News Bias, Civil Disobedience, and John Adams’ Rule of Thumb
By Jim O'Neill Full Story “I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least;’ and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which we will have.”—Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) From his essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” 1849“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”—George Washington (1732-1799)
“I heartily accept the motto, ‘That government is best which governs least;’ and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe—‘That government is best which governs not at all;’ and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which we will have.”—Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) From his essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” 1849 “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”—George Washington (1732-1799)
Well, now we know why the first President of the United States warned us that government is “a dangerous servant, and a fearful master,” do we not? And when big government has co-opted the “fourth estate” (journalism), as it now has, then “we the people” are confronted with a fearsome master indeed.
Almost all of our TV “news” shows are unacknowledged, unchallenged, and unopposed Far Left to Moderate Left, pro-Big Government apologists. Occasionally they will make a daring foray out into the hinterlands of “fly-over country,” and run a slanted expose on what those wacky Tea Party people are up to, but mostly they stick with their schtick—smug, anti-American, elitist doublethink. Link
I believe that the psychic/mental/emotional toll of constantly being exposed to the cognitive dissonance caused by liberal doublethink is steep. The constant use of hypocrisy and double standards as your leitmotif will exact a dear price sooner or later. As evidence for my case I point to your typical liberal. The prosecution rests. Link Extreme left-wing bias in America’s “news” venuess has been glaringly obvious for some time, to all but the most thick-headed or indoctrinated (same/same), there is an extreme left-wing bias in America’s “news” venues. Have you ever found yourself watching a Left/“Right” debate on TV, and saying to yourself “I don’t agree with either of these idiots—neither of them is addressing the real issues we face.” “We the people” have been slowly and deliberately excluded from the “national conversation.” Mainstream America has been quite intentionally snubbed, and left without a voice. We have no skin in the game, so to speak. Link
When is the last time you saw an intelligent conservative talking head, like PJTV’s Bill Whittle, as a lame-stream-media anchor? Have you ever? (If you are under a certain age, it is almost certain that you have never heard a true conservative allowed to speak for any length of time on TV). Even though “we the people” make up a sizable portion of the country’s population, we are without a national voice. The main stream media we have in America today is almost exclusively promoting an anti-free enterprise, anti-American globalist agenda. They are chiefly treasonous propaganda outlets for the Far Left. Link Fox (or Faux, if you prefer) News, although it is to the right of the other “news” venues, is still to the left of most patriots. Fox News mostly inhabits the gray area that includes both Far Right liberals and Far Left conservatives—hence it is to the left of even moderate patriotic views. Fox News is better than nothing I suppose, but that is damning with faint praise. The Fox Business News channel comes closer to giving us a voice, but even that channel is, more often than not, nothing to write home about.
In any event, “we the people” have learned to get our news from the Internet, radio, and the occasional patriotic hard-copy newspaper. Along with news, we look to those sources for advice and suggestions. This article is mainly about suggestions—specifically, the suggestion that civil disobedience might be a useful tool to “fight the power.” LinkLTC Terry Lakin’s recent internment in Ft. Leavenworth prison reminded me of a quote from Thoreau’s essay on civil disobedience: “Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” (I consider the “Leavenworth 10” and other unjustly imprisoned military personnel to be American POWs). Link Thinking of Thoreau and his famous essay on civil disobedience, brought to mind what Saul Alinsky had to say about civil disobedience, and from there things branched out into this article.
It is worth keeping in mind that Alinsky wrote in “Rules For Radicals” that being jailed (for a brief period mind you—no need to go overboard) gives one a certain cachet among your fellow revolutionaries. Seeing as “we the people” are currently in a de facto revolution against globalist tyranny, Alinsky’s advice in this regard may be worth considering, and exploiting.
Saul Alinsky (1909-1972) was a radical Chicago thug, who refined his Far Left extortion-racket techniques by sitting at the feet of the Chicago mob. Although I would normally cross the road to avoid any contact with this slime, necessity makes for strange bed-fellows. He is, after all, the mentor of such political luminaries as Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton, and it would behoove us to be familiar with his teachings—vile though they be. Link Alinsky’s techniques, along with those of fellow American traitors, Cloward and PivenUpon close examination Alinsky’s arguments for social revolution, as expounded in “Rules for Radicals, are generally puerile, vapid, and extremely egocentric. Only the dim-witted, deluded, or anti-social would find them persuasive. Nonetheless, his instructions, when dutifully practiced by any on the aforementioned list, were undeniably effective, and therefore should not (must not) be considered as being beneath being used by “we the people.”
