Sadness

While watching the Olympics opening ceremony, I've been struck by a sense of sadness and emotion.  There is so much acrimony, bitterness, and denigration of each other.  Political pundits that preach the need for unity and solidarity (as long as you are backing their causes) try to outdo each other in their ability to mock and scorn the other nations.  I was overwhelmed by a sense of how we are all children of our Father in Heaven.  Should this not be a special opportunity to celebrate the joy of the diverse expressions of being brothers and sisters?  How is it that we cannot find it with in ourselves to love and cherish each other?  Why is it that even those who should hold fast to the truth so often are found mocking and scorning the principles that would create the world that they so avidly preach for?  How have we as a world become so lost and deceived?

False Heros

It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets.” ~ Voltaire

Here is the famed Seneca, writing in the first century:

We are mad, not only individually, but nationally. We check manslaughter and isolated murders; but what of war and the much vaunted crime of slaughtering whole peoples? There are no limits to our greed, none to our cruelty. And as long as such crimes are committed by stealth and by individuals, they are less harmful and less portentous; but cruelties are practised in accordance with acts of senate and popular assembly, and the public is bidden to do that which is forbidden to the individual. Deeds that would be punished by loss of life when committed in secret, are praised by us because uniformed generals have carried them out.

The early Christian author Lactantius said of the Romans:

They despise indeed the excellence of the athlete, because there is no harm in it; but royal excellence, because it is wont to do harm extensively, they so admire that they think that brave and warlike generals are placed in the assembly of the gods, and that there is no other way to immortality than by leading armies, devastating foreign (countries), destroying cities, overthrowing towns, (and) either slaughtering or enslaving free peoples. Truly, the more men they have afflicted, despoiled, (and) slain, the more noble and renowned do they think themselves; and, captured by the appearance of empty glory, they give the name of excellence to their crimes. Now I would rather that they should make gods for themselves from the slaughter of wild beasts than that they should approve of an immortality so bloody. If any one has slain a single man, he is regarded as contaminated and wicked, nor do they think it right that he should be admitted to this earthly dwelling of the gods. But he who has slaughtered endless thousands of men, deluged the fields with blood, (and) infected rivers (with it), is admitted not only to a temple, but even to heaven.

Just as you can’t have a war on drugs without DEA agents, just as you can’t have invasive airline security procedures without TSA agents, and just as you can have a police state without police, so you can’t have a war without soldiers.

This mindset that exalts and excuses soldiers for doing things that ordinary Americans would be put in prison for must be destroyed.   

See: You Can't Have a War Without Soldiers-Laurence M. Vance

Our most holy of wars

Abraham Lincoln has been raised to status of diety in the eyes of many. Any attempt to state that perhaps the South had reason to resist the North are met with cries of derision and mockery. Yet there is much that must be refuted to proclaim the Union's stance as one purely holy and glorious. Consider the following statement from a coalition of Northern governors to Lincoln to persuade him to not falter in the march to war:

Seward [Lincoln's Secretary of State who was urging peace] cries perpetually that we must not do this, and that, for fear war should result. Seward is shortsighted. War is precisely the thing we should desire. Our party interests have everything to lose by a peaceable settlement of this trouble, and everything to gain by collision. For a generation we have been “the outs”; now at last we are “the ins.” While in opposition, it was very well to prate of the Constitution, and of rights; but now we are the government, and mean to continue so; and our interest is to have a strong and centralized government. It is high time now that the government were revolutionized and consolidated, and these irksome “States’ rights” wiped out. We need a strong government to dispense much wealth and power to its adherents; we want permanently high tariffs, to make the South tributary to the North; and now these Southern fellows are giving us precisely the opportunity we want to do all this, and shall Seward sing his silly song of the necessity of avoiding war? War is the very thing we should hail! The Southern men are rash, and now profoundly irritated. Our plan should be, by some artifice, to provoke them to seem to strike the first blow. Then we shall have a pretext with which to unite the now divided North, and make them fly to arms. The Southerners are a braggart, but a cowardly and effeminate set of bullies; we shall easily whip them in three months. But this short war will be, if we are wise, our sufficient occasion. We will use it to destroy slavery, and thus permanently cripple the South. And that is the stronghold of all these ideas of “limited government” and “rights of the people.” Crush the South, by abolishing slavery, and we shall have all we want—a consolidated government, an indefinite party ascendancy, and ability to lay on such tariffs and taxes as we please, and aggrandize ourselves and our section!

Behold, the party of Lincoln. And the government that we now have. Perhaps we should worship him, as our true founding father. Following his reign of blood and horror this is exactly what we have gotten. The Constitution was dealt a fatal blow many years ago, and we have been slowly dying ever since.

Robert L. Dabney, “Memoir of a Narrative Received of Colonel John B. Baldwin of Staunton, Touching the Origin of the War,” Discussions (Harrisonburg, Va.: Sprinkle Publications, 1994), pp. 87–110.

Invictus

Invictus

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul. 

William Ernest Henley

Man, Oh, Man

From my brother:

I saw an article today about an alligator snapping turtle being found in Oregon. The department of fish and wildlife resources exterminated the turtle because it was not supposed to be in Oregon. The article stated the following:

 

"Alligator snapping turtles, with their scaly tails, spiked shells, and powerful beaked jaws, do not belong anywhere but their native southeastern United States habitat (where they’re a threatened species). There, in swamps and river and canals, they help balance the ecosystem.

Beyond that territory, though, they’re regarded as pests with the potential to adversely impact native fishes and small amphibian species (they’ll even devour ducklings), and spread disease. Their extremely powerful bite also makes them dangerous to humans."

 

Apparently man is supposed to whip nature back into shape when it gets out of line. How dare a snapping turtle leave its man-declared native habit! Keep those turtles where they belong! Give a turtle a break. He was just practicing natural selection: after all, his species is endangered in its native habitat. He might just be looking for a less dangerous place to live. Guess he didn't find one.

 

Apparently another reason to keep the turtles in check is because they can be dangerous to humans. But what about wolves and cougars? Apparently those have been declared native and we are supposed to welcome them back. And as far as global warming is concerned, how dare the earth get warmer than it is supposed to be! Man believes he can regulate the earth's temperature through political mandates. Oh the pride of man!

See article :http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/nature/post/prehistoric-looking-alligator-snapping-turtle-is-not-wanted-in-oregon/

Charity? No, it's Theft!

In both Moses and 4th Nephi we read of a Zion society. A particular component is that “there was no poor among them.” How do you get to where there are no poor among them? I’ve asked for a real-world social/political/organizational implementation of this. Below is a synopsis of many of those conversations.

A: How do we implement a society where there “are no poor among us?” What would that look like? What does that even mean?

B: Well, everyone would have everything they need.

A: How? Would everyone work so hard that they would make enough money to buy all the food they need, houses, clothes, etc.? What about those who are crippled, mentally handicapped, or too old or too young? To keep things simpler, let’s just talk about financial needs right now.

B: Those that have more than they need would take care of and provide for those who don’t have enough.

A: So, if you saw someone whom you thought needed something, you would just give them money? There are probably a lot of people that I don’t see very often and so wouldn’t know that they need help, and I can’t give a whole lot and still cover my own needs. How would someone take care of expensive things? A lot of people giving them? So if you need money, you have to either hope that enough people recognize your need, or you have to go begging for it?

B: You could have a pool of money that everyone contributes to, and then that would cover people’s needs. There would be enough for the larger expenses that some other individual may not be able to pay on behalf of the needy person.

A: If you needed money, you would just go to the big box and take what you needed? This seems to open it up to a lot of abuse. We can always come up with some sort of “need” that a few extra monies could help with.

B: You’d have to have some sort of administrator to determine who got the money, and how much they got. Some sort of organization to keep things orderly and make sure that it was given out fairly.

A: How are we going to choose who that person or group is going to be? What are the rules to determine what is “fair”? Who gets to decide those? These issues start becoming really complex, really fast. There are a lot of layers that have to be decided and agreed upon.

For example, what if I don’t agree with the decisions of whomever is “in charge”. I’m going to stop giving and revert back to helping only those that I view as being in need of help, reducing the effectiveness and ability of the welfare system. It is pretty much guaranteed that everyone is going to be frustrated at some distribution at some point. If enough people withdraw, or the system doesn’t get enough buy-in to begin with, then we are back to before there was anything set up. Actually, potentially worse off. Because you have to account for the time and costs of trying to get the system running, the shift in perception towards an organized welfare system, and the hurt feelings of those who participated.

B: We could just pay for it out of taxes, then we don’t have to worry about those issues.

A: Taxes! We have already seen the problems with tax based welfare systems in the world we have now. How would that work in a society striving to eliminate having “poor amongst them”? Let’s explore taxes as funding for the welfare program.

B: Ummm... ok.

A: What are taxes?

B: Money you pay the government.

A: Why?

B: Because you have to. It’s the law.

A: So? What if I don’t want to? What if I think that they are unfair or unjust? What if I don’t agree with how they are going to be spent?

B: You still have to pay them or you could go to jail. Or they could just garnish your wages.

A: So, taxes are essentially money that the government forces me to give them, that I would not otherwise voluntarily give, under the threat of force or violence.

B: Well, no... ummm...

A: If there were no threats of punishment, would you pay taxes? If, come April 15, you knew that you could completely ignore it, would you still fill out the forms and send off a chunk of money?

B: Probably not.

A: So taxes are theft.

B: No they aren’t...

A: Ok. [We are at lunch in a cafeteria] I’m looking around and it is pretty obvious to me that that guy over there needs food. Go give your food to him.

B: Wait, what?!

A: Go give your food to him. Now.

B: No. It’s my food. Besides, he already has food.

A: But not enough. Give him your food.

B: No. He has plenty off food. He doesn’t need my food.

A: I have determined that he is food deficient and you must rectify the situation by giving him your food. I’m going to take your food from you and go give it to him.

B: No you aren’t!

A: I’m going to beat you with this chair until you let me take your food over to him. And if that isn’t enough, I’m going to get some of the people around us to hold you down while I take your food to him.

B: What the heck are you talking about? That isn’t fair! He doesn’t need my food and that would be assault and stealing!

A: How is this any different than taxes?

B: You aren’t the government! No one gave you power to do that!

A: So, If I could get enough of the people around here to say that I am the government, then I can take your food or beat you or hold you down if I felt like it? Remember, this is only for the good of that guy over there.

B: That’s not how it works! That is acting like a tyrant. It doesn’t matter how many people you convince to let you do that, it still isn’t right.

A: How is this any different than taxes? A bunch of people in a geographic area declare that some people and organizations are empowered to come in and take property of others and then use it as they see fit. Any resistance to these actions are met by overwhelming threat and violence. This is exactly how the income tax and welfare tax schemes work; just on a much larger scale than some guys here in the food court ganging up on you. As Rothbard says: “The government is just a gang of thieves writ large.”

Even if we stick with the food court example, what are the effects of this “charity” that I’m enacting. How do you feel about it?

B: I don’t know that I agree with your characterization of the government and taxes. Of course what you are doing isn’t “charity”: you are beating me up and stealing my property and then giving it to some other guy.

A: So you have issues with the method of collection. What are your feelings towards the person who is receiving the benefit of your generosity?

B: Can’t say that I’m going to be very pleased with him. He’s taking goods stolen from me for his own use.

A: What do you think his feelings towards you are going to be?

B: Does he even know that the food originally was mine? Does he know I only gave it up under threat?

A: No. He’s receiving it from me. I’m the one delivering it to him.

B: He’s going to thank you. He doesn’t know anything about me, so I don’t think he’s going to have any feelings about me.

A: Regardless of these feelings, we have now solved the problem of “no poor among us”, right? There was a person in need, you had the means of suppling his wants, so everything is good. Obviously, all we have to do is implement this system on a large enough scale, tweak it so it is efficient, and we will soon be on our way to a Zion society.

----

This obviously doesn’t solve the poor dilemma. At this point person B is angry that I besmirched the government and taxes, but doesn’t have any response other than grudgingly admitting that he can’t discern the differences between taxation and theft, so somehow I must have pulled a fast one over on him somehow. No one believes that a zion society could possibly result from a tax supported welfare system that seems to be based upon violence and robbery. The issue seems insurmountable and confusing.

The problem is, all of these issues have been addressed and argued by many people for thousands of years. The answers are also clearly stated in the scriptures, if you know how to recognize them, which mainly consists in looking for them with a basic understanding of gospel doctrine, economics, and an understanding of agency. If we seek for the actions that will most enable us to become “agents unto ourselves” and to “be actors, not to be acted upon” in a pursuit to become like our father, the answers are all clearly available.

The Book of Mormon in particular clearly lays out the problems, gives solid historical examples, clarifies the theory behind both the satanic impulses and drives of men and the divine desires, and then tells us how to implement them. The greatest difficulties seems to lie in the the fact that most people have no interest in finding these things. The gospel is for “churchy” things, right? Searching the scriptures for such secular and mundane teachings is almost borderline blasphemous. It takes so much work, and they don’t have training or aren’t taking a class on those subjects. Besides, the answers so clash with so-called mainstream political and social views, that they almost can’t recognize them anyways.

If we truly desired a Zion society, wouldn’t we strive to become knowledgable in all these areas? Wouldn’t we be consumed with knowing the principles and theory behind godly governance and social structure? As long as we remain willfully ignorant, there can be no wonder that the demonic society we live in runs rampant over everything we hold dear and then stand in baffled amazement losing battle after battle.

Plundering the Soul

So much focus is placed on the "political process" and "If only we could get our guy in there!"  Yet increasingly it is becoming obvious that these are false processes.  Government of the people, by the people.  Consent of the governed.  Don't we throw those around a lot?  If the people are despotic, are we surprised that the government that is elected is as well?  As long as it is my guy that is doing the looting, killing, destroying of them then everything is ok, but hey, don't loot, kill, or destroy me!  So many of us readily endorse all sorts of demonic policies, especially if we can directly take credit for supporting them.  As a people, we have been thoroughly deceived by the cunning and craftiness of the evil one.  We no longer care about the difference between law and legislation.  We don't care about the destruction of those around us for power and prestige.  We don't recognize liberty or freedom; we don't even conceptually know what they are.  And many of those that superficially spout laudatory accolades to the concepts of agency and liberty also deeply espouse and promote policies and actions that are absolutely antithetical to the ends they proclaim to hold.  Educating ourselves, and then others; learning truth and passing it on – this is the only way we can achieve peace and prosperity, not the corruption that is modern politics.