Anatomy of Slavery
". and the rich man also died and was buried. And in hell he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said. Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I keep on being tormented in this flame. But Abraham said. between us and you there keeps on being fixed a great gulf so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence." Luke 16: 22b-25a, 26b
Achtung! Achtung! Der Führer spricht! (Attention! Attention! The Führer speaks!). These words, always preceded by the crackling static of awakening loudspeakers, were the opening words preparing streetcar inmates for a scintillating Nazi enlightenment. All were usually short and always geared to be complete, or nearly so, between stops. Any location, any opportunity, not just streetcars, able to accommodate large crowds, was exploited for propaganda purposes; for the arbiters of madness had discovered crowded conditions somehow awakened in Adam's progeny the tendency to respond aberrantly and to be highly susceptible to subliminal messages. Repeated daily, they were not replaced by proclamations of new Nazi wonders until propaganda formulae had indicated that most had heard them, but they all always ended with the same epilogue ". and this is all YOU need to know for today."
It was the ultimate display of contempt, the finest denouement of an insult. I thought it, therefore, instructive to remember our old monster, Cain's patronymic, by revealing here its friendliest attribute - its mastery of contempt.
So let us then begin by noticing how demonic the exploitation of crowded conditions is. No one seemed to mind to be the recipient of such disrespect; such is the fruit of living in pens and death merchants know how to make use of it. I do not know why crowded conditions debilitate rational thought, they just do. But just as it is not required to understand the intricate mechanics of electricity in order to make use of it, so it is no different here. Perhaps the old gospel song about fifty miles of elbow room and the old cowboy hymn not wanting to be fenced in, might give us a glimpse, for they plaintively reflect a deep desire for privacy, the foundation of all freedoms.
Even though signs clearly warn all prairies come with fences now, people still yearn for them. But, married to a lack of caution, they entered a dream world, where sadly they exchanged pens for prairies and became willing to become subject to mind rape which in time earned them the disrespect thoroughly due them. Thus it was the contentment to live in pens that overcame their longing for prairies and fashioned the ethos that ripened into doom.
Now, before I accentuate this most virulent of insults, the face of contempt, I must first explicate the difference between the informal and the formal use of the German word for "you" employed here. The former is used only for family and friends and the latter for acquaintances and strangers and then always connotes respect and deference. A misuse of either would imply a joke in the former's case and an insult in the latter's case. The word in the German is Sie (pronounced "zee"), always capitalized, and what makes it difficult to translate is that it always implies respect and in spite of centuries-old use has still not lost its force. It is somewhat analogous to Sir or even Your Lordship, thus the bizarrerie is found in seeing respect, i.e. Sie, and contempt, i.e. you have no need to know more, juxtapose.
If anyone can picture the court proceedings for General von Witzleben's and his coconspirators' trial for the July 1944 failed assassination attempt on Hitler, he should have a perfect understanding of this mixture of insult and deference. The accused were forced to wear trousers without belts or suspenders, many sizes too large for them, making it impossible to gesticulate, because it required the use of both hands to remain dressed while standing before court. The vilest expletives were hurled at them, but each sentence was prefaced with the formal use of Sie. Anyone who can understand the implication here need not read any further, because the use of such contradiction in the same sentence carries the highest form of contempt anyone is able to express. A rapist's only motivator is contempt not sexual lust, and the political rapist is no different. How else can you explain the Gestapo man, who, armed only with a swagger stick, gave his midnight knock summoning the occupant to present himself for destruction and suffered no resistance? So contempt then is the quintessential _expression of the ultimate version of slavery and its most compassionate characteristic. It cannot be otherwise.
Mention slavery and most, if not all, envision a black man in chains and a PERMISSION, permission spelled all capital letters, tag suspended from his neck informing anyone and everyone that he had his master's permission to be where he was.
While this is unquestioningly an insidious version of slavery, it is by no means the worst. The one in view here is of even greater monstrosity, alone for the simple reason that it includes the entire human race, but also because it is of a voluntary origin on the part of most who foist it on those choosing to live by other means. Being governed by permission, either direct or indirect, i.e. required or implied, is the very embodiment of this most egregious form of slavery - a madness beyond comprehension. No one notices it anymore; Americans have not only become inured to it, but have now embraced it with relish. All because everybody is mesmerized by superficiality and no longer cares to analyze the very structure, which supports the edifice. Forgotten is the ancient truth of which the Founding Fathers warned that darkness is ever preceded by twilight, where all monstrosities are conceived. Lust then for instant self-gratification is the siren's song whose lyrics have transformed light into darkness.
So we must linger here to discover how these things came to be. It was conceived in ignorance, bred in venom, raised in madness, and expressed in violence. Once ensconced, no end seems determined for it - it is forever. Unlike slavery with chains, where all limits are clearly defined and thus project a sense of direction, this form of slavery, depending on the kind of permission, constantly tantalizes with the illusion that you are free. And the administrators of this malignancy wreak havoc employing that illusion. Even Ithuriel's spear is of insufficient magic to defrock it of that illusion and to transform it to its proper madness.
The institutionalized provoking to lunacy is so deeply entrenched that a myriad of explications would be needed to just reveal it and still would not be sufficient to find that all illusive Sesame word which could dispel its horror. So we must here take a brief look at the human soul to understand the metamorphosis of the American people from at one time being the greatest, fiercest, most fearless, most gracious, and most self asserting people to now the most debauched, because it has a direct bearing on the conditions in our land and furnishes a most lucid explanation how a people first becomes great and then loses its greatness.
Both, absolutism and its antonym relativism are conceptually alien to man. Absolutism, as the culmination of infinity, lies beyond man's ability to comprehend unless he can quantify it in a Person beyond himself. Reject such a Person and absolutism will default to relativism. But relativism, because of its antonymous relationship to absolutism, also defies man's understanding. However, because it is reflexive, man can and will quantify it in himself and then cloak it in mysticism making it the liturgy of socialism, a religion officiated on the alters of safety and preached in the temples of government.
If we should take even only a casual look, we should discover that the tenets of socialism allow for addressing group interests only - one interest per occasion per group. Some perceived misconstruction, somewhere, will initiate one group's lament and result in an effort to have it ameliorated. What is never explained is that whatever solution is proposed will have to be at the expense of those who found no occasion to complain. For example, does not the environmental mania, most assiduously employed in haunting and destroying our nation today, clearly demonstrate government's catering to the request of one group - worshippers of nature - at the expense of another - property owners? Thus socialism exposes itself to be a religion, vile and vicious like all religions, in which man is the supreme being. Its _expression finds acceptance in the notion that man by man's efforts is able to mitigate man's problems and thus begins to codify the concept of helping people. What is not said and always blithely overlooked is the fact that the help proffered is and must be extracted from others.
The natural reluctance of many to resist surrendering their resources involuntarily to others must be suppressed by means of stolen power, government's power to mandate compliance by prohibiting to act on that unwillingness and then, when the persistent demand to give produces the invariably violent opposition, by destruction. Thus socialism first robs people of their free will and then of their lives, all under the supervision of the high priests diffusing the incense of altruism. No imagination, I believe, is necessary to see the equation with tyranny here.
All democracies to have ever haunted the institutions of man, and no exceptions are known to me, make socialism their dominant component. Thus it is clearly demonstrated that democracy equals tyranny. And so it should be, if we have proved contempt to be the most compassionate characteristic of slavery and slavery to be the heart and soul of socialism. The interesting question then arises, does tyranny equal democracy? And the answer is "yes", provided tyranny is predicated on socialism; otherwise you either have despotism or anarchy.
Perhaps we do well here to reflect for a moment on the fact that no two democracies are equal to each other and that their inequality results from the degree of socialism incorporated at inception. Thus the difference finds _expression only in their application, not in their implication and, therefore, in time all will achieve a level of incredible bestiality. What is happening now in our country makes a return to Nazism look like regaining paradise lost. Even motivated by disinterest it would be difficult indeed to reject the notion that some alchemist has been experimenting these last four and a half millennia seeking to determine the perfect mixture of socialism that would enable him to subdue the entire inhabited world and it boggles the mind to realize that permission, obscured by the illusion of safety, is the legerdemain by means of which this most insidious version of slavery is imposed.
I should also take this occasion to amend the distinction I sought to make in my "Anatomy of Freedom" essay between Nazism, communism, fascism, and democracy. The implicatory distinctions remain unamended. But it would have served to a better purpose, if instead of focusing on socialism's application I had focused on its implication, recognizing the fact that all democracies are centered on socialism. Then the four versions above, respectively, would have been branded as Nazi democracy, Bolshevik democracy, fascist democracy, and the American democracy - the American democracy being by far the worst.
Either way it should be painstakingly clear at this point that a democracy is an institution in which government is master and the people are slaves, helots. Furthermore, it is an institution, which cannot address individual interests, only group interests, because its thrust is to secure the maximum good for the greatest number of people, securing it for some and extracting it from others, thus not for all. Therefore, its only projection lies in providing security for those to whom the promise is made. Thus security, or its cognitive safety, provides the illusion that invests democracy with an imagined ecstasy.
But what value does safety possess? On the surface it seems to present a sense of euphoria, but is this true, can it be true?
Atlantis was Germany's most successful raider during WWII. Disguised as an ordinary freighter in the south Pacific her effectiveness and especially her security lay in the shock her disguise inflicted on her prospective victim. Once, during her brief but devastating rampage on the high seas, having rendezvoused with the Scharnhorst, one of Germany's mightiest battle ships, to be resupplied, her captain describes the incredible euphoria born of security delivered that one night, while resting in the shadow of the Scharnhorst's mighty 11 inch guns.
I believe this is the same sense of euphoria today's Americans have come to accept, when they sense a seeming symbiosis between power and safety. While there is a relationship between power and safety, it can, however, be efficacious only, when that power is active power, that is, when it is responsive to the interdiction of man. But when it issues from government, power is passive, it cannot be responsive to anything, because government is institutionalized and, therefore, implacably committed to only project power. Thus people foolishly overlook the fact that governments do not, cannot think. No government was ever designed to think, only to react. And it is for this reason and this reason alone that governments cannot provide safety for anyone.
This is the reason why government, in order to maintain its dominance over the people, is constantly searching for or creating crises: war, crime, environment, and now terrorism, all of which appear to give government a perpetual reason to usurp the people's freedoms.
Further complicating the notion of power in government is the fact that no government has rights or power. By nature government can be granted authority only and here, on our shores, the American government was the only government ever to be structured from the very beginning to be curtailed in this fashion. But because of carelessness on the American people's part, government was able to acquire what it was never intended to posses - power. Power, any power, when subsumed, renders an institution incapable to exercise thought. And it reaffirms the very fact that governmental power cannot translate into safety, because to exercise its power a government must impose it on the people expressed through permission, either direct or indirect, and power expressed through permission is stolen power, stolen power is imposed power and power imposed is derelict and derelict power cannot assure safety.
Nowhere is the immensity of this power's dereliction more poignantly displayed than in government's ownership of our children. I would be hard pressed indeed to understand how anyone could fail to notice this self-evident truth seeing it is so clearly exposed by the governmentally restricted authority parents are now permitted to exercise over their own children, all of it in the name of safety. And yet only benign power, power vested in him, who is by nature sovereign, can provide safety. And who is it whom nature equipped to be the sovereign? In the family it is the parent and in a nation it is the citizen!
Either kind, direct or indirect, when proposed under the auspices of power, creates the illusion of comfort inherent in safety. Americans of today appear to lust for this comfort and, in order to obtain it, amused by the trifles of the moment, are willing to be dominated by madness. And madness both begets and is begotten. There is an alliance then between lust and madness, a confederacy which only reason can destroy. But as long as the lust for safety prevails, reason is dethroned and the future of our land remains bleak and pregnant with destruction.
And so beguiled by the seductive cooing and enchanting wooing of our nannies, the appointed mistresses of our safety, almost all have become infatuated with an imagined euphoria infusing the word democracy. In the initial stages of devolution of the American Republic into a democracy sunshine, a remnant of our Republic, obscured the inevitable disaster to come. Blinded by the lust for comfort, people praised the initial sunshine and now ignore the brutal carnage of the hurricane. And those who have noticed the hurricane presume it to have its source in tyranny, all in a feverish effort to hold democracy to be without fault. But there is no occasion for presuming here, tyranny is the epitome of democracy. Yet almost no one understands. Every district of my reasoning is assailed, when I must realize how intense the blindness even of those who forge words most skillfully in defense of freedom, but cannot distinguish tyranny from democracy and constantly encourage others to embrace this tragic misperception.
This then is the way it is always - the result of deception, the cruelty of ignorance sustained by the inveigled and proposed and promoted by those who, intoxicated by power lust, navigate contemptuously over an endless ocean of broken laws, constantly in disobedience to the mandates of our Constitution. These are the very recreants, Constitutional termites, who play the siren's song and reify the lie whose life is the lie, which, if removed, would leave them bereft of any purpose.
There are those who love the siren's song, who love the lie and do not obey the truth! What of them? They lost the right to walk the streets of our golden land, because they blithely refused to discern the ever lengthening shadow of death. Forever oblivious to the hurricanes of destruction lashing at the sea of absurdities, generating giant waves inexorably eroding the bulwark of our liberties, spewing massive clouds of billowing mist of venom, they do not notice our shores are flooded and the germ of socialism has ripened into stupor. And so it is that daily the vast realm of madness receives fresh colonies of the beguiled and of the ignorant who for the unnatural wantonness of illusionary comfort are willing to have their birthrights proscribed. Amazing, how through the awesome sound of disintegrating freedoms the lowing of the masses can still be heard, clamoring for
And what are the alleged benefits of that comfort? Safety promised with invisible ink. How can government promise you safety, assuming it truly can, unless it knows who and where you are?
Malcolm, with whom I worked for many years, owed the Federal government in 1943, as I recall, the total sum of $12.43 in income tax, which he did not pay. However, his debt was forgiven him for services rendered, rendered in a GI's uniform, when he, attached to Patton's army, purged Germany of her Nazi disease, but, unfortunately, not of the virus.
Coming into the devastated city of Frankfurt a/Main, where long ago Franks crossed the river, he found a small, red book, entitled "Kraft durch Freude" (Strength through Joy), extolling the virtues of the Nazi democracy. Page 20 displays a table: five columns, five rows, plus several summaries. The columns, from left to right identify, respectively, vacation lengths, years 1937, 1936, 1935, and 1934.
I will describe only row three to demonstrate the magnitude of madness, all under the guise of providing comfort. It should be of ample potency to illustrate the horror of a democracy, here in the summarizing of vacation time of one-week's duration. 52,732 Germans in 1937 took a one-week vacation. In 1936 there were 52,576, 38,472 in 1935, and 22,376 in 1934. The intent had been to accentuate the marvels of National Socialism, the hallmark of the Nazi democracy. But there is a sinister madness hidden in this Nazi marvel and I will not take the chance that someone will not see it. But I must ask is there truly anyone who will not wonder how it could be possible for a governmental institution to determine that 52,732 people took a one-week vacation in 1937? Is this not revealed to be the embodiment of permission, of raw terror, of absolute slavery? Think! In 1937 fifty-two thousand seven hundred and thirty-two people had to ask for permission to take a one-week vacation. All this without the aid of computers or any other marvel of modern technology!
And this was not all. Other references make it abundantly clear that not only was permission to take a vacation required, but the prospective vacationer also had to indicate, where he intended to go and what he intended to do there upon arrival. Descriptions of Nazi wonders are teeming with information on who was doing what, where and when and very often including references to age groups, professions, income, whether married or unmarried. The intrusion into personal lives was staggering and beyond comprehension, but absolutely necessary to create the illusion of being able to provide safety. What could here demonstrate with greater poignancy the virulence of slavery? Almost no one ever complained. We better learn soon, for this is our future if we let it!
Permission! Permission! Permission! The hallmark of slavery, the raw substance of a democracy! My parents needed permission from the power peddlers of the Nazi democracy to marry and would not have received it, if one had had even only a trace of Jewish blood. All this for safety and comfort. What peculiarity of mind can allow to embrace such a monstrosity and is unwilling to desist forcing an unholy matrimony between a democracy and a republic!
Philosophy is alleged to give understanding here. Apparently, standing on a hilltop, contemplating the reasons for the carnage on a battlefield below, supposedly imbues the contemplator with unobstructed clarity to see the truth of it all. So it is that I have been challenged to submit to superior philosophizing on more than one occasion. I have read many of the greats and find them all horribly wanting - all of it dribbling gibberish. Philosophy, therefore, has always been for me nothing more than intellectual masturbation. It is to science what art is to the heartbeat of a nation's longevity, i.e. its strength - useless.
But sometimes one erupts with singular lucidity, who, like a blind chicken finding an occasional seed, can compile words of such incredible profundity that require giving him deference. One such man was Eric Hoffer, a San Francisco longshoreman who gained notoriety in the seventy's. "The basic test of freedom," he had once said, "is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do!"
I do not know for certain whether he meant to say what I had believed he wanted to say, but I will be generous and accede to him the essence of the truth, expressed here in sarcasm. For if we use his definition, we must conclude that we are no longer free, for we can do nothing anymore using personal, unencumbered volition, because everything we do as well as everything we have is now by permission. We are now free not to disobey our government.
Perhaps we should stop here for a moment to interrupt counting barbarians at our gates. Let us in stead focus on what the Founding Fathers had assembled here, for then we should without doubt have become able to accentuate slavery's perils and to truly demonstrate its unmitigated horrors. But first we must dwell on the tenets of the American Republic, because only then can we truly come to understand the vileness of voluntary slavery. I have no illusion everyone will come to fully and completely understand or to embrace everything that is said here, because I know only too well that only he who has seen the monster's face can be a veteran of destruction. But at least we will have entered the monster's foyer.
Be it then remembered that the American Republic was of course the only true republic to have ever left an imprint on the pages of history. First though, we need to realize that many nations over the course of history laid claim to being a republic. These, however, as we shall see, were all illegitimate claims. But I will allow for them, since they to some degree accepted the autonomy of the various member states.
The fundamental concept of a republic is embedded in the notion that its governmental structure is a conglomeration of autonomous and sovereign states or countries. However, in all of them, except for the American Republic, that conglomeration was accomplished through conquest or imposed by other mandated means, with the conquering nation maintaining its hegemony over those it had conquered and then becoming the central government in which the interests of all were to be represented. Thus the central government of all pseudo-republics had preceded their unification.
In the case of the American Republic we have an entirely different unfolding. Here was no conquering nation. The conglomeration had been voluntary. Thirteen independent, sovereign and autonomous States agreed to form a union. After sanctioning the agreement, the groundwork for a central government was then laid and established to be different and subservient to them.
The concept of an armed populous had been the very basis for accepting the challenge to claim and secure independence and had already been a condition present in the colonies. Codifying the right to be armed and accepting it to be a right having its origin in heaven was only a matter of first formulating and then certifying it as the Second Amendment. In addition, and typical of the American Republic only, was the public recognition of an Authority beyond man, the Author of Liberty, the Majesty of heaven, to Whom everybody in the nation, especially those to whom authority to govern had been granted, was responsible, thus enchaining the new Republic and levying obedience upon its institutors.
Then, but forgotten today, it was understood that each State has two components - people and legislature. Both were to be represented in the central, i.e. Federal, government and should, therefore, have the right and the authority to choose those by whom they wanted to be represented there - Representatives for the people and Senators for the legislature.
Two Senators for each State would assure equality among the States and prevent one State from gaining supremacy over the others, while exercising their natural authority to choose their Senators would assert and secure hegemony vested in the several States over the Federal government.
All these are essential ingredients of the American Republic. Break, alter, or remove any one of them and the Republic is destroyed. If the people would not surrender their suzerainty, would keep the watch, this cherished amalgam would remain the land of the free and the home of the brave forever. But they did not. Beguiled by the Python's wisdom they listened to the siren's song and came to believe safety to be an essential element of freedom. In 1913 they ratified the 17th Amendment and so destroyed the American Republic. No one, since then, has lived in a Republic, but countless, even patriots, refuse to accept it, simply, because afraid, they refuse to distinguish between dusk and darkness.
What is it then that happened here? The citizen was master of his government and the emblazoned phrase "of the people" affirmed that supremacy. Note, the phrase is non-exclusionary. All citizens are included. No one is excluded. It is this single most distinction that attests to the fact that the American Republic truly espoused individual freedoms and could, therefore, based on its structure, never address itself to group interests. We can see then how inimical the American Republic and the American democracy are. They could never stand on common ground without the democracy seeking to destroy the Republic. Whether it would succeed would depend on the people's resolve, because resolve, the _expression of free will, is the only sustaining power of the American Republic. But free will, as events in our country have proved, without the help of heaven, has no abatis behind which to remain immune against derelict power, while derelict power, sustained by the serpent's guile, is the animating power of democracy.
Again, in the American Republic the citizen is master and government is servant. The God-given right to be armed, asserted in the all-inclusive phrase "of the people", assures the citizen's mastery and thus his freedoms. In a democracy, by contrast, government is master and the citizen is slave and, therefore, cannot have any freedom, because the master can only attempt to alleviate group, not individual, concerns. It is this the most awesome distinction which explains why the Bill of Rights cannot survive in this or any democracy. It must and it will be destroyed there. There is no choice! Thus juxtaposing a democracy and the Republic is like juxtaposing hell and heaven. And there is a semaphore, clearly visible from anywhere - a gulf. A gulf is fixed between the two such that no one can cross from the one side to the other nor can anyone cross from the other to the one.
I believe we would do well to linger here again and reflect on and then summarize what we have noted so far. For we have seen there is an interrelationship of sorts between the American Republic, the American democracy, sovereignty, slavery, power, and safety.
Let me then begin by recalling that he who allows is the sovereign and he who is allowed is the servant and also that he who forbids is the tyrant and he who is forbidden is the slave. With these definitions firmly in mind we should discover that true sovereignty can only be codified in the American Republic. The phrase "of the people" excludes no one and derives its fire from the assertion that a God-given, not a man-given, right to keep and bear arms has bestowed sovereignty upon the citizen and servitude upon his government which, to perform its service, has been granted authority to discharge the obligations entrusted to it. It is the citizen then who allows and it is government, which is allowed. Group rights, group interests, therefore, can find no fertile soil here; these can find accreditation only in a democracy. And we should ever be mindful of the fact that the only reason we still refer to a Bill of Rights is, because it is a remnant of the American Republic and survived to date only because of its God-given origin.
In a democracy government is the one who forbids. There naturally intended authority has been rejected and replaced by power no government had ever been designed to possess. Since here, in a democracy, government can only forbid, or only permit, government is the master and the citizen of necessity the slave. Therefore, it cannot allow for personal freedoms as embodied in a Bill of Rights. A Bill of Rights, in a democracy then, must be destroyed since it is in violent opposition to governmental power. And that is the very reason for the incessant attack on these cherished lights of our freedoms for these last nearly forty years and explains the ever deeper growing intrusions into our daily lives as the light of freedom becomes ever dimmer. Group interests are the only concerns addressable in democracy and that only under the illusion of providing safety. It cannot then, because of its very nature, secure, promote or project freedoms nor provide safety, because governmental power is passive, that is reactive power.
That brings us then to the concept of power. Power occurs in two editions - active and passive. The difference between them is of enormous importance, for it defines the origin of true safety. Active power is power responsive to an individual's needs. It can thus be brought to bear only by a free man, because only a free man can determine his needs and act without permission. Then to be able to make efficacious use of power, it must lie between the citizen and the danger. Thus only then can power provide safety, for only then can it be a real protection against danger.
In contrast, when power is passive, it cannot be brought to bear against danger, because passive power is institutional power and, therefore, non-responsive to rational analysis. Passive power thus lies on the far side of danger. That is to say danger now interposes between the slave and the power he needs to provide safety for himself. Thus safety is an illusion. Governmental power can only react. It can react either to danger or to the threat of danger, real, imagined, or contrived. And that is the reason why homeland security is both madness and menace. It is madness, because its passive power can react only after the danger has been exposed and thus could not protect and it is a menace, because in reacting to the threat of danger countless people will perish in the maelstrom sown and reaped in a quest for safety. Safety itself will thus become the very battlefield where many will pay the price for having surrendered their sovereignty and the only thing that will have made sense is the power wielded by those who are irrevocably overwhelmed by the lust to rule.
Having recently exploited indirect permission to go on a cruise, everybody, my wife and I included, were summoned, upon returning, to a large hall on board. There we received instructions on how to disembark. "You will list all the items you have purchased," we were told, "and why will you list them all? Because the IRS says so and they have all the guns!" What other words can I repeat, bad English as they are, to show how controlled every phase of our daily lives has become? Does this not say it all?
Be it affirmed then that we have only two choices. Either you are master or you are slave. There is no other choice. If you are not the one, then you are the other and thus you can most easily determine in what form of government you find yourself to reside. If you are master you are in the American Republic, where government is servant; if you are not master, then you are slave and you are in a democracy, where government is master. And who is master? Only he who requires no permission from anyone, least of all from his servant! It is the difference between heaven and hell.
Heaven and hell! How appropriate an analogy! Fifty years ago, when I came to these prairies of my mind in my quest to be free from domination by others, the citizen still reigned supreme even though by then the relation between States and Federal government had become inverted. America, as it would be some day, turned out to be prelude to heaven for me. All are invited to come; nothing would be required from them except to come through the front door and to accept a new and better citizenship. And so too exited and too thrilled to exploit the limits of rulership, even though not yet a citizen, I had not yet become familiar with what had happened forty years before. I heard rumblings, but was not clearly attuned to them and was, therefore, willing to dismiss them as impossibilities, because, so went my reasoning, why would a free people ever want to give up its freedoms? I still do not have a real answer here, not even today. I know how, but not why! Apathy, blindness, and forgetfulness were then words committed to another dictionary.
Never did it occur to me then that someday I would be praying for an angel with a flaming sword and to note that the darkness that has overtaken our land today could easily compete with the darkness once, long ago, imposed on Egypt, when pharaoh, intoxicated with recalcitrance, defied God.
I know there are those who are comfortable being children of the government and to intrude into their neighbor's home to disenfranchise him there of his "surplus funds" at the point of a law, rather than at the point of a gun, and call it democracy. I do not choose to live this way, but I think I now understand the unnatural infatuation only too many have with the word: it allows the votives of this madness to rob their neighbors without suffering a broken conscience and to believe they established easy credit for entrance into heaven.
Then this holy promontory between the shining seas was a land of self-asserting people in love with freedom; then robbing your neighbor was not the American way of life. And when I first realized what destructive forces had darkened the minds of my fellow Americans, I frantically sought to reawaken the old spirit of magnificence which I presume still slumbers in their hearts. But apathy had overpowered them and they showed themselves to be too reluctant to leave Lethe's shores. In stead they thought to find me wrong by disagreement, some partially, some completely, some violently, some indignantly seeing their superior philosophical abilities bearing no fruit and then retreating into silence, unwilling to pursue the search for light and truth. But most proved content to just lament the terrible daily onslaught on our liberties even though they must have realized by now that each lament only exacerbated our destruction and did not stop the carnage.
Thus I am reminded of a man who has discovered his beloved dog has been infested with a huge colony of ticks. Incensed and enraged he instructs these pathogens in a stentorian voice to henceforth and forevermore remove themselves from his dog. But the next day, when he discovers they not only did not leave, but increased instead, he only shows himself to be content to repeat the instructions of the day before, in the same stentorian voice, and seems willing to remain engaged in this fruitless effort forever.
Our nation, the only nation on earth, where true freedom once caused oceans to gleam in iridescent splendor, is reeling under the onslaught of a people gone mad. What I find difficult to understand is that, with the exception of only a few, no one wants to accept that you cannot solve a problem, unless you have come to know its nature, its source, and the reason why the tree of our freedoms is allowed to wither and to die. That is why I sought here so feverishly to show to such depth how a people is beguiled, how our Republic was debauched, and who it was that became enraged by freedom and also why. Fully comprehending this is required, if we are to have hope to see the true luster of our stars again.
Is there anyone who doubts there never even would have been an America, if the Colonists had been content to just stand there and shout, the British are coming, the British are coming? As it was, they did what needed to be done in their day; they went for their guns, loaded, aimed, and fired. Is it then not obvious that we too cannot just stand here and lament our Bill of Rights is being destroyed, our Bill of Rights is being destroyed, that we also must do what has to be done and that involves reeducating our neighbors, friends, and loved ones that the Bill of Rights is a contract guaranteeing that we are the sovereign. It would at least lay the foundation for popular support without which an open rebellion could not prevail. Remember, then the people knew they were the sovereign and were facing slavery. Today's people do not know; today they are slaves and yet believe themselves to be free. An awesome barrier to breach indeed, but it must be done.
We can all of us go and each slay his own dragon. Heaven knows there are as many as imagination will allow and all of them true. Every now and then one of us will even slay one, but that is not the way to overcome this monster's fecundity. It is unleashed now and unleashed it has shown itself to be promiscuous fornicating with every version of absurdity producing pathogens in unimaginable numbers. It would only be like killing cockroaches or squashing mosquitoes in the Alaskan tundra, all one at a time. To kill this monster we will have to sever its head and for that we have the most potent weapon imaginable: the sword of sovereignty. It has always been sharp, but to wield it, our neighbors need to know that sovereignty is their heritage and theirs to exercise.
Is it then now not clear that if we are to succeed, by whatever means we choose, we must dismantle our present day democracy first? Only restoring the potency of our Second Amendment can accomplish that and that in turn only reacquainting our fellow Americans with their Constitutional heritage of sovereignty will achieve. It will restore national pride, a most potent means capable of neutralizing the suffocating stranglehold crowded conditions impose on the human mind. It will open the way to repealing the 17th and the 23rd Amendments and so to eventually restoring the American Republic.
Let me accentuate one observation to make sure it did not escape notice. A democracy, especially the American democracy, accommodates group interests only and can, therefore, not embrace a Bill of Rights, which specifically addresses only individual rights to the exclusion of any other consideration. The Bill of Rights became embedded in the American democracy only because it is a remnant of the American Republic. It and all remaining provisions of the Republic stand in extreme antagonism to a democracy and for that reason must and will be unavoidably destroyed. What I mean to say by unavoidably is that no one, no matter how supported and how resolved to prevent it, can stop its destruction. Our Bill of Rights and all other remnants of the Republic, including the Electoral College, will be destroyed, unless the democracy is dissolved first. It will be a slow process to be sure. Restoring our sovereignty will only be the beginning. But let us not despair. Just as there is dusk before darkness so there is dawn before daylight.
In summarizing I must make one final observation. Restricting the American Republic to authority only, had kept its government at the level of the citizen and cloaked it in humanity. The American democracy, in supplanting authority with power, pushed its government beyond the citizen's level and dressed it in tyranny. Strange to realize here is that over the course of history many governments have operated under power rather than authority not all of which became tyrannical. Many kingdoms were blessed with benevolent kings and many benevolent despots adorned the pages of history, but there has never been a democracy that did not reach the level of tyranny.
This then demonstrates the eternal vigilance and the incredible effort, an effort clearly beyond the sway of man, required to preserve a republic like the American Republic on the one hand and the ease with which a democracy can assert itself on the other. It is just like throwing a stone in the air: effort is needed to throw it, but none to have it fall back. For me it accentuates the sadness that, with only a few exceptions, no one has ever learned this from history and no one probably ever will. However, I, being without any other choice, will forever hope.
And now I must make one more point. It is the most important point I can make and, therefore, have devoted some space to it. There must be an appeal to heaven and that of necessity must invoke the Person of God. Even though I let it be known that I worship the same Majesty of Heaven Patrick Henry did and appeal to the same Author of Liberty to Whom the Founding Fathers appealed and Whom all understood to be Christ the Redeemer, that is not at issue here. What needs to be understood is why such an appeal to heaven needs to be made at all. Perhaps I should quickly insert here, since I condemned it in such poignantly explicit vituperatives, that religion, an awesome monster indeed, is the exact opposite of Christianity, my forte. It is what the American democracy is to the American Republic, the same what hell is to heaven. Let it, therefore, be said that religion is the opiate of fools and freaks.
I know there are those whose hearts palpitate at the mentioning of the word God. All I can say is fear not! This is only a challenge to a laboratory experiment. I do not know what at one time high school requirements in this country were. My sons are too old for me to remember and I did not really go to high school here. All I needed were credits for American History 101 and 102, Civics 101 and 102 and English 5 and 6, English 6 being classical literature. Because I had read only Mickey Spillane's "Kiss Me Deadly" at that time, it took eighteen months at night to get my High School diploma. But I believe that everybody during high school was exposed to some principles of physics. Who then is it that has not heard for example that two hydrogen atoms combine with one oxygen atom to form water? And then who is it that did not stand next to a Bunsen burner to replicate the old experiment?
The experiment I propose is to verify that two opposite actions having opposite effects prove certainty.
Permit me to speculate. Let us suppose, you, for whatever reasons not familiar with light and light switches, find yourself during twilight to be in a room, except for a strange fixture suspended from the ceiling, completely empty. Strange tangs projecting from the walls, all equidistant from the floor, lead you to believe they have a special purpose to fulfill. Close examination reveals they can be moved to point in the opposite direction. Carefully, because not quite certain, you make the presumed adjustment and the strange fixture suspended from the ceiling issues light. With near total certainty now, you conclude there is a definite relationship between the tang and the occurrence of light. To be totally certain you return the tang to its original position and the disappearance of light now removes all uncertainty. Two opposite actions having caused two opposite results have now confirmed for you beyond any doubt that there is a relationship between the tangs and light. Rejecting it would be the epitome of absurdity.
If we now extend this notion to our Founding Fathers, we can make the same test. Nothing distinguishes them from Americans of today. Yet they assembled a strange form of government here that produced a land flowing with milk and honey. Power, wealth, glory. What was it then about these magnificent men whose vision gives us today the reason to mourn? The only distinguishing feature I can see is their intimate affiliation with a Person Whom they variously called Author of Liberty, Majesty of Heaven, but Whom they all*** took to be Christ the Redeemer. Read what they had to say about Him. Samuel Adams, John Adams, Fisher Ames, John Jay, George Washington, just to name a few.
John Quincy Adams must here be heard, for he, in one of his speeches, declares, "the highest glory of the American Republic is this, it connected in one indissoluble bond the principle of civil government with the principle of Christianity."
And then there is Thomas Jefferson. He, while President, was also president of Washington DC's school board. In that capacity he mandated that reading the Bible and Isaac Watt's hymnals be required, for "the precepts of philosophy laid hold of actions only. [but Jesus] pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man, erected his tribunal in the region of his thoughts and purified the waters at the fountainhead."
Deference for the Foundation of the Republic was not confind to the Framers only. The common man, if common is an acceptable word here, also reinforced Who it was to Whom glory should be given. If you asked an American, who is his master, he would say he has none, nor any governor, but Jesus Christ, easy to understand, when realizing that the motto of the War for Independence was " No king, but King Jesus". Not everyone would have these words in mind, certainly not a Mr. Ruggles, but that assertion was firmly rooted in the minds of most.
Those of you who still find comfort in disbelief I challenge to discover why for instance, at the urging of these men, our Constitution does not allow for ex post facto laws. It was Cain, our first socialist. He is the reason. He had murdered and God had not executed him for it, because an injunction against murder had not yet been given. And why had there been no injunction? To deprive Cain, the genius that he was, of a most certain excuse claiming that it was the very ban itself that made him contemplate and then embrace that awesome thought. As it was, he saw his brother cut an animal's throat for a sacrifice and permitted that to impel him into committing his awful deed.
And those among you who are prone to lawyring, I challenge to exhume an 1811 court case, People v Ruggles. A Mr. Ruggles had used extremely profane language to voice his hatred for Christ. He was arrested and arraigned for sedition and sought exemption from prosecution on First Amendment grounds. His plea was rejected on the basis that his profanity had not been at issue. But, since the Redeemer was the very foundation of the new Republic, his blasphemous remarks, therefore, had been construed to be an attack against the Republic, for "whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government." He was fined $500.00 and sentenced to a three-months prison term.
I alluded to these snippets of this nation's early history only to demonstrate how intense a relationship these men, and men they were, had with the Redeemer and to illustrate the obscene contrast of today's Americans. Hatred without limits enthralls the precincts of their hearts today and that even includes true Christians. To wit, one William Jefferson Clinton, a fellationist by avocation and one who has shown morality, or its lack, not to be the issue in being called by His name. It is virulent hatred for Christ, our Republic's foundation, why the nation's light is now swallowed up by darkness.
Two opposite actions - belief and disbelief. Two opposite results - freedom and slavery. Belief gave birth to freedom and disbelief brought slavery. Reject it and risk being found absurd. I rest my case.
Before I continue, I must linger again a moment here to address the careless reader. What greater degree of perspicuity is needed to demonstrate the Author of Liberty's preference for the American Republic? Did He not sanction it, when He honored the appeal our Founding Fathers made to Him? Are the countless and unimaginable blessings He bestowed on these golden shores not sufficient to reveal His partiality? And is the immanent overthrow of all our liberties not plain enough an indication that He abominates democracy? And if this is still too inadequate a manifestation of His abhorrence, consider this: on a plain in the land of Shinar, long ago, Babel's tower stood, the world's first United Nations building, birthplace of democracy and it was He, the Author of Liberty, Who destroyed it.
Now I need to make only one more observation. To which Christ did these men make their appellation, seeing there are at least ten of them at last counting? When all religious encrustations and all rotting barnacles of disbelief and dislike, installed by the free will of man, are removed, we find Him Who sanctified the appeal our Founding Fathers made and granted victory to their arms. He is the sovereign God of grace. He is the ultimate Patriot. He is the Lord of the armies. He is most able and most anxious to help - and help He will. He is the Author of the Second Amendment. How can He not help us secure it seeing it is a reflection of His justice?
And what is His charge? Absolutely none! All He seeks is to be called a Friend! All others demand payment for their services. Being illegal immigrants to heaven, if heaven it is they claim, they have no power and thus cannot give heed to an appeal and, therefore, are of no use. The One Who heard the Founding Fathers is the only One Who makes no demands, seeks no help, requires no assistance, and will not share his glory with any save with the other two members of the Godhead, in stead He wants to bestow a most precious and everlasting gift upon everyone just for the asking, for this is what it means to Him to be called a Friend. Where is the reason for complaint?
And how are these truths perceived? By means of faith, the only system of perception not only common to every member of the human race, but also the only non-meritorious, pure and reliable system of perception, provided it is unencumbered by emotions. Rationalism and empiricism, the other two systems of perception known to man, are inherently limited by human merit on the one hand and naturally corrupted by human preferences on the other. Both these systems then are affected by emotions and emotions cripple reason. Thus the only reason why our understanding remains in darkness is that we allow pride to encumber the only means by which we can discover the truth; by taking immense pleasure in polluting our natural faith.
Who among us rode with Washington? Who is it that heard Patrick Henry's stirring speech? And who here has witnessed Cornwallis's surrender at Yorktown? Yet we all know these things to be true, know them to be true by faith and that because faith was not contaminated by absurdities, pet opinions, preferred viewpoints, likes, or dislikes. And so it must also be of necessity here, when we seek to understand the essence of absolutism.
Never having been afraid of the word God, I cannot make allowance for those who are. Nonetheless, I know I am treading on thin ice here, for I know there are countless legions of those who question this or any need for God. But this is my country and as long as I perceive hope that she may be rescued from the denouement, which finds its ultimate resolution in destruction, I will tread on any ice, any time, no mater how thin. And so I remain unbowed and must ask where, in what I said, is the logic missing? And who is he that will refuse to test the power of Him Who is said to be the foundation of the American Republic? By now I would assume, as close to being irretrievably committed to extinction as we are as a free people, that we would consider anything promising help.
I know that no soul, no matter how carefully it strives, can embark to find the well of wisdom. Reason is too unreliable, too deceitful an instrument and the crippling pride of man molests what little vision is still left to him. For anyone who is entrenched in an idea is deeply committed to use all his powers to vindicate the castles of his dreams, even though sandcastles they be. And such castles will not allow for God.
And what is the price to pay if we neglect His proffered help? The venomous mist of socialism, cancer of the soul, which squandered America's wealth, diminished her power, and robbed her of her flower's beauty, will have consumed a treasure of unequaled value. For freedom never had a price, except blood, with which it could be purchased.
But if we listen and seek resonance with those whose reason is not perverted by desire, who will remain unfettered by dictation, we, although madness now rules with unshared splendor, could yet begin to cleanse the minds of those now overwhelmed by madness to cause them to see the power of heaven again. Then America's stars, though disgracefully dimmed, can yet be fanned to regain the brightness once infused in them by the greatness of the men who called themselves sons of God.
I do not know where and by whom my plea will be heard. Only those called by His name can make the appeal to heaven and be heard. I had hoped that many among the legions now playing games, seeking credit on which to enter heaven, manufacturing their own way to worship Him in total contrast to what He has revealed, or sopping and supping with the pigs might have their conscience seared and reenter the city. But I must presume that having played too many games and supped with too many pigs, they now have itching ears able to hear the siren's song only and can no longer sense the gentle tapping of Him Who gave them life. I, therefore, hope that from the legions of the unwashed many, who heretofore had been deceived to believe that foolishness had to become the center of their escutcheon, might replace some of those whose foolishness has made them fit for slavery. And if there is someone who asks who is at fault, the deceiver or the deceived, he has his answer here: both. But let us not be ignorant of this truth that the deceiver, no matter how skillful, would have no votives, if the deceived had had no itching ears.
I do not know what the future holds. Judging by the unabated erosion of our rights, it bodes ill for our land indeed. There is a monster on the loose. A few have heard its roar, some have smelled its foul breath, and others may have felt its clammy touch, but no one born in this country has ever seen its face. I have! Trust me it is constantly livid with rage.
It is a rage not known to man except to those who have seen it and even then it is beyond comprehension. I, for my part, am resolved to do whatever circumstances allow me to do - either exhorting my fellow Americans to recapture their mastery over each of our governments or conflict and here Patrick Henry's "Give me Liberty or give me Death" finds a perfect echo in my heart. However, in either case I would like to have the odds in my favor and that can only be assured by an appeal to the same heaven, the same Redeemer, to Whom the Founding Fathers made obeisance. So let us then not walk alone, for without Him we can only walk into oblivion.
And I ask again, why not make the appeal? He is most able and willing to help and He will help free of charge, unless you consider calling Him Friend too onerous an obligation to assume. But if not, be cautioned He prefers men and women only - Patrick Henrys and Molly Pitchers. Those who love to froth at the mouth, summersault through the isles, caterwaul, although also welcomed to accept the gift and call Him Friend, are useless and asked to step aside.
So then, as matters stand right now, George Mason's observation is imposed. "As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities." Let us be resolved then to realize, the Nation has sinned!
Our impetus should then derive ist stimulus from this, lest we be resolved to succumb to the flagitious dictates of our pride; "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have."Barry Goldwater
There is a second reason for my spending more time than normally to invoke the name of God. Then the colonists' world was not embroiled in controversies, hedonism, misperceptions, and blindness as it is today. No fathomlessly deep hatred for the Foundation of the American Republic had punctured their hearts. Then the regions of man's mind bordered on the regions of heaven. Heaven had but one Owner, the people but one vision -independence or crown - and their choice only one option. They knew themselves to be liege, in vassalage to justice only. No ambivalence marred their resolve. Thus all that was required of them then was an appeal to heaven and to Him Who was its sole Owner.
Today we face a different world. There is now a vast space between the realm of heaven and the regions of man's mind, and Styx, the river of death, marks its beginning. It is a gulf colonized by illegal immigrants, effete squatters of the darkness, all claiming the mantle of omnipotence and with it false rulership of heaven and enshrouding the gulf with the illusion of being paradise. People in numbers beyond counting are picnicking here, all ignorant of the horror engulfing them, for the enemy is clothed in sunshine and comfort and safety are his promise. That is why two appeals are needed now, one to our neighbors and the other, the most important one, to heaven and there to its true and one and only Ruler.
I know it to be not easy. Resolve, not strength, is needed to cross this awesome gulf so deeply entrenched between the mansions of man's mind and the halls of heaven. Here Lethe's sweet waters flow. Here strange christs, all denizens of the night, patrol Lethe's shores embellishing with black iridescence the imaginations and illusions of all who have claimed a homestead here. Here the monster's minions devoured the Republic and left her remnants bleaching in plain sight. "Constitution" is not spoken here!
Crossing here is voluntary, but it must be done. However, I will ask no one to stride with me. But this one thing I must ask: at least come to the near shore of the River Styx and outwaft the song of the siren with the song of SOVEREIGNTY, the battle cry of freedom, or we will all vanish into the night.
Dieter H. Dahmen
Body and Soul American
*** Not all of the North Caucus believe that this is a
"Christian Nation." We have no problem with Dieter Dahmen's beliefs, particularily in that the Founding Fathers did profess a Creator, and that faith in such a Creator was the power that motivated this nation, vis-a-vis the very character that was incumbent in "True Faith." The Christian Faith is one of many that speak of "faith undefiled," in one way or another, and that, we assert, creates the morality and civility upon which this Republic depended for its foundation. It is that faith that must be destroyed by the enemies of this Republic, and the easiest way is to plead to the hedonistic desires of mankind, and destroy their various belief systems.
Suffice it to say that the North Caucus now, as it did during the Revolution, survived the differences of opinions about Christ, Christianity, and Deism as a whole. Three of our first Presidents, Washington, Adams and Jefferson, were just as varied in their beliefs about Chirstianity as we are in this group. That is irrelevant. The nation can not be exclusively a "Christain Nation" without destroying the very work of the Founding Fathers. We feel this matter needs to be resolved by retracing our paths back to the English translation of the Treaty with Tripoli . In the meantime, the NCA adheres to, at least, the fundamental tenets of Diestic belief. We totally agree with the comment by George Washington that led one to believe that he felt that athiesm was "evil," as noted in my recent essay (see the church link above).
To return to our home page, click: