Ayn Rand – Born Alissa Rosenbaum, 1905-1982
Quotes:

- The goal of the “liberals”—as it emerges from the record of the past decades—was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus, statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot—by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli. (The goal of the “conservative” was only to retard that process.)

- Statism survives by looting; a free country survives by production.

- That the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals—that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government—that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government.

- Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation’s troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.

Who Is John Galt?

“John Galt is a fictional charater in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged. Although he is absent from much of the text, he is the subject of the novel's oft repeated question, "Who is John Galt?", and the quest to discover the answer. As the plot unfolds, Galt is acknowledged to be a creator and inventor who embodies the power of the individual capitalist. He serves as an idealistic counterpoint to the social and economic structure depicted in the novel. The depiction portrays a society based on oppressive bureaucratic functionaries and a culture that embraces the "stifling mediocrity" and egalitarianism of socialistic idealism. In this popular mass ideology, he is a metaphorical Atlas of Greek methology, holding up the world.” Wikipedia.

Rand and Orwell, like many writers, photographers, and painters across our globe, have made use of art forms to put on display their vision of humanity’s social interaction, or intervention as it were. Language, as used by Rand and Orwell, has been and will continue to be the primary medium for social, philosophical, and political communication. Our politicians and university professors do not normally take pictures or paint. The world’s media, however, do. This combined bombardment through the use of modern technology is difficult to do battle with.

Without you having read these authors, the terms Statist, Looter, and Limiter are defined through context and inference in the last blog. Though provocative and interesting, they do not serve our immediate purpose well. If we cannot converse within the confines of a common language, we cannot converse at all.

Exact terms within the fabric of the current government hedgemony is important. The term “Patriot”, for example, is used by both the left and the right (the definition of both of which is vague as well) but often with different meanings. One can say, “He is a criminal, but a Patriot.”, or “Yes, he voted against every war ever faught by America and dodged the draft, but he is a Patriot.” The dictionary defines patriot as “One who loves, supports, and defends one’s country.”, and patriotism as “Love of and devotion to one’s country.” There are many who the government sees as criminals but who would still fit these definitions. There is even logical support for pacifists, draft dodgers, and those who would vote against any war, although others would believe that logic faulty. If a staunch conservative and capitalist were to yell, “Let all patriots gather round and defend what is right.”, it might draw an entirely different crowd had the call to rally been issued by a left-wing socialist.

Even some conservatives stand in disdain of Rand’s strong individualist capitalist personalities. But how far does that disdain go? Beware that it does not go too far, for by it socialism is born.

When I was a young man, I met a genius with whom I became friends. He did not know he was a genius, and to this day I doubt he knows it. But his quotes are filled with poignant irony.

“When I finally get around to writing my personal Declaration of Independence, the last line will be something like, To these principles I pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor, as long as it does not rain, there is nothing good on television, and it is not inconvenient.” LP

And, with the flare of Sherlock Holmes,

“When all sane explanations fail to explain behavior, then insanity must be the truth.” LP

It is with such foreboding that I ponder the inexplicable campaign words of President Obama. I assume I paraphrase. “America is the greatest nation on earth. Help me change it!” And indeed, all the language of Obama is inexplicable. There is little doubt that Obama is a shining example of an alternative reality within my definition of Patriot. There is certainly irony.

And if an Intellectual Revolution is filled with precise and understandable language, and if it is characterized within the principles of Killology, and if it is couched within the traditional confines of America, and yet it fails … what then?

If Ayn Rand is wrong, is she wrong in this?

“I have given it no thought at all and, off-hand, I would say, no, the government shouldn't control guns except in very marginal forms. I don't think it's very important because I don't think it is in physical terms that the decisions and the fate of this country will be determined. If this country falls apart altogether, if the government collapses bankrupt, your having a handgun in your pocket isn't going to save your life. What you would need is ideas and other people who share those ideas and fighting towards a proper civilized government, not handguns for personal protection.”

I invite you to watch the 3 part Ayn Rand interview, which gives some idea of Rand’s Objectivism philosophy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMTDaVpBPR0&NR=1

Although at first shocking, do the points made pave a clear avenue for American economics and the moral ground upon which socialism drowns? Or are we too altruistic to save ourselves?

George Orwell – Born Eric Arthur Blair
Quotes:
- In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.
- If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.
- War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength (On the manipulation of language
for political ends.)
- But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.

Words We Use

The Principles of Newspeak – Newspeak was the official language … and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought – that is a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc – should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. George Orwell - 1984

Sometime during the last five years I reread George Orwell’s anti-utopian novel, ‘1984.’ I was a teenager the first time I read it and I thought it was a science fiction story. Consequently, I was disappointed and found the book to be boring. There were no bug eyed monsters, no ray guns, and no space ships. When I reread the book, I found it a terrifying scenario describing some of the situations that are possible when Looters are not constrained.

Orwell included an appendix to his book, which I did not bother to read the first time. The appendix is entitled ‘The Principles of Newspeak,’ the official language of the government in the novel. The Appendix is a description of that language and the design of the grammar used. When I read that Appendix, about 2004, I was impressed by the power of language, as presented by Orwell, to suppress critical or rational thought. The Newspeak of 1984 is a powerful metaphor of the language of Political Correctness in 2009.

The language of the Looters tends to have the same effect on their followers as Newspeak did on the citizens of Ingsoc. I am developing some material comparing Newspeak and 21st century political correctness.

Weapons of War: One of the things that is important in a big engagement is to destroy, capture, or spike the big guns of the opposition. One of the big guns of the Looters is the categorical label ‘Racist.’ Usually a single barrage of Racist clears the opposition from the field. The person or group at which it is fired find themselves disarmed and unable to continue the attack. The big gun, ‘Racist,’ and all similar heavy artillery, such as ‘sexist, homophobe, ageist, isolationist, speciest,’ and such have presented a problem to our assault troops every since the civil rights movement. In Orwell’s world instead of accusing a person of being a Racist they would accuse the person of committing ‘Crimethink.’ In our world, although it is not against the law to be a Racist, it is proscribed and not permitted.

Even when Limiters capture the big guns and turn them on the Looters it does us no good for they are adequately protected by the armor of their ideology. ‘Only those afflicted with whiteness can be racists.’ The Looters safely ignore any such assault. So it appears capturing their guns avails us little or nothing.

As a practical matter, the Looters will continue to use their big guns as long as they are effective in sowing confusion and baffling the Limiters. The big guns are only words and consequently are manufactured in any quantity that a particular situation requires. It takes only a keyboard or vocal chords to produce these big guns. It is obvious that we cannot destroy or deprive the Looters of these weapons. This leaves only the third alternative of our battlefield analogy. We must spike them so they are no longer effective weapons of either offense or defense.

The reason so much of what the Looters do and say appears insane or irrational to us is that they and we exist in alternate realities. We hold different truths to be self-evident and use a different metric to measure reality. Their big guns are only effective on the alien terrain of their alternate reality. If we can shift the battlefield to our reality, those guns become useless to the enemy; they are spiked. The desire to combat the Looters with precise language and rational discourse is an attempt to fight on our own turf. The Looters will attempt to drag us back over to their reality where their weapons work better.

Currently we have witnessed a dustup over a statement that Judge Sotomayor spoke a decade or so ago. Her statement was something like, “My experience as a Latina makes me wiser in adjudicating cases than a white man.” When this statement became widely know, some spokesmen of the Limiters grabbed the big guns of the Looters and commenced to bang away. Ann Coulter said “If the judge believes what she said, then objectively she is a racist.” Newt Gingrich solemnly intoned, “There is no way to deny that this is a racist statement.” Sean Hannity repeated, for several days, “The judge claims to be anti-racist, but she makes racist statements and is therefore a hypocrite.” This carpet-bombing with the Looter’s own big guns left the judge unscathed. She did not receive a scratch.

The Looters were bemused by the silly ranting of the Limiters, because they knew that only those whose identity was whiteness could be racists. To a Looter, to call a woman who identified as a Latina a racist, is an oxy-moron. The field of battle was alien terrain.

To fight the battle on our turf would have been easy, in my humble opinion. Whether the person is a racist or not should be as unimportant, to us Limiters, as the person being a Jew, Mormon, Catholic, Baptist, or Muslim. Only Looters care about a person’s personal beliefs about race. It is not against the law to be a racist, so why should anybody care. In the land of the Limiter, what is important is the behavior and actions of the person and the quality of their thinking and speech.

If the validity or truth content of what she said had been examined, then the battlefield would have been moved into the world of reality’ the world of us Limiters. Her statement could have been cast into about twelve propositions for consideration. For example:

1. Because of her life experience, this Latina is wiser than all white men.
2. Because of their life experiences, all Latinas are wiser than all white men.
3. Because of their life experiences, some Latinas are wiser than all white men.

Anyway, you get the idea. Out of the twelve the one that seemed, to me, to make the most sense, within the context of her statement is - Because of her life experience, this Latina is wiser than some white men. Some means more than one and there are a lot of white men who are idiots. The problem is the statement is now so trivial that although it may be true, there is little value in it. Why would she brag that she is wiser than an idiot, or a dozen idiots?

An examination of why a Latina’s life experience makes her wiser than the experience of white men would begin to expose the whole silly, hateful body of identity politics and its illogical assumptions about the world, society, and politics. Such an examination would call the quality of the judges thinking and judgment into question. Why did she choose to be a Latina, a victim, in the world of the Looters?

Of course, the Looters would fire their big guns, as soon as the inquisitors made their first inquiry, and call them Racists for questioning a Latina. Our response should be that that is an entirely irrational response to questions about experience, wisdom, and comparing the wisdom of Latinas and white men. If they persist in lobbing volleys of artillery, the Limiter can dismiss their entire spiel by simply shaking his head sadly and loudly saying ‘Duckspeak,’ or ‘badthink.’ (See the endnote on these words.) If we can maintain our footing in the land of reason, and avoid being pulled back into the mad world of Looter emotion, we win the skirmish, and their guns are spiked.

The wisdom of my white man life experience is that our worldview approaches reality much more closely than the alternate universe of the Looters. I also believe quite strongly that reality bites if you ignore it for very long a time. Therefore, I have faith that when reality bites, the Looters will lose big time. Unfortunately, they do not seem to learn from experience, and they just keep coming back. That is why our founders told us about the necessity of Eternal Vigilance. We failed to be vigilant and let our guard down and look what happened.

ENDNOTE:

“Newspeak, indeed, differed from almost all other languages in that its vocabulary grew smaller instead of larger every year. Each reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought. Ultimately, it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centers at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak, meaning “to quack like a duck.” … Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when the Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment.” 1984 Appendix

Duckspeak is an effective one-word rebuttal to all the Big Guns of the Looters. It would also work on those who spout identical talking points on every TV and media outlet. Imagine some outraged Looter yelling “That’s racist,” and the response being a look of bemusement, or confusion, a shrug of the shoulders and “That’s duckspeak” as a response.

If several thousand persons began referring to Obama’s programs and initiatives as badthink, and calling him a doubleplusgood duckspeaker, enough persons have read 1984 to make the connection and begin doing it themselves.

Doublespeak notwithstanding, it makes good sense to render the Looter’s defense indefensible.

Noah Webster


AN INTELLECTUAL REVOLUTION

"Achilles [famous as the quickest of all Greeks at Troy] can never overtake a tortoise; because by the time he reaches the point from which the tortoise started, it will have moved on to another point; by the time he re- reaches that second point, it will have moved on again, and so forth ad infinitum.” Zeno, a disciple of Parmenides


Although you may find the quotation somewhat convoluted and at best ridiculous, it signifies a step in our intellectual evolution of understanding of the world around us. We refer to the Scientific Revolution and the thinking of Locke, Rousseau, and others, who took from a previous century to make strides in our understanding of man in the next, to help us deal with the ideas of today. And, I will admit, that here too, the title An Intellectual Revolution is, itself, a misnomer.

Then and today we convey ideas through many forms, the primary of which is language. But language is often vague and subject to misinterpretation. What, in today’s world, is the meaning patriot? It means different things to different people. The English language in particular is filled with many meanings of the same word and is rife with innuendo. It is difficult to be clear, artful, succinct and at the same time include a precise definition of every word used.

What, even, do the words intellectual and revolution mean? I am using Microsoft word to write this. The synonyms listed for each are:

Intellectual: thinker, academic, brain, scholar, rational, logical, cerebral.
Revolution: rebellion, revolt, uprising, insurgency, insurrection, riot, mutiny

Thus, my use of the phrase intellectual revolution could mean: a thinker’s riot, an academic’s insurrection, a rational uprising, a scholar’s rebellion, etc. A paranoid government might see this blog as meaning one thing, while a conservative reader might interpret it as meaning something quite different. Thus, I am obligated to define the term intellectual revolution with some precision. I could do it by defining what it is not. For example, it is not a call to violence; it is not a call for secession; it is not a call for a coup. Or I could define it by what it is: A call to debate on a scholarly level, with rational, logical, and precise terms. It is a call to unite people of similar beliefs, culture, and values with the use of precise terms that are clearly understood and that follow the precepts of traditional America based on the constitution and founding documents.

Here again we are being vague because people see the policies that arise from that differently. However, can anyone truly believe that the constitution and founding documents call for the behemoth government bureaucracy of today? One might even side with the Anti-federalists on that point.

I invite you to analyze the following statement alluding to a previous blog:

“You and your Republican Party need to pull your head out of the sand and realize that you are living in the past. Your tactics of “thrashing” your competition do not work any more. Bill Clinton is one of the many very capable Democratic leaders of our great country, and has proven himself so. President Obama slam-dunked your Republican candidate in the past election because he focused his campaign on benefits for the majority of the American people and not on privileges for the affluent few. America is about the welfare of the Majority of its citizens as it has always been, and should be. Until you can be fair-minded with your Blob, please don’t send me any more or your trash.”

The terms used are reasonably straight forward, being on about an eighth grade reading level. I don’t mean that as an insult. Most writing is and should be on an eighth grade level, since the majority of Americans might not understand it otherwise. Again, not an insult. The majority of Americans are busy providing a living for their families, not spending time memorizing the dictionary. Good so far. The writer is also clearly upset. The statement, “pull your head out of the sand and realize that you are living in the past.” is both unclear and troublesome. Pulling your head out of the sand is a metaphor meaning to see things as they really are. But what are they, really? Living in the past. Now that can host a whole variety of meanings. Does he mean that we should relent to becoming a Muslim state or a multicultural entity, leaving behind our traditional culture? Does he mean that we should forgo the constitution since it was scribed some 200 years ago, and things have changed? Should what was once considered deviant sexual behavior be redefined by relativism and the passage of the hate crimes bill? Does he contend, or rather infer, that Obama will bring benefit to the majority of Americans, but will exclude the affluent? That might indicate that he is pro socialist, and if he is, is he for changing everything America stood for? Note that I said STOOD for. I can go on, but need I? The point is that this paragraph is anything but intellectual in its revolutionary content. And yes, it is purulent, socialistic revolutionary double speak. How is that for “trash” talk?

The idea that Achilles cannot catch the tortoise is based on an undefined premise as well as taken out of context. Does a moving body redefine itself in continuum? It is understood by most people that we define ourselves by our environment and the boundaries set by our senses, prescribed as they are. We know that what we see is not what is. What we do and what we perceive is affectation. Thus man has built around himself a construct in which chaos is minimized, and he can live within some amount of structure that is reasonable, if not comfortable.

That construct is partly of self-defined, and he refines that definition as time passes and more information becomes available. It often amuses me that I first took a degree in philosophy at the university, but switched to mathematics and engineering out of disgust for the vagary of philosophy. Two plus two is always four, right! But is it really? The reality, I am sad to say, is that mathematics and physics are both vague and changing as new information becomes available. When I graduated, Newtons laws were thought to be the end of physics. There was simply nowhere else to go. Yet Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, and many other elite mathematicians have shown Newton’s laws to be incorrect. Yes, I will admit that Newton’s laws still work acceptably for many things we engineers use to build what people want. Yet String theory, a developing branch of theoretical physics that combines quantum mechanics and general relativity into a quantum theory of gravity, is showing Newton to be wrong.

Ah, yes, you say, but what has all that to do with an intellectual political revolution? As the coming rallies and protests against the bailouts, the stimulus packages, the take over of some of America’s major corporations, the arbitrary earning ceilings on corporate managers, the regulating of an entrepreneurial and capitalist society, the acquiescence to our enemies, and the apologies for protecting freedom around the world unfold, this blog will devote itself to outlining an intellectual approach to what is rapidly becoming an American revolution. The conscious use of precise language is the key to revolutionary success.

KILLOLOGY - Bullet Proofing the Mind

KILLOLOGY, (n): The scholarly study of the destructive act, just as sexology is the scholarly study of the procreative act. In particular, killology focuses on the reactions of healthy people in killing circumstances (such as police and military in combat) and the factors that enable and restrain killing in these situations. This field of study was pioneered by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, in his Pulitzer-nominated book, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society.

An unprecedented phenomenon is occurring with the election of President Obama, his administration, and the Democrats gaining control of government. Try to order ammunition, reloading components, or a semi-automatic rifle. They are almost impossible to find because people are buying and hoarding them in record numbers. Manufacturers are working 24/7, trying to keep up with demand. Why is this happening?

When I ask people that question, the answer is always the same. They believe that President Obama’s administration will begin to enact laws that will curtail their ability to own weapons. That begs the question: Why do people think they need a weapon? I remember the day nearly 40 years ago when the government tried to outlaw revolvers with 2” barrels, calling them Saturday Night Specials. Many people I know bought one just to oppose the law for the sake of principle. And that is partially the case today. In other cases, people believe that crime is on the rise, and they want a weapon to protect themselves. But a smaller number believe the constitution’s Second Amendment went much deeper than that. Its concept was to prevent an oppressive, authoritarian government taking control of the nation.

All that is fine, but is benign if the government resorts to confiscation. But I am getting ahead of myself. Let’s look at what the people did who bought these weapons. Some do so and take the additional step of obtaining a concealed weapons permit (CWP). Others are unwilling to obtain one based on their reasoning that the federal and state governments have no right legislating their ability to protect themselves, and besides, doing so, they believe, puts them on the list of “low hanging fruit” for confiscation. As one who is involved in the training of law enforcement (LE), military, and civilians in the use of handguns, close quarter battle rifles, and long-range precision rifles, I am aware of several problems inherent in all of this.

Most people, even some LE and military personnel, and almost all civilians who use weapons are caught up in the inconsistency of philosophy versus action, which prevents them from using weapons effectively. Here is a “happens too often” scenario: The person decides he or she ought to have a handgun to protect him or herself. He or she buys a semi-automatic handgun, takes a CWP class, which consists of a combination of classroom study, filling out of paperwork, and a shooting qualification test, often completed in one day. This qualification test is accomplished by having the student stand in front of a life sized silhouette target at three close range distances and score above some preset standard. For the most part students are given a permit if they breath, can point the muzzle down range, and have the strength to pull the trigger. If new CWP holders are reasonable about all this, they show up at some indoor or outdoor range a few times and shoot at static targets from the standing position. If they understand the psychology of carry, the weapon becomes a part of their daily life. However, almost all never do, or do so for only a few months before the act becomes burdensome, and they stop. But then their ability is not as much in question as their right to have a gun to defend themselves.

By far the majority of people who buy weapons for self-defense have no idea how to use them in combat. Of course they think they do from watching television. Often this results in problems of its own. I don’t know who is the consultant on these sets, but if they are any good, their advise must be overruled by the producer as not being macho enough. I have watched almost no action on TV or the movies where the gun handler had any idea how to use a weapon in a self-defense or combat mode. The truth is that many people freeze in a self-defense mode, or their adrenaline and stress are so high they can’t find the safety, fumble with trying to load a round, or have no idea how to clear a jammed weapon, and often don’t know who the bad guy is. Some just freeze from Pre Traumatic Stress Disorder. That is, they are traumatized by what they perceive will happen, like the security guard who stood with his weapon drawn but was unable to fire while a sociopath continued to shoot innocent people. The guard was both traumatized by what was going on and by denial.

None train to continue shooting if wounded. They don’t train to shoot with either arm if the other is incapacitated, or how to reload or work the slide with one hand, or know how to approach a doorway, or hit a moving target. That is why I tell people who know they will not practice to buy a revolver. Pull the trigger and they always go off. Of course semi-autos look neater, appear more macho, and carry a lot more ammo to effect the spray and pray technique. 100, 000 rounds were required for every kill in WWII, 250,000 in Korea, and 450,000 in Vietnam. Why? Because the effective use of guns was put aside in lieu of the spray and prey method of fighting.

Success in combat comes less from hardware, ie, the weapon, than it does from software, ie, the brain and the heart. I never met a Special Forces soldier who had Pre or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), yet I have met many conventional soldiers who were stricken with one or the other. Why? Combat in the military is fought primarily by youngsters in their teens or early twenties after only six weeks of training, which includes Basic Training, Combat Infantry School, and then their MOS, for example radio operator, medic, etc. Special Forces soldiers on the other hand are often much older, have some higher education, maybe have some military already behind them, and are trained for 2.5 to 3 years prior to being deployed, depending on their MOS.

What does all this boil down to? In the last blog I said that many people see Publius as one who complains a lot, but provides no answers, to which the response was that the solution is contained in two parts: An intellectual revolution and Killology. And further, that this blog is not advocating killing anyone. Then why all the ink spent on talking about weapons, self-defense, etc.? Because to succeed in an intellectual revolution we must first change the attitude of the masses. The mental management concepts within Killology will allow us to do that.

First one must understand that the world is made up of predators and prey. In the vernacular of Col. Grossman: sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves. Sheep refers primarily to the masses and is not meant as a derogatory term. Unfortunately, most people, like sheep, are always in denial. They prefer to think that the bad guy will not hurt them or their children; they prefer to think that the government, in the final analysis, will do the right thing; they prefer to think that situations will not affect them personally, particularly if they remain passive. And because of that, they seldom protest, unite, or do anything but huddle in the corner when the wolves come, believing that the sheepdogs, i.e. the police and military will take care of the problem, or that the perpetrator will take pity on them alone.

People can and need to change their mindset. Being a sheepdog, one who protects the flock from the wolf, is a learned response. A metaphor often used in Texas is, “Cowboy up.” Hollywood portrays everything as a pity party. Stop trying to identify yourself with such drivel. If you are knocked down, get back up. If you are so scared you shit in your pants, change them and forge ahead.

Col. Grossman is fond of saying, “Denial has no survival value.” And further,

"Stay in shape. Piss on golf. Real Americans go to the range. Choose a sport with cardio or survival skill benefit. If you see a cop carrying golf clubs, do one thing for me. Look him in the eye and say 'baaa!'" Plan A is the British Model. Disarm everyone. It's not working. Plan B is the Israeli Model. Train/ arm everyone. Israel has few golf courses and a lot of rifle ranges!"
I encourage you to google Killology and become familiar with its concepts of mental management.
If you are going to Take America Back, you need to cease being the prey. But do not follow the example of Iran and other nations that cannot seem to lift themselves from the 13th century. The use of threatening words and behavior in protest is not the answer. If 100 million people were to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue, their theme being to return to traditional American values, things would change. But coarse confrontations, profane acts, and the childish behavior of a few do not serve our values or our ideals well.

The time has come to initiate an intellectual revolution. Like the person who takes up the gun, but has no idea how to use it, protestors take up the cause with no idea how to empower it. The next blog will be devoted to both the use of mental management taken from Killology and the use of language. For example, why do we use the term Patriot, when, in fact, that term has become an abstraction without definition?

America, A Muslim Nation


“There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam in Europe without swords, without guns, without conquest. We don’t need terrorists; we don’t need homicide bombers. The 50+ million Muslims (in Europe) will turn it into a Muslim continent within a few decades.” Muammar al-Gaddafi

Former President Bill Clinton has told an Arab-American audience of 1,000 people that the U.S. is no longer just a black-white country, nor a country that is dominated by Christians and a powerful Jewish minority.

In a speech to the group on Saturday, Clinton said that given the growing numbers of Muslims, Hindus and other religious groups here, Americans should be mindful of the nation's changing demographics, which led to the election of Barack Obama as president.

Clinton said by 2050 the U.S. will no longer have a majority of people with European heritage and that in an interdependent world "this is a very positive thing."



We fear terrorists. We fear that they will strike America again. It is only a matter of time. But do they need to do so to accomplish their mission to spread Islam throughout the world? Not so if Gaddafi is correct. Is President Obama correct when he says that we are not a Christian nation, that we are not a Jewish nation? While one suspects that he made such statements to woo the Arab world, does he know something we don’t? Does he foresee the future and is trying to make it easier on us? Is Bill Clinton correct?

The fact is, not just Obama and Clinton are saying this. The entire Muslim world and their clerics are saying it. And it sounds as though two of America’s presidents are willing to bow to such insanity. How about you?

Almost every country in the world is producing below the sustenance level required to keep their people from becoming extinct. Muslim Demographics It is so bad, in fact, that in many countries the trend is irreversible. Europe, for example, is increasing in population but not because of the birth rate of its indigenous people. It is increasing because of immigration, primarily that of Muslims whose birth rate is far above the 2.2 minimum number of children required per family to sustain and regenerate an indigenous people. When family size falls below that, a people and their culture begin to die. In less than 50 years, the European Union will be a Muslim state, and Europe, for all intents and purposes, will cease to exist. According to Clinton, it will happen here in just 41 years. If you just had a child, both he or she and your grandchild will live in a Muslim dominated nation. Will women be allowed to drive, teach, have jobs? Will they be required to wear burkhas? Will they have to die if their family sees something they perceive as dishonoring them? Will you see stonings in the streets? Will you see people with severed hands because they stole something? Will you see a rise in legal polygamy?

The Spanish have acquiesced to the Muslims by allowing polygamist marriages, something they previously saw as immoral and uncivilized. Paris has 200,000 polygamists. This and other trends such as honor killings have taken hold in many European countries with such intensity that they cannot be rid of them. There are now more Mosques in parts of Europe than there are Christian churches. And while Muslims work tirelessly to convert people to Islam, there are dire consequences for Muslims who convert to Christianity.

What is sustaining the American population? Immigration from Mexico of course. The Muslims believe they can overtake and dominate the world through immigration, procreation, population, and infiltration. It is interesting to note that many Mexican American leaders believe they can overtake and dominate America the same way. It is frightening to realize that when they do, America will be just like Mexico and the Middle East. In the throes of poverty, illiteracy, and fraught with drug cartels and militant radicalism, they will take civilization back to the 13th century.

Americans, Canadians, and Europeans are occupied with self. They want the good life, a bigger house, a better neighborhood, the BMW, the swimming pool, and 30 day vacations to Bermuda. They also want personal autonomy and less personal responsibility. One way to achieve that is to have less or no children. And besides, it is good for society to ration resources to maximize the longevity of the quality of life, isn't it? If the population of America begins to match that of China and India, those resources that provide us the good life will become scarce. No more good life.

America has seen a paradigm shift in the past fifty years. The divorce rate is beginning to exceed the marriage rate. Single parenting and abortion are on the rise. A disregard and even disdain for our public faith and icons continues to grow. In my travels in many parts of the world, I can say that America has the fattest people in the world. There seems to be a lack of national pride and even self pride. Where did it go?

People ask, “Publius, you have lots of complaints. Where are the solutions?”

The solution is found on two fronts: 1) An intellectual revolution and 2) kilology, to which the next several Publius blogs will be devoted.

Kilology you say? That sounds like the study of killing, and it most cases it certainly is. Our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq are doing it. Our soldiers did it in the Revolutionary war, the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Granada, and Bosnia as has all of humanity since the beginning of recorded history. But before you get all worked up and believe you have another radical extremist who poses a violent threat to America on your hands, the subject of kilology will not be devoted to killing anyone, nor will it advocate such an act unless in self defense.

Instead, kilology is a mindset, something that many Americans, particularly the silent majority, do not have. The fact is that Americans, for the most part, are soft, unresponsive sheep. Kilology teaches you why and how to turn them into wolves.

BEHOLD A PALE HORSE

And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And Power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with the sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. Revelation 6:8

A great many people who believe in a literal translation of the bible believe that the predictions found in Revelations are upon us. Indeed, there is great hunger in the world. Indeed there are wars taking place in many parts of the world, and terrorism is worldwide. And indeed, one might consider the beasts of the earth as the recent tsunami in Asia, earthquakes in many parts of the world, and the treat of asteroids hitting the earth.

Yet it is unlikely if not impossible for any of us to have any influence over any of these. It may be impossible as well to have any influence over what is happening in our day-to-day lives in America. You may go to bed a patriot and wake up a criminal, outcast, radical, extremist, or fundamentalist. Let me give you an example. And though you might agree with the outcome, you should be able to embrace its relevance.

I grew up in a Mormon community in Southern Utah. All my relatives were Mormons as was everyone in the small, mountain village. The name Mormon was given them because of the book by that name that is purported to be a continuation of the old and new testaments, an update so to speak. Their real name is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. However, let me use the shortened term LDS as it takes so fewer letters to write.

Joseph Smith, the founder, and the first authorities of the church believed in and practiced many things that were looked on by American society as immoral in some cases and perverse in others. But members of the LDS Church of the day believed strongly in them, and continued their practice. The persecution suffered for such indifference to and defiance of social norms took a great toll though it did not stop or sway them. Seeking relief, Brigham Young led his flock west until they came upon the Salt Lake Valley, where Brigham was quoted as saying, “This is the place.” And indeed it was. A treeless, sagebrush covered, alkali flat bordered by tall, nearly impenetrable mountains to the east and an extremely salty lake to the west. No one would want this wasteland. Through effort that I find difficult to imagine, they settled that land and even turned it into what is today a relative paradise.

Through it all they held on to their beliefs and the practices that had forced them from American society. They were alone, planting in barren land, but unprovoked by outsiders. But then came the changes, wholly by political coercion . Polygamy was outlawed, not only in the states, but in the Church as well. Other beliefs, considered outlandish by the populace, began to fade as well. All done in an effort to ”fit in” with national politics, obtain statehood, and in general, get the US Government off their backs.

This gave rise to the Fundamentalist Mormon Church, which I shall refer to as FLDS. In other words, some believed that the original tenets of the church were true and must be followed, regardless of popular opinion or the government. The FLDS split from the main body of the Church both by desire and by force. And they remain true to the original beliefs to this day, and in particular to Doctrine and Covenants Section 132, a section that remains to this day as part of LDS doctrine. http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132

In other words, one might use the metaphor: FLDS were patriots (to the church) one day but woke up criminals the next day with no changes in their values or faith ever having been made.

Mainstream LDS are splendid, moral, family oriented, patriotic people who strongly uphold traditional America values. Fundamentalists, on the other hand, are considered backward, immoral, and criminal. While they are left alone for the most part, they are often persecuted when someone makes an outstanding complaint, as was recently done in the case of Warren Jeffs and the storming of his compound.

I went to school with polygamists, many who lived just a block away. When my mother died, a group of them bought her house. They were FLDS and outcasts even within that small community.

If you are conservative and believe strongly in the constitution and traditional American values, you might find yourself in the same predicament as the FLDS. That is, patriots today yet waking up a criminal tomorrow, with no changes in your beliefs or conduct ever having been made.

This is not an unusual circumstance. It has happen over and over again throughout history. Though you may agree with the mainstream LDS church to part with the FLDS, and though you might find some of FLDS’s beliefs repugnant, can you not identify with their willingness to sacrifice all for what they believe? Against all odds they fought the Church, the government, and local authorities. Can we, who seem to find ourselves in a similar situation, change our values to suit a newer, liberal, left wing takeover of OUR beliefs? Does the majority rule? Has our Republic become a Democracy? Will mob rule rule? Or will we, like the FLDS, continue to defy what is rapidly becoming the majority? Will we succumb to the cultural values of immigrants, changing our own in some misguided feeling of well … sportsmanship, thus diluting ours until we have no identity? But our culture and our pubic faith are our identity.

Many of us who think of ourselves as American patriots are suddenly being characterized as extremists and radicals. Because we don’t see the constitution as a living document, changing with the tide, we are not progressive. Because we wish America to remain an English speaking culture, united in its public faith, we are racists. Because we believe in a responsibility to our values, we aren’t relativistic, not willing to live and let live. As our younger generation would say, “Like … who are you to say who is right or wrong, you know … like yo man, I go, you be telling me how to do my beeeaatch?” And with such garbled noises, our beautiful language becomes at once the profane, ugly, and unrestrained voice of rabble.

A pale horse need not ride into your midst to destroy your faith, your social structure, your values, or your livelihood. Our government will do it all on its own. Beware not of a pale horse but of those who wish to supplant our traditional values, the sacrifices made by the great generation to protect those who now disregard sacrifice, or those who work tirelessly for our demise.

Let an intellectual revolution be the first step to Take America Back!

Disarming America

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not traitor, he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared." - Cicero, 42 B.C.

There are three characteristics that, when taken together, distinguish man from the rest of the animal world: An opposing thumb, the ability to reason, and the ability to compose music. Unlike the rest of the animal world, the only integral survival tools available to Homo Sapiens are the first two. Man has always used those abilities to provide for himself and his family and to defend against his enemies. Being without claws and relatively weak, man’s use of rocks and sticks made their debut eons ago. With ingenuity, he continued to advance his weapons to spears, bows, and finally guns, missiles, and bombs.

One can picture his prehistoric ancestors rushing around with few clothes, throwing sticks and stones at one another. A bit laughable when one can also picture the devastation and carnage wrought by the weapons used during the Second World War and the much more efficient weapons of today.

It is undeniable, however, that people, countries, cultures, religions, and economic systems will not cease to threaten or be threatened anytime soon. It is equally without argument that people will always be threatened by the common criminal.

For those with the least amount of common sense, the idea of utopia or heaven on earth is not possible. People who seek power, who cannot tolerate the culture of others, or who are threatened by the advances and prosperity of other civilizations will always resort, at one time or another, to the use of weapons to engage and win over their supposed adversaries. The US, as well as every other advanced nation, uses that realization to arm themselves in a defensive posture against such threats, real or imagined. People the world over see this as necessary, the most obvious reason being to thwart such aggressive conquerors as Hitler.

Thus, most people agree with the need for national defense. However, many do not believe that this need trickles down to the everyday citizen. Many believe that one does not need a gun to protect oneself. They do not seem to see the similarities between national defense and defense of the individual. Others do not see the need for national defense either, believing that some form of touchy-feely approach to the world will solve all ills. While laudable in their good intentions, they are deceived by their naiveté.

In the very early years of this nation, people were required to have a weapon. Most did to supply their families with meat in any case. In today’s world most simply obtain their meat from the grocer. And many see hunters as brutes from a time past. Their stance might be changed by one visit to a slaughtering house prior to its being displayed so innocently on the grocer’s shelf.

Many people, primarily those in the larger cities, see guns as a danger to them and to Americans in general. They believe that if guns are taken away from everyone, the danger posed by guns will cease. They work at making this seem real from almost every conceivable angle. There are hundreds of bills in Congress and the state legislatures at any given time, trying to further restrict or abolish guns. Now and then they get one passed, and as illustrated in the last Publius blog, they continue to take small bites out of America’s heritage. They are bound to continue this until there is nothing left.

Many foreigners, whose gun rights have already been taking away, see America as the last great hope. They know the devastating results brought about by the abolition of the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. Almost every dictatorial and tyrannical regime was the result of removing guns from the general public. Even England and Australia did not vote on the subject. Their parliaments simply said bring your guns in or go to jail.

Here is the question: What will you do when the US government comes to you and says “Bring all your guns in tomorrow for confiscation or face jail; resist and risk death.”? Will you resist or quietly hand over all your guns like others have in the past in Germany, Cuba, the Philippines, England, Australia and every other nation on earth? Even Canada and Mexico have much more restrictive gun laws than the US. There is an even more pertinent question: If you are law enforcement, military, national guard, secret service, or any other government employee, will you follow the government’s orders? You understand, do you not, that you have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. There should be no question in your mind what you are going to follow and what it is your duty to do. If there is, you need to move to one of the countries mentioned above. Such illegal orders do not override the constitution.

The primary reason set down by the 2nd Amendment was not so that we could hunt or compete or plink with guns. Any reasonable person understands that. The 2nd Amendment was provided for several reasons, all having to do with defense, both of country and of self and family. Those principles have not changed, nor will they. The men who set our country in motion knew well that tyrannical governments oppress the people unless they can defend themselves. It is inferred within this statement that people have, as well, the right to protect themselves against any violent threat to themselves or their families. Alexander Hamilton, writing in the Federalist Papers, was specific in explaining that silence is not the same as abolition. The constitution does not say that individuals do not the have the right to keep and bear arms. The concept that they do is so well understood that saying so is to insult the intelligence of even the most backward citizen.

It appears that many people do not feel threatened by either the state or the violent criminal. They instead feel threatened by those who legally obtain, own, and safely use guns. The new head of Homeland Security feels these people might be a threat to the nation. Many, she believes, are radicals and extremists who are a danger to America. That sort of reverse logic is what an authoritarian government wants people to think. They see such people not as loyal patriots but as threats to their new world order.

In Chuck Baldwin’s recent account entitled Gun Confiscation is Tyranny is the following quote”

“If one doubts the intention of the elitists in government today to deny the American people their right to keep and bear arms, consider what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is purported to have said just a couple of weeks ago. Kissinger attended a high-level meeting with Russian President Medvedev that also included former Secretaries of State James Baker and George Shultz; former Secretary of Defense William Perry; and former Senator Sam Nunn. Included in the discussions was Kissinger's assertion that the American people were now ready to accept a "New Global Order." He is also reported to have told Medvedev, "By September we'll have confiscated all privately owned guns so it really doesn't matter what we do, we'll still be in charge." (Even though the national news media has not reported this statement, the Internet is abuzz with Kissinger having said it. Whether Kissinger actually made that statement or not, he, and rest of his ilk, have repeatedly called for a New World Order, in which there will be no constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.)”This leads to a very serious question: how many of America's gun owners would allow their government to deny them gun ownership? Further, how many would passively sit back and allow their guns to be confiscated?”As humbly and meekly as I know how to say it: as for me and my house, gun confiscation is the one act of tyranny that crosses the line; debate, discourse, discussion, and peaceful dissent cease and desist at that point. I say again, it is getting very serious now.”

While the threat of physical violence is not the only peril we face in America, without the second amendment there is no U.S. Constitution.