DEMOCRACY SOUP AND SILVEIRA
Dieter H. Dahmen
All good things, they say, come in threes and, I so believe, do bad. Twice before I manned the forward trench offering battle against the concept of democracy, sometimes camouflaged as an adjective modifier, but sadly, in the minds of many, a most euphoric noun even though always improperly employed. It is, therefore, only with great trepidation and with profound sadness that I write these lines, but I must.
I read "Reflections Upon the U.S. Supreme Court's Rejection of Silveira."
No words are available to me that I could press into service here to adequately do justice to the scintillating clarity and unimpeachable factuality offered here which in unduplicitous words reveal the blackrobed atrocity by which we find ourselves robbed of our liberties.
Having walked these fields myself, being no stranger to the demons haranguing our institutions, I hear only too clearly the deep hurt, sense only too keenly the profound sadness, and feel only too poignantly the burning rage proffered in these lines. But they come short of completing the list of wrongdoing and, therefore, misidentify the true lord to whom our liberty thieves have sworn fealty and whose black heart demands the very sacrifice that brought us into the abyss.
And who is that lord, here so terribly misidentified? His nimbus is starkly seen in a single, loathsome word: democracy, either as noun or as adjective. Profound sadness hardly expresses the repugnance this monstrous word spawns in me, especially when I must realize there are those on my side of the Second Amendment, who should know better, but refuse to divest themselves of an obsession, not only absurd, but also clearly proved to be destructive.
I have long since resigned myself to accept the fact that my intimacy with this monster is of insufficient potency to expose its terror to some, and thus only serves to exacerbate my rage and to deepen my frustration. But I ask again. Are we not now in the abyss? Are we not now entrapped in democracy? Is it, therefore, not clear our liberties are consumed by democracy? If we must conclude democracy brought us into the abyss, where is the logic then that presumes another democracy, be it republican or otherwise, will redeem us from the abyss? How can a slave redeem another? Of what effect would it be, if one slave said to another: "Be thou free?"
I sometimes have the impression people liken democracy to a vegetable soup with its various ingredients. One can always, so seems to go their reasoning, add some, remove others, and in this wise change the outcome to suit one's personal preference and taste. Not so! We are not in a kitchen here. If we are, it is most certainly not ours, but his majesty's, the prince of sulfur, who is both chef and sous chef here.
Let us remember then, here and now, democracy is an amalgam of two poisonous clouds: one socialism and the other religion. No other ingredients here. The horned bastard has never altered this his recipe. No ingredients; no participating, no free, no social, no Christian, no republican, no constitutional, no limited, to name just a few, either prefixed or suffixed, ever entered into his Walpurgis' brew. It was always the same, always has tasted the same, and always has wreaked the same havoc. Only one thing changes - the time taken to simmer. It is hard to say whether he wants it so or whether it reflects his incompetence. I opt for the latter.
So, if we then conclude arsenic mixed with anything to still remain arsenic, why then would a democracy not remain a democracy no matter how prefixed or suffixed? But, for the sake of argument, let it be allowed that the horror of democracy can be ameliorated by either a prefix, such as republican, or by a suffix, such as republic. What then would we have, if we were to accept, as here presumed, a democratic republic? Why should that be different from what the East Germans had? They had a Democratic Republic! Did they not? Capitalizing each word changes nothing! Are we then by any chance to believe Stasis cloak a Democratic Republic with euphoric acceptance?
I have asked votives of this distortion on more than one occasion to show me where in our Constitution reference is made to such an assertion. No one ever saw fit to respond to my query! I know why! Because it is not there! But I will ask again, only rhetorically, where can I find this recipe for madness, either here or in the writings of our Founding Fathers? And how can anyone feel righteous having put words into the Framers mouths they clearly sought to avoid and so openly declared to be anathema?
I am indeed profoundly sad, sad that so many great people, clearly on the same side of freedom, are robbed of the most fundamental ability to comprehend that, like birds fly and fishes swim, democracy steals liberties. Stealing liberties is the designated obligation of democracy, it has no choice, no matter how or with what it is prefixed or suffixed. One cannot extinguish fire with fire. One can fight fire with fire, but never extinguish it with fire.
I am deeply angry not being able to expose the power of him who rules the darkness, the power by which he beguiles the well-meaning and keeps them entrapped in strange visions built with thoughts nurtured in blindness. You cannot overcome democracy with democracy anymore than you can overcome fire with fire. How can one curtail the legal reigns of power in a democracy, any democracy? Power cannot be constrained; it belongs to a democracy. Only authority can be constrained and perfect authority can only be found in the Great Republic. So how then can power constrain power, or a democracy a democracy? Is it not obvious, it cannot, unless the constraining power is from an outside source? No magic incantations can be employed here to make it otherwise.
I am profoundly sad, because we have failed to notice the debilitating effect democracy has on the human spirit. Man's proclivity toward depravity has opened the floodgate for democracy and all its pathogens and has paved the way for those purported to be the guardians of our liberties to abolish them with an absurd edict implying to have an obligation to secure public safety. By this they hold themselves not to be freedom haters and, therefore, also not accountable to error. This, being so clearly seen, truly taxes the limits of my understanding, when I seek an answer to how it can be that some, clearly in liberty's fold, remain unencumbered by this atrocious inconsistency of seeking redemption from democracy with democracy, when democracy has so unequivocally overwhelmed all our liberties.
I am profoundly sad, when I must realize not all understand that manufacturing crisis after crisis is the means by which democracy cements its mastery over its people. It is a scary thing and bodes ill indeed for the entire human species, when realizing that its brightest cannot learn from mistakes, either from those by others or, even worse, from those of their own making.
I am reminded here of carbon monoxide lakes in Africa. The poisonous gas, heavier than air, seeps out of fissures in the ground and fills depressions there with this silent and invisible killer. Animals, unsuspectingly, venture into it and succumb. Predators also come and, seeing an easy meal, descend into the unseen lake and become victims of their own incaution, because they pay no heed to the evidence of death, which is more than abundant here.
And that is what democracy is - a lake of invisible, highly poisonous gas, with signs of death so abundant that overlooking them borders on the preposterous. If that be so, how then can we expect the institutors of democracy, masters of the people, to obey Constitutional law, if producing death was not only their nature, but also required of them. In a democracy it is not a question of flouting Constitutional law, it is just simply not possible - Constitutional law in democracy is absent. You would have greater hope seeing a rattler eat flowers than seeing a democracy peopled by obedient politicians. A predatory government can never be converted; it can only be destroyed. This then explains in simple terms why Silveira died, indeed had to die! Because an armed people poses a threat to a predatory government, that is, a democracy, no matter whether it be a republican democracy or a democratic republic, Constitutional law cannot be endemic to a democracy. And so it is demonstrated, since Constitutional law can resonate only in the Great Republic, that obedience can only be expressed in a form of government, where the citizen is master; and the citizen is master, sovereign, only in the Great Republic.
The difference then between a democracy, any democracy no matter how modified, and the Great Republic is that a democracy cannot address itself to justice, being the sole arbiter of injustice. Injustice contemns the victim and cuddles the victimizer, giving birth to a most insidious assertion that the criminal can be rehabilitated. Nothing could be farther from the truth and the notion of being innocent by reason of insanity most strikingly evidences this madness.
The Great Republic, based on the gospel of the Author of Liberty, makes no allowance for such madness. On the contrary. The Great Republic, and the Great Republic only, permits justice and insists on the Biblical command to honor the victim and have the victimizer make restitution; not be rehabilitated. Punishment there is the divine demand.
And that brings us to God, in Whose hands Reflections so poignantly has declared the fate of our Nation to lie. But which God? Rather than exposing Him by exclusion, I thought it best to have everyone decide for himself by having those who called upon Him, over two and a quarter centuries ago for vindication of their cause, reveal Him by the appellations they appended to His Name.
Author of Liberty, Majesty of heaven, they called Him variously, but knew Him to be Christ the Redeemer. But which Christ, seeing there are several of them now all vying for heaven, all claiming the mantle of Supreme Justice. Theirs, however, never sought payment for His help. Never wanted anything but be called a Friend. Never demanded sycophantical devotion. He, they knew, hated democracy having shown His repugnance for it by destroying the tower of Babel, the first United Nations' building, birthplace of democracy, for they knew socialism carried hell's imprimatur. And why? Because socialism, the heart and soul of democracy, cannot tolerate the free and unrestrained will of man! Here then we discover the reason why socialism and religion so readily combine to spawn democracy; socialism demands compassion and religion intones compassion, both in violation of free will.
The Great Republic, and only the Great Republic, in total contradistinction, not only allows for but demands the exercise of free will, having certified it there by a Bill of Rights! The Founding Fathers knew from the Scriptures that His form of government was a perfect Republic, unchaining the will of man, thus completely devoid of any trace of democracy. Every act calling for a decision they preceded by an appeal to Him for assistance. He heard, He granted, He affirmed their appeal and then ordained and codified their intent by authorizing the Second Amendment.
And what did that avail? To display the incredible graciousness of this most magnificent Person Who, while ruling the universe, also takes a personal interest in every member of the human race who calls Him Friend. He, among uncountable other things, bequeathed upon them His sovereignty. And not upon them only, but also determined that the unwashed should be equal beneficiaries of the Second Amendment's euphoria - all American citizens, even those who spurn Him, were to have His sovereignty, were to be sovereign.
But how could this be, seeing His sovereignty, based on His authority and affirmed by His power, ending here is without violence? Ours is also based on our authority and affirmed by our power, but does not end here. Our power is reinforced by our arms, which speak of violence contradicting that it is His sovereignty we possess. But this violence is neutralized by being encapsulated in a right, a right to keep and bear arms, and a right is without violence, thus affirming our sovereignty comes to be His on loan to us by His magnificent grace.
This then is the God Whom the Founding Fathers revered. This is the God, and I should have to add, there is none other, Who is the foundation of the Great Republic. Then He was worshipped, and Christianity a way of life for many. Today He is despised and religion, which He condemned, is a way of life for almost all. Then He ensured the Republic, today, with His rejection, the Republic is also rejected and replaced by democracy, as a course of natural events.
If He will not help, no struggle, no matter how fervent, can restore our liberties and He cannot help, if we ask for what would compromise His justice. Justice is the hallmark only of the Great Republic, never of democracy. If we ask for a democratic republic, heaven will be silent, indeed must remain silent. Guaranteed! God has no choice; He cannot compromise His Nature.
For the skeptics, be they reminded of the road we had to travel briefly before. It is the road of euphemisms. No document has been subjected to more corruption by euphemisms than the Scriptures, with the Constitution being a very close second, which should not be all that difficult to understand, if we keep in mind the Scriptures are the very basis for our Constitution.
This then points the way to having our cherished liberties restored and with that our Nation recovered. It must be the same appeal to the same God for the same purpose with the same respect our Founding Fathers had, and also make the same appeal to the same arms or we will all most certainly perish. Only then will He be free to restore our liberties and, if need be, grant victory to our arms, should no other choice be left us.
No scent of democracy can mar our appeal! Only then will Americans become the sovereign again the Almighty had intended them to be. With a Nation reborn, a people reawakened to their sovereignty, the only source of true liberty, it will not only restore the splendor of Ol' Glory, but will also be the only chance of avoiding open conflict. To rescind blackrobed piracy then requires the abolishing of the democracy and the reinstalling of the Great Republic.
If I have offended here, be assured that was not my intent, but as I insisted on more than one occasion, the Nation is facing too awesome a moment that I should have to stand on ceremony. Nonetheless, I apologize should anyone have taken offence, but I also want it be known, I would rather be thought an enemy and have the nation survive than be thought a friend and have her succumb.
And now I find myself at reason's end. I truly do not know what other evidence I could now recruit to burst whatever mental ramparts of resistance still prevent my showing democracy's relentless and all consuming evil. But I do admit to the imperfection of my argumentation and with it accept the indictment of being unable to bring sufficient clarity to my dissertation.
Dieter H. Dahmen
Body and Soul American
To return to our home page, click: