights are those universal basic Rights? And how do we defend and protect them?
We turn to Jefferson again**. He wrote, in the Declaration of Independence. that all men [humans] are created equal, that all have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Those are the basic Rights that individuals deserve. Every human has a Right to live, to try to survive. A Right to choices over their body and their life. And a Right to have the opportunity to pursue their own happiness, which requires the right to own their stuff (private property).
But those Rights are easily violated. Take the most fundamental Right, the Right to live. Do you know the leading cause of death in the 20th Century? War? Pandemics? No it was genocide and democide** [website], Princes killing and eliminating their own citizens. Nor was Hitler the worst, by a long way. So what of the Right to life for all of those people? Not much of a Right, if they have no way to exercise it, nor protect it.
So we come to the Idea of America, that neither Princes nor democratic majorities shall violate the basic Rights of the people. The Rule of Law – that Contract that we call the Constitution – takes precedence over any individual, Ruler or otherwise. And over any majority; people cannot vote to violate the basic rights of others. The fundamental purpose of the Federal Government then, its Job One, arguably its only valid authority, is to protect and defend our basic Rights. As well as the rights of the individual autonomous States to self govern, so long as they do not violate those same Rights.
We know that something has gone awry. That officials and officers and bureaucrats and majorities, have, and do, ignore and violate that Contract. The founders knew that they could not predict the future; still hey put into that Constitutional Contract all of the checks and safeties they thought necessary (once the Bill of Rights was added. But they also knew that it was not perfect, and anticipated that it may need changes, thus within it they provided the means and methods to amend it.
Perhaps what they did not anticipate was that future generations might re-interpret both the letter and intent of the Contract. It was obvious to everyone at the time, especially the citizens of the States who were so wary of signing it in the first place, what the terms of the agreement were, what was intended. After all, a most basic tenet of contract law is that all parties to the agreement have a meeting of the minds, and mutual understanding.
Perhaps the greatest error in the drafting of the Constitution was leaving out – repeating – those words from the Declaration of Independence, stating the purpose of the Union as defending and protecting the Rights of all people to life, liberty and the pursuit of welfare. And who among them might have fathomed that people would later interpret an adjective like “the general welfare” as giving unlimited power to the new government?
Were we ever to restore the Idea of America, we would require some revisions and amendments to the Contract, a renewed understanding. If the Federal Government does not defend our basic Rights – worse, if they violate them – then how are we any better off than the people who live under other authoritarians? George Carlin pointed out that, “Rights ain’t Rights if the government can take them away.”
And I must point out that I have used the word “basic” repeatedly when referring to our individual Rights. It is also important to understand that many of the things that we label “rights” today are neither natural nor inalienable, but also are not defensible. That is worth exploring, for there are some aspects of Rights that are rarely spoken of.
**[Aside: Some will say, “Jefferson? – he owned slaves!” True. But please add perspective: the foul and immoral practice of slavery existed in the British colonies long before “America” even existed. It is estimated that there were some 500,000 African American slaves in the British colonies prior to the Revolution. Most of the founders inherited that legacy; the majority viewed it as wrong. The question, the challenge, was how and when to free those people, humanely – which Jefferson and many others intended to do – since so many, sadly, were uneducated and knew nothing else. Slavery was not new; it had been practiced by societies for thousands of years, throughout all of recorded history, even in Africa. It was not an American invention. It is a direct result of believing another race inferior, or less than human. America would eventually rid itself of that horrible travesty of human rights. The process would prove painful.]
Five: The Secret about Rights
A coin has two sides; you cannot have the heads without the tails. You cannot have the ying without the yang, the up without the down . . you get the idea. Yet we talk about Rights as if they were one-dimensional. Benefit without cost. It simply is not true.
The secret, what they fail to tell you, is that every Right has Responsibilities attached to it. Individual Rights have Individual Responsibilities.
Why would they not tell you that? Because people like a free lunch. Because they would rather not take responsibility. Because it is much easier if it’s somebody else’s fault, if someone else takes the responsibility.
But here’s the catch: to the extent that someone else assumes your Individual Responsibility, they also take your Individual Right. They establish power over your Rights, and over you. Moreover, by doing so, they inevitably violate the same Rights of others.
For example, if you have a Right to Live, then you have an obligation to do everything within your power to keep yourself alive, to provide your own food, shelter and clothing.
If you have a Right to speak freely, then you have a Responsibility to allow others to do the same. The converse, of course, is that if you have a Right not to listen, then you have a Responsibility to no force others to listen.
If you have a Right to your own Religious beliefs, then you have an obligation to allow others the same.
If you have a Right to vote, then you have a Responsibility to know who you are voting for, what their job is, and whether their principles align with yours.
If you have a Right to an education, then you have an obligation to do everything within your power to learn.
If you have a Right to do as you please, as consenting adults, so long as you are not hurting anyone else, then you have an obligation not to make laws that others not do things that you do not agree with, so long as they are not hurting anyone else.
If you have Right to own your own stuff, then you have a Responsibility to not take from others, nor to allow Princes to take from them on your behalf.
At the end of the day, that all begins to sound like the Golden Rule, doesn’t it?
As with talent, as with many things, it’s use it or lose. If we do not use and exercise our individual Responsibilities, then we lose the Rights that accompany them. Yes, we need some way to protect those Rights against encroachment, a Rule of Law. But the irony is that once we allow Government to take over our personal Responsibilities, then we lose the Rights and we create, once again, the Laws of Rulers.
We must understand that the entire message of Progressivism is about government taking the responsibility for our safety and well-being, for our education and our retirement, for our jobs and our They may espouse the same goals as conservatives and libertarians, but their means to those ends, however appealing they may sound, are
Six: Morality
While driving one day, a radio talk show host complained that an official had “lost their moral authority” because of some hypocritical act. I had heard that expression before, of course, but it struck me – how or why did that official have any “moral authority” in the first place? What authority was he referring? How much? And over whom?
So I looked for a definition. Turns out “moral authority” is just a fancy term for trustworthiness, whether a person can be counted on to tell the truth. As we know, Machiavellian Princes cannot (or should not) be trusted for truthfulness, because lying and cheating is OK, part of their MO. Yet we know that they must maintain the perception, the illusion, of honorability and honesty; they must pretend. So rather than just call themselves “trustworthy” (which few people believe), they come up with terms like “moral authority”
What is Morality itself? It’s a standard of right and wrong. Like the story of the blind men trying to determine what an elephant is, their definition depends on what part of the elephant they are touching; they can come to very different conclusions. Religion defines morality for many folks, but if we have freedom of religion, then what is right for one person may be wrong for another. And are people who are not religious automatically incapable of right and wrong? That does not ring true.
Is there not s a fundamental, universal standard of right and wrong, of morality? One that can found in every world religion, even if worded differently? One that also applies to people who are not religious? Isn’t it this: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Along with it’s corollary, “Do as you please, as long as you are not hurting anyone or taking their stuff.”
It is interesting to note the evolution of “the golden rule” – basic morality – through the lens of the Bible. The Old Testament is the bible of Judaism (“Jews”), and the foundation for two other major religions, Christianity (“Christians”) and Islam (“Muslims”). In the Old Testament, the law was:
“An eye for an eye . .” In other words, do unto others as they have done unto you.
But as I understand it, the New Testament included a new Covenant (contract) with God, and a new law:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” (paraphrased)
Sadly, powerful Princes are today further editing that Christian mandate, in this way:
“Do unto others before they do unto you.”
Does that not contradict the message of Christ?
Christ also said that people who could not care for themselves deserved our help. I don’t think the intent was that we vote to have our governments take care of them. Nor is that charity.
Seven: Safety Nets
It bears repeating: individual Rights require individual Responsibilities, if we are to keep them.
If we have a Right to Live, we have a Responsibility to provide for ourselves. (And, by the way, if we have a “right” to health, we first have an obligation to take care of ourselves, to be healthy.)
What of those, however, who do not have the ability to provide food, clothing, shelter, and potable water for themselves? Then, I believe, Christians believe, that if we are able, if we have taken care of ourselves and our family, then we have an obligation to help them. Otherwise the Right to Life is not universal.
But there is a caveat: it ain’t charity if we make someone else do it; that’s called coercion. And theft. It’s only charity if it’s voluntary. People can cooperate in that effort, of course, in churches and in organizations of all sorts; they can and they do. Americans are very generous and caring.
Serious issues arise when a society turns to government provide the safety nets. In the first place, governments have no money except what they first take from the people, so they must use force, they take from some to give to others (socialism). Governments are notoriously inefficient; the dollars they take are diminished in setting up the bureaucracy to establish the rules, enforce them, do the taking, and, of course, decide who is to get what, and how. Support is often misdirected or bound up in red tape. It creates “temporary” taxes that somehow never go away, only grow. And the whole process displaces real charity, and reduces the funds available to those who would otherwise give voluntary.
Federal programs are, by their nature, one size fits all, which is terribly ineffective over a nation as large and diverse as America. Thus local needs are served more efficiently, and far more effectively, locally. By the volunteers, and when necessary, the States.
Moreover, many government safety nets work backwards. They are hard to qualify for, but people stay on for years, even generations. When they should work just the opposite, easy to receive – immediately – for those who need help, but harder and harder to stay on, as people are encouraged to help themselves as soon as they are able.
Is Federal assistance ever justifiable? Under the Idea of America and the Rule of Law, we said that the only valid role of the Federal Government is to defend and protect the basic individual Rights of the people. Foremost among them is the Right to Life. So when people are simply unable to provide for themselves the basic to stay alive, then it might, on rare occasions, be the proper role of the Federal Government to step in a last resort – but only under three conditions: (1) there is not sufficient help available, or on the way, from voluntary sources, churches, organizations, foundations, and donations; (2) the States are unable to provide the assistance; and (3) the assistance is administered through the States, specific to the emergency, and temporarily.
At the end of the day, the role of the Federal Government is as a referee rather than a player. With a duty to enforce the rules and protect the players, not engage in the game. The Princes must be constantly monitored and prevented jumping in – we must that they are prone to do so in order to maintain the illusion of honorability, while their purpose is control, power and wealth. And we must continually remind ourselves that they have no money unless they first take it from us. Or burden our grandchildren with debt.
Safety nets are best administered by volunteers, not by Princes.
Eight: Mother Nature
Not everyone believes in God. But each of us have a Right to our own beliefs (in a free nation). Some claim that their god is “mother nature”. Many of us sense the existence of some higher power when we experience the wonders of nature; it is beautiful, awe inspiring.
But a “mother”? A mother is above all, caring. Nurturing. Protective. Nature is none of that! Nature grants but one right to any species: try to survive.
Nine: Capitalists, Communists and Nazis
Machiavelli said there are only two forms of government, Princes (meaning all authoritarians) or Republics, where the citizens had some input. I have always stated it a bit differently, the Laws of Rulers or the Rule of Law.
In a similar way, there are two forms economies. Prince owned or citizen owned. Government ownership or private.
The first question is whether the citizens can own property. Under Communism, the state, the government and the Princes, owns everything. Both the means of production, businesses, and the products.
Under Socialism, whether “democratic” or not, businesses are, to some extent, private, but the state and the Princes, decide who gets what, takes from some to distribute to others.
Fascism is different in that private “ownership” is allowed, but is tightly controlled by the Princes.
Capitalism is when the citizens own and control the businesses and can keep the profits of their labors.
Some takeaways: Socialism, the distribution of the products and profits is, often accompanied by control of the businesses that produce them, is just a step away from Communism, where the Princes declare that they own the businesses, thus it becomes completely authoritarian.
Socialism and Fascism are very similar, the difference being the amount of redistribution. And both, by the nature of the Princes seeking ever more power and wealth, are prone to become completely authoritarian.
Germany, for example, was a Constitutional Republic, a democratic socialist nation. The word “nazi” is an abbreviation of the National Socialist German Workers Party. Hitler was elected, and popular – their opposition, their fight, was to protect against Communism. That government went sideways and morphed into a dictatorship when the executive branch took control. And Hitler, of course, revealed his bias and his belief that other races were inferior, vermin to be exterminated.
Free markets and capitalism – private property and ownership – always produce better results, more prosperity and more equality, than any other economic system. Communism and Socialism are often thought to provide be more equitable, but history proves, time and again, that they are only more equally poor. The poorest people in America, our impoverished, are still in the top ten percent of the world in terms of income and wealth.
Ten: Private Property
We assume that we have a Right to private property; even the ten commandments say that we shall not steal. But rarely do we think about the two very different kinds of property.
XXx another blog xxxxx
Eleven. Economics
Twelve. Money, Inflation, and Bubbles
Thirteen. Taxes.
Fourteen. Dual Governments.
Fifteen. The Four Branches of the Federal Government
We once had four branches of the Federal government.
The Executive Branch, the President and advisors, intentionally had very, very limited powers – almost a figurehead, more of an ambassador – because the founders wanted to make sure that we never had a King or ultimate authoritarian again. [One notable exception was Hamilton, who wanted a national government with virtually unchecked power, and a king.]
The Judicial Branch, the Supreme Court, was to be the referee between the Branches when they disagreed, to determine who was correct under the Constitution. And to guard and protect the Rule of Law and individual Rights. But not to make laws.
The Legislative Branch, with very few exceptions, was to be the only part of our Government with the authority to make laws or to spend money. We are taught that the Legislative is one Branch, but it was designed as two distinct and separate branches, with two distinct and separate purposes. And the two were to serve as additional checks and balances, one on the other.
The House of Representatives was to be the voice of the people, via the democratic process. The idea of a ‘representative” government is straightforward: the people choose elect people to office whose principles are aligned with theirs, that they may go and represent them in the lawmaking process. After all, people do not have the time or knowledge or expertise, nor the inclination, to get into all of the details, the pros and the cons, of specific laws, nor weigh the anticipated benefits against the costs and unintended consequences. The “devil is in the details” as the saying goes, so we send people we trust to do the homework, to weigh all of the factors, and to vote for or agains legislations based on our shared underlying principles. Only the House was to be able to authorize or spend Federal dollars.
The purpose of the Senate was to represent the autonomous States. Senators were appointed by each State, rather than elected by the people, as a check on the potential for the people to succumb to groupthink or mass hysteria, or mob rule, which can too easily happen in a pure democracy. And to prevent the House from making laws that violate the rights and independence of the States.
So initially we had four separate and distinct branches. But the Princes trimmed the tree, so to speak, in that fateful year, 1913, when they changed the structure and purpose of the Senate. In the sweeping progressivism of that era, the Constitution was amended to provide for the popular election of Senators. From that point on, both Houses were “the voice of the people.” And both subject to the personality contests and public whims, rather than principle. That proved the final blow to the autonomy of States, already under siege.
Sixteen. What We Want
I believe that most people just want to be left alone to go about their lives. They want freedom, peace and prosperity. To have choices, to live as they please, so long as they are not hurting anyone else or taking their stuff. Most people do not want handouts or for someone else to be responsible for them, or at least did not used to. Live and let live. Do unto others.
So the Idea of America, the experiment, where most of the governing was done locally, to meet local needs and desires, where States had a smaller role, and where the Federal Government was extremely limited. Like a snowman, the big snowball that formed the base was local governments. The State was the middle snowball. At the top was a small head, the whose role was there to protect Rights, and little else, so that the people could in fact live free.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
PART TWO. The Rise of the Princes, pre-Covid
One. What We Wanted, What We Got
A lot changed in the last hundred years or so, “pre-Covid”. Just two hundred fifty years into this grand experiment, that is not what we got. We’re turned upside down. Picture that snowman with the State still in the middle, although diminished in size. At the base is a very small local snowball. And on top is an enormous Federal snowball, threatening to crush and collapse the whole thing. Our Rule of Law morphed, once again, into the Laws of Rulers. Legions of Princes.
I admit that I am painting with some broad strokes, often over-generalizing in order to communicate concepts. With apologies to people like Ron Paul, who as both a Medical Doctor and a Representative in Congress, always acted on principle, refused to vote for anything that was contrary to the Idea of America or violated our Constitution (they called him “Doctor No”). There are others, too, who not only give the appearance of being principled – they all do that – but who also act on their principles and live them. In Part Three, we’ll look at how to identify those folks; they are, after all, pretty rare among the Machiavellian Princes and pretenders.
It should also be noted that many Rulers – even Machiavellian Princes – also do some good things along the way. People like Nixon, FDR, Truman, Lincoln, LBJ, and others, are not “all bad.” They said some very good things. Sometimes even acted upon them. “Good people” make mistakes, do bad things. And “bad people” do good things as well. But our purpose here is to investigate where America went astray, and which folks, which Princes, led us down those paths.
The fundamental Idea of America, was a Republic under the Rule of Law to which everyone, citizen and officeholder alike, was subject, all the time, as specified in the Constitution. The new Federal Government was to operate under those rules, it’s main objective being to protect the individual basic Rights of every citizen.
That Idea, the very Rule of Law, was challenged and violated early and often. Presidents and politicians, generals and bureaucrats, are prone to self-embellishment, to rationalize themselves “above the law” when some “greater good” is at hand. The ends justify the means, as the devil is so fond of whispering in our ears. For the first hundred years or so, when the Federal Government – most often the President – overstepped, the Supreme Court and/or Congress over-ruled, pulled them back into line. But often not all the way back; and one transgression always set precedent for the next.
The Prince who first truly turned the Constitution on its head was Abraham Lincoln. His assertion that the Federal Government had the ultimate authority over the States was completely counter to the words of the Constitution and the intent of the founders – the States would never have joined the new Union in the first place. We should try to understand Lincoln’s motivation for not allowing States to secede; he was, after all, by today’s standards, clearly “racist” – he opposed slavery (in some cases) but he believed that black-skinned people were inferior and incapable. He even suggested deporting them all from America once they were freed from slavery.
And he clearly violated the Constitution over and over again in his “god given” mission to “save the nation”.
That was not a “Civil War” as the revisionists are so fond of saying. A Civil War is when people are fighting over who controls the government, who is in charge. Lincoln’s War was not that. Some States wanted to secede from that government, not take it over. It was a war of secession, not a civil war. Lincoln said they did not have a right secede, and that may again become a serious question for America – if we are free, are we also free to leave? Or are we all, now, slaves to the Nation?
From the State’s perspective, how was that any different than someone who chooses to join the mafia, or a gang, and then wants to leave but is not allowed to, will be killed if they try? The point here is that the concept, the promise, of a voluntary union of independent autonomous States was breached. The ends justified the means, however brutal and horrible, regardless of the Constitution.
Were the costs of Lincoln’s War worth it? Were the lost lives and the destruction of property just, or justifiable? Americans brutalizing and killing other Americans? Were the African Americans truly free after that war? Did Lincoln, and his war, give them equal Rights and opportunities? The answer, obviously, is no. It would take another hundred years – and an entire movement – for the government to finally recognize, and begin to defend and protect, the individual basic Rights of black Americans. Were there better alternatives? (Of course.)
“No war which can be avoided is just to the people who have to carry it on, to say nothing of the enemy…In the forum of reason and deliberation war never can be anything but a makeshift, to be regretted; it is the task of the statesman to find rational means to the same end.” William Graham Sumner
Thus the Union, the nation, established supreme authority over the States, in a great ethical battle that lead to a horrible war: slavery obviously violated the inalienable Rights to both liberty and the opportunity to pursue happiness. The national government’s role is to protect and defend basic Rights. So the real question becomes this: is the Federal Government justified in violating the Right to Live of so many of its citizens, to kill, maim and destroy them, in order to defend the Rights of others? To ignore and violate the Rule of Law? Do more wrongs make a right? Or was there a better way, both for the slaves and for the Idea of America?
The 20th Century would bring a series events of with ruinous results. 1913, would bring some drastic changes to the Constitution, one of which caused a Great Depression which in turn “justified” an enormous expansion in Federal power and reach. We engaged in a World War – “a war to end all wars” – but the overbearing punishment of our enemy would lead us into a second World War, which in turn “justified” the establishment of a permanent standing army and the military industrial complex; it became our duty and our destiny to police the world.
We also replaced our system of money with fiat currencies and legal tender. Substituted deficits and debts for We began a series of wars at home, on poverty, on drugs, Un-winnable, forever wars are, after all, the Formalize America as the warrior nation
All of these events have continually weakened and invalidated the Idea of America, the Rule of Law, the autonomy of States, and the inalienable rights of our citizens. In the progressive wave of the past century, America has become part socialist, part fascist, with ever-increasing authoritarianism and an out of control Executive Branch.
And with a Legion of Princes governing our nation. The Federal Government – once a voluntary, loose union of independent States – first consisted of four branches of a small and limited government (later pruned to three branches). Somehow we allowed that to become “one indivisible nation” with virtually unlimited power and reach, and with multiple branches that function in conjunction with, and as part of, that enormous government.
Two. We are Nation of Laws
We hear it often, “We are nation of laws!” Proclaimed loudly and proudly. And unfortunately it is true. Between the Federal Government and its vast agencies and bureaucracies, the State Governments and their bureaucracies, and local governments, we are inundated with laws over every detail of our lives. More laws than we can even know. The Declaration accused the King of sending forth That pales in comparison to what we tolerate today; literally millions of people have the power to make and enforce laws over the rest of us. And eager to do so.
But that was not the intent. That is not the Rule of Law. Which, unfortunately, is not what we have any longer.
xxx Laws from my book xxxx
Three. Crony Capitalists
America was truly exceptional; we were a beacon of light to world because we were about freedom of choice, and a Rule of Law that guaranteed and protected it for everyone. Including the choice about what where to work, what to do for a living, what to produce. And how and when to trade with others, spend or save our money, and use our private property.
When people produce more than they use just to survive, then they trade for things they need and want. When two parties trade, voluntarily, then they are both better off. Both profit. That is the magic of markets. When an entire society is structured to accommodate free and voluntary trade, that is a free market. It’s simply the application of private property and freedom of choice, with huge benefits.
People choose whether to trade, spend and consume their excess production instead invest in equipment and technology to produce even more. Or loan the money to others, “rent it out” their capital. Thus we have capital-ism, the fuel of free markets, a generator of societal wealth without equal. For the simple reason that economies are not top-down elitists cannot anticipate what millions of people
If the American free-market capitalist system was the “Superman” of world economies – and it was – then crony capitalism is its kryptonite, deadly to free markets, to capitalism, to voluntary choice, and, ultimately, to individual liberty. A better word for it might be “crapitalism.” Unfortunately capitalism takes the blame for the damage that anti-capitalism, crony capitalism, has wreaked upon us. True capitalism is virtually dead in America today, as we have become part socialist and part fascist.
What is crony capitalism? It is using the force of government insulate against or eliminate competition, to guarantee markets or prices, or even to gain monopoly on a market. Why do businesses, corporations and entire industries seek government force over fair competition? Money, power, and influence, plain and simple. It makes them Princes in their world.
Is there any fox who would not love to be in charge of the henhouse?
Why would the Princes of government agree to join forces with the Princes of industry? Simple – power and money. They can trade favors and special treatment for the money to get them elected and keep them elected.
Their charge, their responsibility under the Idea of America and the Rule of Law was to prevent the foxes from even getting into the henhouse, let alone granting them permission to oversee it. But governments are, at the end of the day, merely people, humans with all of their weaknesses. And the Machiavellians are driven to use whatever means available, whatever dark alliances, in order to pursue their own self-interests.
The best example of crony capitalism is the central bank. Our founders were adamant about the danger of a central bank (exception: Hamilton) and for many good reasons. In fact, it was not legal under the Constitution. But the banks had begun an immoral practice called fractional reserves on demand deposits; it just means that they were loaning out the money that you were supposed to have access to, at any time, on demand. But it was not there. In fact, they only kept a small percentage on hand and lent out the rest, to earn interest.
That created a real problem when more than a few folks wanted their money at the same time. The bank simply did not have it. When people realized that, they hustled to get their money out before it was all gone; that’s called a “run on the bank”. And the bank went bank-rupt. The citizens, of course, became very upset about this and demanded change.
For the banks, however, fractional reserves were very profitable, they could loan out ten or even twenty times as much as they took in! They were concerned that the practice might be outlawed (which is should have been, still should be). So a group of Princes, the heads of the largest banks, along with a conspiring Senator, retreated to Jekyll Island and hatched a plan for a central bank, one that they would control.
This was a tricky proposition, selling their scheme to the public, when they were the very folks perpetrating the fractional reserve scheme. They undertook, through their Senator buddy, a vast marketing campaign, claiming that this would protect the people (while carefully concealing the fact that it was the banks proposing it).
In the end, it worked. Congress was convinced to pass a Constitutional Amendment in 1913 that established a private central bank with power over the entire industry. Of course they chose a name that would disguise what it was – they called it the “Federal Reserve” to make it sound as if it is a Federal agency. And they allowed the President to name some directors to the Board to further enhance that illusion. But at the end of the day, it is a government condoned – not government controlled – monopoly on our banking system. The foxes gained control of the henhouse. To this day, over a hundred years later, the Federal Reserve has never had a true audit; much of what they do is done in complete secrecy.
Not only did the bankers benefit – some say they are the most powerful Princes of all – but the central bank also became the source of unlimited spending by the politicians, the means to trade favors and goodies and programs for votes.
Many other businesses and corporations would follow suit. We need only look at the insurance industry; healthcare; pharma; lawyers; Wall Street; the military; and the media for example. Have you noticed how Mark Zuckerberg is jockeying to do the same with social media?
Thus government and industry become entwined to the point where the elite crony capitalists, with their power and influence and money and lobbyists, have essentially become branches of our government. That is fascism, not capitalism. Do these Princes have more power than the people and the democratic process? Do they in fact control the democratic process?
Four. Seven Branches of Government
We initiated our Constitutional Republic with four branches; Congress was split into two branches with different purposes, one to represent the States (and appointed by the States) and the other to represent the people, elected by popular vote. In 1913, the Princes pruned one branch, through an Amendment, that had the effect of making Congress a single branch, still with two “houses”, but both with the same purpose, to serve the people, and chosen the same way, via the democratic process.
Crony Capitalist industries then became new branches. We now have at least seven. We saw how the bankers became, in effect, a major branch. Others would follow that blueprint, to use the force of government to their advantage and to sell that idea as “protecting the people.” We know that Wall Street, the Federal Reserve, and the three “official” branches are joined at the hip. But a couple of other branches deserve further attention.
The military industry. We were warned. President Washington advised us against foreign meddling. Adams said we shall not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. Eisenhower
That makes seven branches, and counting. There are other crony capitalist industries that benefit from, and effectively influence, our government, such as insurance and pharma to name just a couple. Not to mention the multitude of agencies – literally hundreds of them – that operate under the Executive Branch, bureaucrats who make and enforce laws yet who we never vote for.
When the government partners with the private sector, regardless of good intentions or short term benefits, it inevitably weakens, and eventually destroys, free markets and capitalism. At the same time it cripples the ability of our Republic, and our democratically elected representatives, to be impartial referees; they are corrupted. But the government Princes and the industry Princes gain power and privilege, status and wealth; the elite prosper at the expense of the populace – a story told and re-told through thousands of years of recorded history. A fate that the Idea of America hoped to prevent.
Five. Professional Politicians
One of the things that was taken for granted at the inception of America was that elected officials would do their civic duty, serve a term or two, “give back”, and then return to their careers. And a reality of life then was an average life expectancy of 40 years or less. Thus a minimum age of 35 for President implied a limited tenure. As did “lifetime” appointments to the Supreme Court.
There was a long period of time when our democratic process worked pretty well. We voted for President and Vice President, and we voted for our Representatives in the House. So long as the powers of the Executive Branch were held in check, as intended, and when we chose our Representatives based on principles, changing them as needed, and often, things generally kept us moving forward; the wealth, and the standard of living, increased at an incredible rate never before imagined. America, in spite of growing pains, missteps and challenges, was a miracle.
All of that happened, by the way, without xx see FFF xxxx
Beginning about a hundred years ago, in the tsunami of progressivism that washed across the world, many things began to change. One of them is that politics became a profession, a career for life, if they could but keep getting re-elected. I once attended a presentation by an outspoken “conservative” Federal Representative. After his talk, I asked him why he did not support term limits. His answer was that he had given up his medical practice and so now could not go back; obviously he had given it up for good, and had no plans to return. It struck how important it was, then, that he get re-elected – no matter what it took – otherwise he was unemployed with nowhere to go.
And so it is with the P xxx It has become a career not unlike acting, very Machavellian. Because to get elected, or stay elected, one must first be personable say what the constituency wants to hear, which requires constantly testing the winds, and changing course quickly when needed. It means making promises, regardless of the ability or intention to follow through. It takes great displays of outrage at competitors. And it requires becoming a master of deflection and doublespeak. And like a magician, the art of misdirection. The difference between the magician and the PP is that we know the the magic is not real; but with the PP many people believe what they are seeing and hearing is actually real.
Six. Political Parties
Another thing that was taken for granted at our founding was that there would always be multiple political parties, a free market of ideas and platforms and candidates from which the people could choose their reps In fact, many warned of the dangers of only having two parties. For many years, parties came and went, as did their candidates, in response to changing times and circumstances.
But in the 20th century the Democrat and Republican Parties became entrenched; they developed a monopoly on the democratic process. Technically that is a “duopoly” because there were two, not one. But even that distinction faded as more and more, no matter what Party was in power, they continued pretty much down the same path. Some call them two wings of the same bird. Or Republicrats. Or Rinos and Dinos.
Monopoly or duopoly, it matters not – they hold an iron grip on our democratic process by manipulating our choices; we routinely, and by design, have only two viable choices, all too often having to choose between bad and worse.
The Parties are stifle any third party or competitor by their sheer power and money, but more importantly by the simple fact that we do not require that the candidates have a majority of the votes (How did that happen? Isn’t that fundamental to the idea of democracy?). As it is, a President can be elected by a minority of the voters, like Nixon and Clinton with 43%, or George W Bush with 48%, as examples. So what happens when a serious third Party candidate arises, like Ross Perot in1992? Most of his votes, 19% of the total, came from people who otherwise would have voted for George H Bush, thus allowing Clinton to win with just 43%.
People realized the futility of voting for third (or fourth or fifth) party in that scenario; it only allows their less-favored candidate an opportunity to win, perhaps ensures it. In order to once again have a free market for political parties, we need the requirement of a majority, and a runoff election when no one achieves it.
Some argue for the sanctity of the Electoral College. I believe that it was put in place for purely practical reasons at the time, like the limited communications, with the side benefit, possibly, of protecting the interests of smaller States. They tell us that the big States would control the process; but don’t they already? When States like California give all of their electoral votes to one candidate, then aren’t they disenfranchising the rest of their voters?
For example, if roughly half of Californians vote, on average, that’s 20 million votes. And when only 25% of them vote Republican, that is still 5 million Republican votes. And those 5 million are more than the Republican votes (using 2016 as a guideline) of Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming and Utah – – combined! Yet the California Republicans are disenfranchised because all of the California Electoral votes went to the Democrat, which by the way discourages them from voting in the first place.
Any small State / big State “fairness” originally provided by the Electoral College system is outweighed by the sheer size of the larger States, their number of Electoral votes, and the subsequent disenfranchisement of the minority. I believe that the system should be scrapped in favor of a popular vote, with the caveat that we must also have a President elected by a majority, thus hold a runoff if no candidate gets a majority.
So the two Parties have a lock on the system – and our choices – from the beginning. But on the back end, in Congress, they also rule with an iron fist. When you make your choose who will “be your voice” in the House of Representative, you fully expect them to act and legislate on your behalf, to align with the people who elected them. “They work for us!” you hear often. But even if they want to, they cannot. First, the Representatives are required by their Party leaders, in order to be on a Committee, in order to have any say, to personally raise a specific amount of money for the Party, often in the tens or hundreds of thousands; the more one raises, the higher ranking committee he or she can be named to.
Then the Representatives are forced to vote along the national Party line, regardless of whether that aligns with the people they represent. Step out of line and be ostracized, unlikely to get re-elected. Pelosi and McConnell are famous for it, praised for their ability, even though that totally subverts the entire idea of representative democratic governance. And, of course, the Princes tightly control what can and cannot be debated, let alone voted on, in the House and the Senate. Thus real change never happens. It ain’t “democracy”. It’s not representative government.
Seven. Bureaucrats
“ . . . [our Ruler has] erected a multitude of New Offices and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people . . .”
– Declaration of Indepence, 1776
xxx Agencies from book xxx
not responsible FFF the agencies that we did not have prior – – in our democracy, we do not elect them, nor does Congress
Eight. Progress
America is still young. The Idea of America, and this experiment in the Rule of Law is only about 250 years in the making. As with anything new, the process is fraught with issues and unexpected challenges. But for the first 150 years or so, we did make remarkable progress. It was two steps forward and one step back, for sure, but there were some big steps. The initial data from that experiment was extremely positive!
But in the last 100 years or so, America changed direction, slowly, in seemingly little ways, at first, but gaining momentum with each decade. The basic premise of a limited Federal Government was dismantled; that government has, for many, become the solution to every possible issue. The Rights and liberties of Americans have been eroded, where not eliminated. As a nation, in the last there generations, we began taking two steps backward for every step forward.
Many still live under the illusion that we still are what we once were. Understandable because we would only hope that we still truly have a Rule of Law, that we still follow the letter and intent of the Constitution. Understandable because we truly fear the thought that we are no longer free.
But it is not the reality of where we are. If we are to solve our problems, we must first identify the issues, the symptoms, and then determine the underlying causes. We no longer have a Republic, we have morphed into a democratic socialist nation, a “Democracy”, where the democratic process itself has been distorted and dismantled. At the same time, free markets and capitalism have been crippled, where not destroyed, displaced by the fascist economy of crony capitalism.
In short, the Rule of Law has been displace, once again, by the Laws of Rulers. The elite Princes, legions of them, have control. To their benefit. And they know it. They are arrogant, narcissistic, self-annointed, and condescending. They view the rest of us as ignorant peasants.
PART THREE. Trump and Covid
One. The Donald
Donald Trump was a Prince before he decided to enter the world of politics. He was one of the elite, one of many who built on empire by leveraging debt, enabled by artificially low interest rates. He rubbed shoulders with all the other Princes of finance and politics, the crony capitalists, the media; he was a member of the club.
He also had that in-your-face New York attitude and bluster, something that many outside of New York find rude and objectionable, unbefitting of a President. So why did he have so much support? How was he elected President?
Full disclosure: I was not a Trump supporter; I did not vote for him. Not because of his tweets and attitude, but because I could not discern underlying principles that aligned with mine. Specifically, I do not think he understand basic economics; he believes that the government should interfere, should hold interest rates artificially low, and should be able to incur unlimited debt. On the other hand, I did like his intention to end forever wars overseas and to drain the swamp, although the other Princes would prevent him from doing that.
Moreover, we should have never gotten to a place in a free America where the President has so much power, is seen as the end-all and do-all, let alone a “savior” or a “nation changer”. That kind of power was to have been held exclusively by Congress. In fact, any return to the Idea of America, to liberty, would require decreasing the authority of the Executive Branch, with Congress reclaiming its Constitutional authority and assuming its responsibilities thereunder.
Two. Covid
It is said that the “Covid-19 Pandemic” changed America. I do not believe that; I think what changed America was our unprecedented response to this next new strain of coronavirus (of which there are many, including the common cold and the flu).
Some see it as a “Black Swan” event, unexpected and unpredictable. I am more skeptical, perhaps it is more like a General in search of a war? We must inquire: was it a Virologist in search of a pandemic? Was it a legion of authoritarians in search of an emergency?
I said from the start that perhaps it was not a Black Swan but rather a Phoenix, that powerful bird that would burn things down so that it might arise from the ashes.
Regardless, it have the effect of spreading mass fear, warranted or not. And thus providing the Princes, national and local, the excuse to exercise unprecedented, often un-Constitutional authority, and for extended periods of time. All the while remaining unaffected by their arbitrary mandates, deciding who was “essential” in our society, deciding who could do what, and what businesses would benefit or die.
It was also an excuse for incredible amounts of deficit spending – money they did not have – when America was already deep in debt. The first and biggest beneficiaries of that “money printing”, always and ever, are the government itself, the banks, and Wall Street. The elite benefit most. No surprise. At some point the price must be paid.
As Hemingway observed xxx first
If the Princes get desperate enough, if they can no longer prevent the bubble from bursting, the house of cards from collapsing, then will they declare war on a larger scale? Do I hear sabres rattling?
PART FOUR. Hope
One. The Glass
My observations in this book are admittedly alarming, if not negative. Some will say that it’s a “glass half full” analysis. Or that I must hate America. I have always maintained that it’s not a question of how full the glass is, but whether it is filling. Or leaking. Nothing is static; the only constant is change. Yes, we can look at the all of the “half full” aspects of America; they are abundant. We are, after all Americans, with a fabulous story. But in my opinion, the glass is cracked and leaking badly. So my purpose is to look at things from that perspective. In hopes that we might determine how to patch the crack and fill the glass. Or whether we need to replace it.
As far as hating America, my answer is simple: I love the Idea of America; it seems to me that a Rule of Law, a Republic held in check, and with a controlled democratic process, is the best way to govern, with the best results economically and socially for the greatest number of citizens. Every other system not only produces less prosperity for the citizens, but also is, or becomes, a class system where the elite benefit.
Criticism can be constructive, if its purpose is to identify problems, weaknesses. mistakes and shortcomings, with the intent of fixing them, of making things better. That is my purpose and my goal in writing this. If I hated America, I would not bother; there are plenty of people destroying it without my help.
Humans become addicted to all sorts of things. To money and gambling, to work and religion, to eating and sugar, to caffeine and heroin – and to power over others. It’s a mental condition, where the inner mind, the subconscious, that deepest survival part of our brain, seeks some reward that over-rules reason. Addicts continue to do things that their rational mind knows will harm them, or harm others, yet have not learned to control that urge, that obsession.
That mental condition can be overcome, with help and a desire to do so. Punishment and prison, unless permanent, rarely help at all.
It’s helpful to understand addiction as a mental condition not only from the standpoint of how we treat people with addictions that wind up hurting others, but also with recognizing “lesser” addictions in ourselves and others. It might even be said that we all have our addictions to something.
The point is that we can become addicted to “security” in the face of chaos and the unknown, or when in fear. Our inner mind may tell us to run, to seek safety at any cost. People become infatuated, addicted, to an illusion of utopia, and to the false promise that governments can legislate it into being, through force. Thus logic has little chance of changing their minds; pointing out the harm they are doing to themselves and to others is .
At some point, don’t we have to realize and understand that our own safety and security is ultimately up to us? That our
enemy of my enemy ends justify means…
Two. Representative Government
“If hope is to be found, it will be found with those of us who do not rely on politicians that promise to fix what is wrong but instead do their part, at their local levels, to right the wrongs and fix what is broken. I am thinking of the builders, the thinkers, the healers, the helpers, the educators, the creators, the artists, the activists, the technicians, the food gatherers and distributors, and every other person who does their part to build up rather than destroy. Until we can own that truth, until we can forge our own path back to a world where freedom means something again, we’re going to be stuck in this wormhole of populist anger, petty politics, and destruction that is pitting us one against the other. In that scenario, no one wins.”
– John W. Whitehead, The Rutherford Institute
It has become clear that we are not going to effect real change by “choosing the right people” to represent us in Congress. In the first place, the democratic process itself is warped in many ways. In the second place, we cannot vote for the millions of bureaucrats under the Executive Branch. But most importantly, the Princes are simply unlikely to give up their power. to impose term limits upon themselves, for example, or to eliminate taxes on income, or to audit the Federal Reserve, or work towards fiscal responsibility. We can and should, of course, try. But the message, more and more, is to act locally, to “be the change.” Walk the talk. Do what needs to be done rather than insisting that others – especially government – do it.
We can, of course, and should, still attempt to elect representatives who operate from principle, who support the Idea of America, who sill stand up for our fundamental Rights, for liberty and transparency.
There are some small steps that could have a huge impact going forward, if we could but get them done:
- Audit the Federal Reserve. The central bank has not had a true audit since it was created in 1913, certainly not by the Generally Accepted Accounting Standards that the government demands of everyone else. Much of the Fed’s operations are done in complete secrecy, and the audit would validate that they operating in our best interests. If they are.
- Term Limits. There is no valid reason, nor long-term benefit, to the citizens in a free society, of having permanent Princes. It only serves to enable them to trade goodies and special treatment for votes, and grant them more power and wealth.
- Abolish the IRS. Get rid of taxes on income, the insane monster that we call the Tax Code, and the IRS. The revenue to the Federal Government can be replaced, for dozens of good reasons, by a national sales tax (aka the FairTax).
Any of those might potentially bootstrap us back towards liberty, might provide the first steps. But at some point, we are going to have bigger changes, and will have to face the fact that the Constitution is dying, and that it must be resuscitated and re-assessed. Again, the Princes in Congress are unlikely to do that, but the Constitution itself provides another means, through a Convention of States. It will have to be done if we are to salvage the Idea of America. The Constitution was never perfect in the first place, and has been misinterpreted and corrupted over time.
Like death, its something that we don’t want to think about, but what happens when those efforts prove fruitless, when acting locally and effecting real reforms simply do not help? When, instead, the Princes become ever more oppressive and intolerable? What then?
Three. When Government does not Represent Us
“We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.”
– Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln said a lot of good things; he was a great orator and a polished politician, but he might be the ultimate example of “do as I say, not as I do.” Because, ironically, he perverted the Constitution – ignored and violated it – as much or more than any President before or since. With good intentions? Perhaps. But ends do not automatically justify means.
To his quote, above, though, what happens if all of the people that we elect, or at least the majorities, continue to pervert the Constitution? What happens when our ability to replace those people is severely restrained by iron-fisted monopolies on our Political choices and by a malfunctioning political process? What if the system becomes such that the people are simply unable to overthrow the perverters? What alternatives remain when the nation is so divided that compromise and coming together becomes impossible? Is our only option now the course that Lincoln chose, a horrible, bloody and costly war to determine which side prevails, to determine whether this country continues toward authoritarianism or returns to the ideal of liberty that Lincoln espoused? It set a frightening precedent, and clearly violated the principle that created an America in the first place:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
Some contend that it’s settled- secession is “illegal”, that Lincoln decided it once and for all. Really? Does a President have that authority, under the Rule of Law? Does that not contradict the very ideal of our Declaration of Independence? Does that not violate the letter and intent of our founding, a voluntary union of independent autonomous States?
If the unrelenting progressive authoritarian movement, with its cancel culture, thought control, propaganda, censorship, and destruction of individual Rights, cannot be halted through the democratic process, then what options are left for we who insist on liberty? The last thing we want is war, to fight and kill other Americans, even family, as Lincoln thought was necessary in 1861. What when we just insist upon the Rights that Lincoln himself, and our founders, guaranteed us as Americans?
“Coming together”, for todays progressives, means believe as we do; say nothing that disagrees with or contradicts us; use only the words that we approve of – and do as we say. That, in their world, is the only way to “compromise”. And if you are not willing to come together in that manner, if you will not buy into the dogma that skin color is the most important thing, then you are an enemy and a racist,
That can only divide us further unless we are, in fact, willing to give up on our Bill of Rights and our desire to live free. If we are to raise the white flag and submit, allow the Princes complete control over our lives. Because that’s where it leads; that is where we are headed. It is heart breaking indeed to see so many Americans convinced that the Princes are benevolent, being led, like lemmings, by the sweet music of safety and security in all things, without personal responsibility. And unwilling or unable to see the cliff that they are being led over.
The only peaceful resolution, it seems to me, is secession. To re-structure into smaller “nations” unified on principles, yet each respecting the other’s right to self govern. Let people choose which one to be part of, where they would rather live. Would that be hard? Create many challenges? Have lots of downsides, and costs? Of course!
But the alternative of another “Civil War”, which was in reality a war over secession, a war to prevent secession, seem even harder, more challenging, and more costly. With modern weaponry and technology, would certainly cause more waste, destruction and death than Lincoln’s War (where more Americans died than an all the wars since, combined – at the hands of other Americans).
I do not support a revolution, nor anarchy, nor violence. But I do believe that we have a right to self-defense, and an obligation to protect ourselves and our families, our lives and our liberties. So if the divide cannot be breached, if we cannot effect change through our democratic process, if the country becomes ever more fractured, then I would certainly prefer secession over war.
Economic collapse is becoming ever more likely. Our fiat money, our unsustainable promises, and the growing debt bubble must at some point collapse. That would “justify” even more draconian authoritarian measures. And divide us further.
The Princes are prone to “save the day”, and their own behinds, by initiating a large scale war against countries that they have convinced us are our mortal enemies. And it won’t be the Prince’s fault; they’ll ensure that the enemy “starts it”. It’s the the theory: an enemy, and a great war against them, will re-unite us all in a common effort. With the “economic benefit of pulling us out of the depression”. Of course, they only look at one dimension of the cost-benefit analysis, the death and desolation, the cruelty and death, the hell of war.