November 22nd, 2012

Chris Duane With Elias Alias _ A Brief Thanksgiving Meditation


-

Chris Duane_Semper Fi!

Chris Duane_Semper Fi!

-

It’s Thanksgiving. Our forefathers were thankful to live on a newly-discovered continent, and later they were thankful to live as freemen who had escaped the British Empire’s rule and control over their lives.

Today we are thankful for what yet remains of the traditions which have marked our country’s greatness over two Centuries. But many of us are harried somewhat as we have noticed that our great country is drifting toward collectivism and away from the individualism which forged and formed America as the greatest nation on earth, in all of earth’s human history. Now people in all fifty States are talking about secession. It’s driving the communists mad. While enjoying our holiday, let’s look into the idea of secession vs collectivism. It will do the Pilgrim proud to hold such contemplations on this very special day. It also would please the ghost of Henry David Thoreau, don’t you agree?

Secession is in the wind today, experiencing a surge after the November 06, 2012 elections. Many on the “right” are very fearful of the agenda of those on the “left”, and to those who are awake to, and aware of, the reality that both sides are equally dangerous to American freedom, the whole messy political left-right-paradigm slime-bath is offensive and disgusting. Damn the Republicans and Damn the Democrats both to Hell, I say, and so do all three  or four other Americans who’ve figured this out. ;)

The idea of secession drives communists, socialists, and collectivists in general madly wild and passionately fearful. If you don’t want to play their game of centralized control over society and culture, the average communist/collectivist sees you as a direct threat. He must control you via the state (government) or he sees you as a threat.

Most Americans showed clearly with the election that they want the collective way of life and they want a powerful central government to ensure that everyone, including those who do not wish to participate in their centralized government’s authoritarian power games, must ante up and place their bets just like all the good little statist boys and girls. Your refusal to play their game is perceived as a threat to them, and it makes them defensive. Being as how defensiveness always attacks, they jab out at you for not joining into their view of societal adhesion.

To prove that I’m not exaggerating, I’ll offer a novel idea which most Americans have never read, although it’s a part of our heritage as Americans. It was written circa 1884 by an American libertarian philosopher named Herbert Spencer, in his immortal essay entitled “The Right To Ignore The State“. I am predicting that the comments under this article shall be, uhm, er, “colorful” at the very least: Here is Spencer -

As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry. If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state — to relinquish its protection, and to refuse paying toward its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others; for his position is a passive one; and whilst passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation, without a breach of the moral law, seeing that citizenship involves payment of taxes; and the taking away of a man’s property against his will, is an infringement of his rights. Government being simply an agent employed in common by a number of individuals to secure to them certain advantages, the very nature of the connection implies that it is for each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not. If any one of them determines to ignore this mutual-safety confederation, nothing can be said except that he loses all claim to its good offices, and exposes himself to the danger of maltreatment — a thing he is quite at liberty to do if he likes. He cannot be coerced into political combination without a breach of the law of equal freedom; he can withdraw from it without committing any such breach; and he has therefore a right so to withdraw.

To assess one’s predisposition toward being either a statist or an individualist, one merely need read that passage over again about three or four times and think on its meaning. How one ultimately perceives the logic and philosophy contained in that brief mental exercise determines in a recognizable way one’s predisposition as a statist or as an individualist.

No collectivist can enjoy reading the writings of this nation’s Founders, or the writings of the 19th Century libertarians, while any individualist derives intense joy and hope in so reading. The Founders spoke of “unalienable rights” which come from Nature or Nature’s God, and they codified those rights as coming from, deriving from, a higher authority than any man-made government. Collectivists, especially collectivists of the communist and socialist bent, hate and fear that kind of consciousness. To the statist, the very idea of a soul seceding from the collective government is a threat and must be eliminated. Hence Homeland Security’s inherent psychological premise, and hence its hell-for-leather assault on patriotism and Constitutionalism and individualist dissent within our American society today.

For the strong in spirit, for the individualist, I’ll offer this little brief film by Chris Duane of Don’t-Tread-On-Me. It’s about personal secession from the futility of the “madding crowd”. Enjoy, and – Happy Thanksgiving!

-

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw0J_AMwPCU

-

With a ‘Salute!’ to Chris Duane,

Elias Alias, editor




SUPPORT OUR BILLBOARD CAMPAIGN
Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath


Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!



 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

7 Responses to “Chris Duane With Elias Alias _ A Brief Thanksgiving Meditation”

  1. 1
    Pilgrms Pride Says:

    Superb article Elias.

  2. 2
    Elias Alias Says:

    Thank you Pilgrims Pride. I appreciate it. And also, thank you for that little favor earlier this morning. ;)

    Salute!
    Elias Alias

  3. 3
    Elias Alias Says:

    Brandon Smith, over at Alt-Market dot com, has a hard-hitting article about the personalities and characteristics and identifying factors of “Statist Thugs” recently posted at his website. I recommend it for the wakeful among our readership.

    http://www.alt-market.com/articles/1171-statist-thugs-and-the-rocks-they-crawl-out-from-under

    Salute!
    Elias Alias

  4. 4
    Shorty Dawkins Says:

    The concept that any government derives its power from the ‘consent of the governed’ implies that individuals may withdraw their consent. A bully can only oppress if the victim, or target, allows himself to be oppressed. A slave is only a slave if he allows himself to be a slave.
    Government is force. It has nothing to do with justice, morality or freedom; it is force. George Washington said it, and so have others. I, as an individual, can choose to accept, or deny, the force that is government. We all have that choice. Free will is something we are born with. It is not given to us by any government. We are thinking consciousness. Each moment of our lives we make choices. To choose is to exist. The idea of withdrawing consent from a government, a bank, a club or neighborhood is an act of choice. We may, on the other hand, choose to remain in any of the above mentioned groups. Such choosing then becomes a voluntary acceptance of the groups purpose. Anything that is not voluntary is the result of force, be it from a government, a peer group, or a neighborhood bully.
    To accept that everything is a matter of choice, is to realize that we are responsible for the choices we make, both good and bad. Blaming others is merely a rationalization; a self delusion.

  5. 5
    Orion Says:

    Oorah, Semper Fi

  6. 6
    Ralph Fucetola JD Says:

    Keeping our Constitutional Republic requires constant vigilance. It also requires a sober understanding of where we are.

    I must respectfully disagree with the writer’s comment, “Most Americans showed clearly with the election that they want the collective way of life and they want a powerful central government…”

    Most Americans who would be eligible to voted did not vote for the current White House occupant.

    Even among those who did vote, 4 million less votes were cast for the current occupant than in 2008. The other tax-eater party candidate got 3 million less votes than his party got in ‘08. Meanwhile third party candidates received millions of votes, with Gov. Gary Johnson, Libertarian receiving the largest vote total a Libertarian has yet received.

    Americans did not all vote for Big Govt. By and large, patriots abandoned the former-Grand Old Party (let’s call it the “(G)OP” from now on) and refused further sanction for their own suppression.

    If the (G)OP had remembered that “It is the Economy” instead of “playing the social issue card” (which the Demos played much better) they might have won even without patriot support.

    When the (G)OP decided to change its rules during the Convention to prevent “Leader of the Opposition” Ron Paul from having his name even offered in nomination, betraying any pretense at small-D democracy and party unity, the old party lost hundreds of thousands of its most promising activists.

    This election was about those who are fearful their entitlements will fail [and they will!] voting for the status quo while the patriot movement abandoned the (G)OP.

    There are consequences: the hyperinflation will be laid at the doorstep of the Demos. The coming failure of its tax, tax, borrow, borrow, spend, spend, elect, elect policy and the subsequent bankruptcy of the Federal Government (predicted by Ron Paul) will provide patriots with an opportunity to reverse the temporary electoral triumph of the tax-eaters.

    “we have not begun to fight!”

  7. 7
    Austrian Economics is Color Blind Says:

    Secession is an individual right, as the article notes, but Chris Duane’s video is laced with collectivist thinking:

    - “I will be the change that I want to see in the world by walking away from the debt and death paradigm that I actively or passively empower. I will stop funding bankers with my dollars in their banks and paper schemes.”

    This could be taken a couple of ways, and, given the collectivist ideas I noticed later in the video, I decided to see if he was against all paper money, or merely against paper money that is created by private banks and private cartels.

    My suspicions were correct. Chris Duane is essentially a Greenbacker.

    (He’s opposed to debt, but he’s not currently opposed to precious metals because he understands that they are actual wealth, but he doesn’t realize that, even under a precious metal coin standard there would still necessarily be debt-based financing due to people’s differing time preferences, and so the logical progression of his anti-debt mentality will be to adopt full on Greenbackism due to people willing to go into debt in terms of precious metals, as well as to people willing to hoard precious metals.)

    He’s against private banks issuing paper money, but has no problem with so-called “debt free Treasury notes”, which are functionally the same thing:

    How To PROTECT Yourself from the DOLLAR COLLAPSE – Chris Duane – pt 2
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkPoVxNi0Zs#t=3m08s

    … and it’s all because of this debt and death cycle. We can break it. We can do better. And we just have to stop trying to fix a better form of collectivism. We have to move away from debt-based monetary system. We need competition in currency: gold, silver, copper, time currencies, wildcat banking, debt-free Treasury notes. We need to have more different forms of money, and lower the barriers of entry into all the marketplaces.

    (By the way, time currencies are debt currencies, too – you work for an hour now, and you receive credit for an hour of work later. Notice you’re not immediately receiving anything of value for your work; The credit you get is debt money. Perhaps Chris would respond with, “How is receiving a unit of time currency any different that receiving a gold coin?” What makes it different is that gold has value AS A COMMODITY – even if that value is primarily for aesthetics. Commodity money is real money, the Austrians Economists would say. If it didn’t first have value to people as a tradable commodity, then it can’t be money. Notice that commodity money solves the problem with “debt money”, since you are necessarily trading something that has real value to people – not just as a currency.)

    I immediately know when someone is advocating for Greenbackism when they say they favor “debt free money”, or “debt free Treasury notes”. It’s a buzz word in Austrian Economics circles. It’s instantly recognizable and immediately raises a red flag because of the bad economics of such a system, and because of the collectivism that is required to implement it.

    What about “debt free Treasury notes” is collectivist?

    Well, why would Greenbackers consider the paper money of private banks to be “debt-based”, while considering Treasury notes to be “debt free”? They’re both paper; What’s the difference?

    For the Greenbackers, the difference is based on their understanding of the role of money; They see money as a public good which requires wise management by public servants to be able to print Treasury notes “responsibly” so as to keep “greedy” people from amassing too much wealth.

    Gary North explains:

    Interest Rates in a Gold Coin Standard
    http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1075.html

    Some of the critics of the Federal Reserve System propose a solution worse than the FED itself: the creation of a fiat-money based central bank that creates money out of nothing to pay for government-funded projects. These critics argue that this government-run bank will be able to offer interest-free loans to the public, which will keep the economy running at full capacity.

    This is what John Maynard Keynes taught in “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money” (1936). Keynes praised several economically unsophisticated predecessors who proposed schemes for government-created zero-interest money …

    Ron Paul also explains, in a Q&A:

    Ron Paul Lecture – “The Great Enabler: The Rise of the Federal Reserve and the Growth of Government”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehh77k0rgPs#t=27m04s

    AUDIENCE QUESTION:

    You were talking about having Congress control the money. What would- Given their nature, what would keep them from openly and transparently destroying the currency?

    RON PAUL:

    I don’t really want the Congress to do what the Fed’s doing- And some people see that- Some people want that.

    They want the Congress to print the money and send it out to the people they like. And they’d be more inclined to maybe give it to the mortgage holder or the farmer or the small business man, and say, “Oh, this is much better, and we’re not going to let the Fed do it because we have to pay interest to the Fed and get the banks involved and the bond dealers involved.” But no, I don’t want the Congress to print money, either.

    But see, we did have a pretty good period of time when we didn’t have a Federal Reserve. This argument has been going on since Jefferson and Hamilton. Hamilton wanted a central bank; Jefferson did not.

    They had a national bank for 20 years and Jefferson got rid of it. Then they did it again and Jackson got rid of it.

    And then we had a period of time, especially in the latter part of the 19th Century, that we didn’t have a central bank. And then 1913, -14, came, and it was very bad.

    The Congress’s responsibility is to guarantee the value of the coinage- You know, the weights and measures- It’s in the section of Congress that talks about honest weights and measures. And that’s what they should do; They need to make sure the coins are of an honest weight.

    But no, they don’t have a right to print money out of thin air. Governments have an obligation not to break contracts and counterfeit money- Matter of fact, in 1792, they passed a coinage act that said that anybody that counterfeited money could get the death penalty. That’s how strongly they felt about this.

    So, I don’t want the Congress counterfeiting money. I don’t want individuals, because it’s fraud. Nor do I want the Federal Reserve to do this.

    But the money supply, under those conditions, probably increases about two to three percent a year.

    And as long as you have free market pricing, and prices of goods and services and exchanges between those goods and services are free- One other mistake they made back then was they fixed the ratio of gold to silver, and that was a difficulty because, depending on which price was best, it would drive out one metal and not the other, and you’d want to use the other metal.

    But no, you don’t want the Congress printing the money. You want the Congress to live up to the law of the land, which means: “No counterfeiting”.

    In that last bit, Ron Paul was referring to how government wrongly imposed a fixed ratio between gold and silver, rather than letting their prices float freely against each other on the market, and how by doing so, it artificially drove one metal out of circulation. This is called Gresham’s law, which you can read more about in this next link:

    What Has Government Done to Our Money?
    III. Government Meddling With Money 5. Gresham’s Law and Coinage
    http://mises.org/money/3s5.asp

    A. Bimetallism

    Government imposes price controls largely in order to divert public attention from governmental inflation to the alleged evils of the free market. As we have seen, “Gresham’s Law”–that an artificially overvalued money tends to drive an artificially undervalued money out of circulation–is an example of the general consequences of price control. Government places, in effect, a maximum price on one type of money in terms of the other. Maximum price causes a shortage–disappearance into hoards or exports–of the currency suffering the maximum price (artificially undervalued), and leads it to be replaced in circulation by the overpriced money.

    Tom Woods also has a helpful article on this topic:

    Not All ‘End the Fed’ People Quite Get It
    http://www.tomwoods.com/blog/not-all-end-the-fed-people-quite-get-it/

    Several days ago I managed to get myself drawn into a Facebook exchange with someone who opposes the Federal Reserve and the current banking system in general for not quite the right reasons. Thus the Fed is a “private bank,” it does not put enough money into circulation, its member banks enslave people by charging interest on loans, etc. This person thinks of himself as part of the “liberty movement.”

    - “I will stop being a consumer and buying stuff I really don’t need.”

    As if this has anything to do with our economic problems. It does not. This view against “consumerism” is based on the belief that economic crashes happen due to the economy “overheating” or to “overconsumption”.

    But the crashes, as I keep trying to show, are a result of malinvestments caused by fiat money. Without fiat money (or some kind of legal tender laws which distort the values between precious metals) system-wide economic crashes are impossible.

    As Ron Paul explained in a Q&A:

    Ron Paul Lecture – “The Great Enabler: The Rise of the Federal Reserve and the Growth of Government”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehh77k0rgPs#t=30m00s

    AUDIENCE QUESTION:

    What do you think would have happened after the financial crisis if we were on the gold standard and we couldn’t pop a bunch of liquidity into the market?

    RON PAUL:

    OK, if we’d have been on the gold standard, you wouldn’t have had the crisis.

    So, the crisis came from the paper money system and the bubble that the Federal Reserve creates by lowering interest rates lower than they should be, sending false information; Then there’s too much debt and too much malinvestment. That comes from the Fed.

    But then the question is, “What if they didn’t bail them out?”, maybe; Because it would be hard to say you’re automatically on the gold standard that instant.

    But the- if you didn’t bail out, it would have been a bit of havoc; There’d have been a bunch of bankruptcies. But that’s what the correction is supposed to be doing.

    It’s when you delay the correction and the liquidation and getting rid of debt and malinvestment- When you don’t get rid of it, you just prolong the agony.

    This is one of the reasons why Japan’s been in the doldrums for a couple decades, and why we went 15 years in the Depression and World War 2- It was just because it took so long to liquidate the debt.

    And we’re not liquidating debt, we’re just transferring it from the people who deserve to go bankrupt and giving it to the taxpayer, either by diluting the power of the money or by raising people’s taxes; and we own the debt, now, rather than the big banks and financial institutions.

    But to say, “Oh yeah, just let them all go bankrupt and it wouldn’t be a big deal”- It would have been a big deal, but it would have been a big deal for the people who it should have been a big deal for – not the average person.

    But the average person, now- That individual, now- losing their jobs and losing their mortgages, and they’re in a lot worse shape because of it.

    Collectivists have always blamed so-called “overconsumption” for the crashes.

    - “I will embrace an ‘Abundance’ mentaliity and never entertain toxic thoughts of scarcity, or fear, again.”

    The reality is that there is scarcity.

    Scarcity is not due to greed or planned obsolescence.

    - “I will take control of my diet and eat things my ancestors recognized as food.”

    The reason we have chemicals is so that our food will last longer. If we didn’t have these things, famines would quickly follow bad growing seasons, since the shelf life of “natural” or “organic” food is shorter than processed foods.

    These chemicals make food more abundant.

    And by the way, the problem with Monsanto isn’t that their food is genetically modified (that’s actually the GOOD part of Monsanto), but that they use government so-called “patent rights” (that’s protectionism / Corporatism) to force others to use the product they sell only in ways Monsanto wishes.

    - “The only happiness I will find in this life is the day I rid myself of the ‘Scarcity’ mentality, where I can give to those around me without reservation and to truly be a blessing unto others. The only other happiness I will find in my life is in helping to bring others in my life up to the same level of abundance. This is the only thing that truly matters in my life, and worth my time and energy.”

    Reality is that there is scarcity.

    And what’s with the “The only thing that’s worth my time and energy is bringing others to the same level of abundance” mentality? Get the government out of everyone’s way, and the profit motive will create more abundance, naturally.

    John Stossel and Russ Roberts explain:

    The Real Story of Thanksgiving
    George Mason University economist Russ Roberts on how the Pilgrims were hurt by sharing.
    http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/4439390/the-real-story-of-thanksgiving/

    (Yes, I understand that FOX News has a lot of propaganda; Stossel is pretty good, though.)

Leave a Reply

© 2012 www.oathkeepers.org | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148