Alinsky’s techniques, along with those of fellow American traitors, Cloward and Piven, (aided by mega-money donations from uber-wealthy wack-jobs), has allowed the radical left to, in effect, become the establishment. It seems only fitting that “we the people” return the favor by utilizing the less vile of their doctrines and techniques in taking America back; using the enemy’s own strength and momentum against them, in a sort of ideological Ju-Jitsu. Link
The stakes are too high, and the results of failure too grim, to be sticklers for the Marquess of Queensberry rules at this point. There are a number of techniques from “Rules For Radicals” which can be profitably used by “we the people.” They worked for the enemy, and they will work for us. Link
For example, those of us who have chosen not to go “off radar” (which is most of us), may wish to avail ourselves of some civil disobedience strategies; as advanced by personages such as Thoreau, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and, yes, Saul Alinsky.
Here a word of caution: Alinsky points out that Gandhi’s techniques of non-violent protest could only have been successful when dealing with a “civilized” society—one influenced by Judeo/Christian ethics and morals. The big-government totalitarian regimes favored by Alinsky and his ilk have never had a strong Judeo/Christian framework—anything but. The type of government favored by Alinsky and the Far Left would as soon take you out and shoot you, as cave in to any non-violent demands. Witness the millions who died in Stalin’s gulags, Hitler’s death camps, or Pol Pot’s killing fields. My point here being that the window of opportunity for paying a relatively painless consequence for non-violent protests will soon be shut. Once in power, the globalists will not “play nice,” as America has in the past.
As America is transformed from an independent republic into a cog in the one-world-government machine, the methods of enforcing our increasingly numerous and Draconian laws will become ever more severe.
As people resist they will be met with ever more severe and brutal attempts to force them into submission—which will be met by increased resistance, which will be met by increased brutality, and so on in a vicious circle. It is a predictable scenario that has been played out over and over whenever, and wherever, totalitarian rule holds sway. So if you feel that civil disobedience is your cup of tea, then I suggest that you get while the getting’s good. All too soon the price for civil disobedience will become prohibitive. Note: I am not advocating breaking the law; I am simply saying that civil disobedience may be an option that you might want to look into, and if the spirit moves you, use. It has been an effective technique for social change in the past.
Some of the best known proponents of civil disobedience are: Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK), and Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau wrote an essay about civil disobedience which has had an enduring and widespread impact—influencing both Gandhi, and MLK.
As indicated by the lead-off quote in this article, Thoreau was no fan of big government. Consequently, if he were around today the liberals would bash him mercilessly—calling him a racial bigot among other things. Why would the liberals call this staunch anti-slavery abolitionist a racial bigot? No particular reason—it’s simply what they do when they disagree with someone’s point of view.
That such an appellation would be untrue, unjust, unwarranted, and uncalled for, would be considered beside the point by today’s arrogant, self-righteous, tunnel-visioned liberal media, who refuse to see beyond their own skewed and myopicweltanschauung. Like Gandhi and MLK, Thoreau spent time in jail for his beliefs (in his case, for refusing to pay a state poll tax for six years). In his essay he describes life in the Big House: “I did not for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar. ...They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall. I could not but smile to see how industriously they locked the door on my meditations…. As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body….” Link
Thoreau’s gangsta persona takes a bit of a hit when you realize that he was in jail for less than a full day—heck I matched that for a “drunk and disorderly” in Scotland once. We’re not dealing with Papillon here. Still, the transcendentalist/abolitionist crowd he hung with no doubt considered him to be one bad-##### hombre. He had acquired that “special cachet” that Alinsky speaks of. Link
Unlike Alinsky, I do not recommend spending time in jail—no matter how brief. I do, however, endorse bending (but not breaking) the law in the interests of America’s survival as a free republic. If you wish to break the law on America’s behalf, the best advice I can give you is, “don’t get caught.” Let your conscience (and God) be your guide. It should be noted that you can be involved in non-violent “protests” that are perfectly legal, but quite dangerous. Handing out Christian pamphlets in downtown “Dearbornistan,” for example, is not for the faint of heart or cowardly. Link
Gandhi, who knew a thing or two about nonviolent protest and bravery, said, “Exercise of non-violence requires far greater bravery than that of swordsmanship,” and “Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with non-violence.” Gandhi (who greatly admired Thoreau’s essay), was well aware of the risks involved in civil disobedience.
Martin Luther King Jr. also understood the correlation between bravery and civil disobedience. MLK (another fan of Thoreau’s essay) famously expounded on the subject in his “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” (1963). MLK’s missive leaves Thoreau’s essay in the dust. It is stunningly perceptive, eloquent, powerful, and profound. The following excerpt will give a glimmer of its combination of wise insight and pragmatic spirituality.
“One may well ask: ‘How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?’ The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that ‘an unjust law is no law at all.’ ...A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.”
This excerpt is from a paragraph that also includes appropriate and pointed references to Martin Buber and Paul Tillich—and that’s just one paragraph! Should the above quote be attributed to an anonymous author, the liberals of today (and all too many conservatives) would laugh with scorn at MLK’s talk of moral law and natural law.
If you are unfamiliar with MLK’s “Letter From a Birmingham Jail,” then let me suggest that you read it. Although it focuses on segregation, the truths it holds are universal, and apply across the board to all unjust laws. “We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’.... ...If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country’s anti-religious laws.” Link
“We the people” must use every means at our disposal to resist the tyrannical oppression of totalitarian big government, and the boot-on-the-throat subjugation of globalism. We have a long tradition of doing so. “In our own nation, the Boston Tea Party represented a massive act of civil disobedience.”
To those of you who try to lay exclusive claim to MLK’s teachings, as belonging only to blacks, or referring only to the evils of segregation, I have just two words to say: f—k off. Stew in your pathetic ignorance if you wish to, but keep it to yourself, as I have no patience for such stupidity and/or cupidity these days. Although MLK writes eloquently and passionately about the evils of segregation, the teachings in “The Letter From a Birmingham Jail” transcend time, race, or issues. They belong to humanity, and they belong to the ages. They are applicable wherever, and whenever, unjust laws are confronted.
Because a Godless (secular) government has little if any moral authority, it must perforce ever increase the number of its laws in order to control the populace. In addition, because these laws ignore God, they are often unjust, or “unnatural” laws. Such laws are precisely what MLK takes aim at in his missive, and his teachings in that regard are therefore universal—and timeless (or timely, if you prefer).
The term “civil disobedience” covers a whole range of activities that are available for “we the people” to use. Everything from withholding our support and money from businesses and corporations known to be anti-American, to refusing to obey those laws that we know are morally unjust—that is, those laws that “degrade the human personality,” those laws that run counter to natural law. As I said earlier, let your conscience (and God) be your guide.
I mentioned in my previous article that the window of opportunity is rapidly closing, and soon the use of nonviolent means to save America will no longer be an option. We must (quickly) make intelligent and focused use of whatever nonviolent strategies we can find, in order to effect a radical change in the direction America is heading, while we still can. In particular, I see civil disobedience as being a vehicle for the various Christian denominations to make their voices heard.
In the words of MLK, “There was a time when the church was very powerful—in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.”
Any positive, constructive use of civil disobedience to aid and assist the cause of freedom is all to the good, but the greater the number of people involved in such undertakings the better—which brings me to John Adams’ “rule of thumb,” and the conclusion of this article.
John Adams (2nd President of the United States) was of the opinion that one-third of the American colonists were true patriots, who actively supported the fight against Great Britain during the Revolutionary War. I call Adams’s “guesstimate” a rule of thumb because it is a rough but useful generalization.
Adams was, of course, deeply involved with the innermost workings of the fledgling republic, and his educated guess (which is in a letter he wrote) as to how many colonists supported the cause of freedom is worthy of consideration.
As I was researching Adam’s letter while working on this article, I couldn’t help but notice that anti-American liberals seem oddly miffed at the idea that one-third of American colonials were patriots. Is it because they dislike the idea of so manyAmerican patriots kicking butt, or because of the fact that so few American patriots kicked butt? My jury is still out.
In any event, Adams did indeed say, or rather write, that one-third of the American colonists were patriots. He outlined his “rule of thumb” in a letter he wrote to a Mr. James Lloyd in 1815. Adams writes that one-third of the colonists opposed the war, and remained staunch British patriots (the Tories); another third vacillated between supporting the Tories, or the Patriots (Adams calls them the “yeomanry”); and the final third, who actively fought for independence from Britain (the Patriots). Link
The reason that I bring this up is because I’ve noticed that there is some concern about how many Americans are awakened patriots; how many are still asleep to the dire situation America is in, and how many are actively anti-American.
As anyone familiar with the Tea Parties knows, American patriotism goes beyond our current political setup—this is not a Democrat vs. Republican thing. There are millions of “old school” Democrats who did not sign onboard for the destruction of America as a free republic, to be replaced by a globalist New World Order. There are also any number of Republican politicians whose patriotism is suspect to say the least.
Conservatives (that is, patriots) come from both sides of the political aisle—although mainly from the Republican side. These patriotic conservatives are in favor of America as a free republic, as opposed to being in favor of any one political party. They comprise that segment of the population that I refer to as “we the people.” Their patriotism transcends party affiliation, and their numbers are growing by leaps and bounds.
If Adams’s rule of thumb still holds true (and I believe it does) then we would expect to find about one-third of the population consistently supporting the enemy. Poll numbers showing support for various Obama regime initiatives seem to bear this out—generally showing a 30% to 40% approval rating for them.
The ranks of “we the people” are swelling as the result of the vacillating “yeomanry” fleeing the Obama camp in droves, and flocking to join the ranks of America’s patriots. Together—the vacillating middle third, and the conservative core third—make up a formidable and inexorable juggernaut.
It is up to us to get this juggernaut of “we the people” moving, and moving in the right direction. There is no time to waste—now is the time for accelerated pro-active movement. “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” For America—for freedom! devvy.com Laus Deo.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment