http://people.ne.
mediao
ne.net/des
This Page is far from finished.
May not be suitable for the common-sense deficient.
To Home page and links........
I won't place ALL self-proclaimed liberals in the same socialist sewer. There are some who
are well meaning and hold to the pre-sixties ideal of liberalism (not progressive ideology),
BUT the current leadership of this ideology/movement has been subverted by the ideology of
a failed economic system. Namely communism and the Utopian illusion of "egalitarianism."
Now don't get me wrong. I FIRMLY believe in the concept of "blind justice" and equality
under the law. That's why "hate-crimes legislation" and "political-correctness" are a threat
to the rule of law that the left used SOOOOOO much in their defense of the traitor sitting in
the oval office. If the "rule of law" is so important to them, why do they advocate one
set of punishments for one group of people and a different set for another?
Name one; Klinton, OJ Simpson, Gary Graham.
If Graham was white what do you think would have happened?
That's right, he would have got juiced without notice.
As a white male, if I was on PCP and told a cop to screw off and resisted arrest, I would
have gotten my tail beat by just as many cops as Rodney King.
And you know nothing would have been done.
If you look at Richard Nixon, Klinton actually makes him look good. Wonder where the
White House tapes are?
Who in America would advocate one set of punishments for royalty AND another set for
the everyday people?
While Hammarabi's code (see laws 196-205) is important for its context in history, it is not
one WE THE PEOPLE and our Founding Fathers wanted to emulate in our
justice system. Hammarabi's law 202 is really what today's liberal left is aiming for. The
"egalitarian" system they, and with Republican assistance, are aiming for is one to keep the
"great unwashed masses" in their place and secure their positions of power.
As Patrick "Patches" Kennedy is so fond of saying when not getting his way; "Do you know
who I am?!" At least one airport security guard knows.
THINK ABOUT IT.
Punishing the Innocent
Are children held criminally liable for the crimes committed by their fathers or mothers?
Would you approve of making children pay monetary fines or force jail time on them
because their fathers broke the law?
Yet why do we allow the left in America to criminalize and punish children of "european
decent" for the alleged and actual crimes of their fore-fathers long dead?
Do we put EVERY GERMAN on trial at Nuremberg for the atrocities committed by their
fathers and mothers? Hang them all?
Sometimes the crimes of the past can only be judged by GOD. It is up to WE THE PEOPLE
to remember the past and avoid the mistakes. That is the obligation and inheritance of the
children.
To heed the lessons of ghosts.
What is the real reason for this attack on American history?
I have thought of this many times. Watch any talking head program on CBS, NBC, ABC and
CNN and you'll see the same theme. To make the children (especially of european decent)
feel guilty and ashamed of their heritage. It is my belief that the purpose of this attack is to
make future generations actively reject and wish to change the system our nation was
founded on AND WHICH MADE US THE GREATEST NATION ON EARTH.
Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and every slave-owner of the past would be
proud!!!!!!!!
Today's liberals would have given all these men the justification for their
actions.
"It's For The Children"
Every Communist takeover has been preceded by words similar to these. The idea of
taking from those who have and give to those who don't. It sounds admirable, but the
palacious dachas on the black sea showed otherwise. The children of politburo members in
China dancing at discos while the everyday person rides his bicycle (think environmentalists)
and live a very modest lifestyle show otherwise.
The problem is; who decides who gets what?
What liberals today want is a pre-biblical (no I'm not a religious wacko) interpretation of
law. And why not? The actions of those who advocated and implemented collective rights
(Stalin, Hitler, Moa Tse Tung, Pol Pot ) over individual rights (John Locke, Benjamin
Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Jame Madison, Patrick Henry, Samuel
Adams, Richard Henry Lee) have left an uncounted mound of dead.
The law as they would practice would shield them from the repercussions of their actions.
"We did it for the good of the people."
Unfortunately, it was and is, the "people" that pay the price.
It is interesting to note which type of "rights" and its advocates bring about true peace and
happiness for its people.
And to those followers who are led to the slaughter.
255\green255\blue0;} \uc1\pard\sb100\sa100\cf1\ulnone\f0 "Those people who will not be governed by God will be ."\line
"Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure (and) which insures to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
- Charles Carroll
(signer of the Declaration of Independence)
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.
- Thomas Jefferson
Again, It interesting to note the present attack on religion in America......Especially Christianity.
If I see a Star of David displayed in public, or a crescent moon, in no way do I feel threatened.
For all those who would say;
"but the Constitution says separation of church and state."
My answer is; it's separation of church and state NOT CHURCH FROM STATE.
What do you think would happen if you tried to display YOUR beliefs in Israel or
any muslim country?
If you have never been to the middle east you are a fool to think THEY would entertain you.
I'm quite sure every liberal would cry if America was to fully adopt the societal beliefs of
cultures whose beliefs are "threatened" by displays of Christianity.
Women are executed for adultery in muslim countries. Yeah I could see every liberal women wanting
to incorporate THAT into American justice.
Minority religions, like the Palestinians in Israel, being consigned to second class citizens.
Yet which major religion has voiced concern with displays of Christianity here in America?
How about minority sects in the United States, like atheists, who demand the abolition of Christianity
in public? (note: only Christianity. Otherwise they may look like bigots to their liberal colleagues.)
You think the Imams would sit still for that in Saudi Arabia?
I can assure you they would have your head!
America was based on religious tolerance, BUT not a religious vacuum.
Protestant Christianity is the religious base of our Constitution and culture.
Tell me which non-Protestant nation affords the religious tolerance of America?
Ireland? France? Kuwait? India? or how about Israel? or Japan?
Yet in the name of "diversity" America must arrest the ONE belief structure that gave rise to this
tolerance of diversity.....Which grew from the diversity of Protestantism.
Are we safe to assume this same tolerance will remain when Christianity is no longer present?
It seems clear to me that balkanization and tyranny will be our inheritance.
"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants.
- William Penn
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798
Even the past tells us of our future.
We think today that we are paving new ground, that the past can not help us, that "this is the '90's,"
but I remember a quote, though I can't remember who said it; "I have no way of judging the future,
but by the past."
By forgetting the lessons of the past we come full circle, AND make no mistake, this is intentional.
For those who wish to enslave humanity, they must make humanity forget the past. This is the true
intent of critical theory. To separate the past from our children to facilitate the acceptance of their
slavery.
And the destruction of religion is the first step. Next it is family, then culture and finally history itself.
By destroying religion, the family is easy being both intertwined.
The past 40 years has been a success in this regard. With the help of radical feminism (or radical
lesbianism, same thing) the goal of destroying the authority of past generations, usually Protestant,
white males, has succeeded in distancing younger generations from the wisdom, experience and
mistakes of history.
Now it is American culture by revisionist historians and political correctness that is completing the
task. The goal is to keep good men silent so evil can flourish. The psychic iron cage.
Now I must go back to the essay on cultural marxism. If you haven't read it do so now to
understand why this is happening
How do We get back on track?
I have been checking out a philosophy called Objectivism. It is a philiosophy of rational self interest,
but is atheistic in nature. One of its contentions is that you are only truly human when you achieve
rational thought. Now I'm not deeply spiritual, but taking this premise does that mean mentally
retarded individuals are not human?
I have to admit I am intriqued by Objectivism but I believe the philosophy is too self-centered. Just
as altruism taken too extreme is dangerous (the liberal mind-set) so too is self-interest taken too
extreme a recipe for disaster. In fact, extreme self-interest is also a trait expressed by the left.
Our founding fathers infused rational self-interest WITH Christianity. Objectivists say with wealth
comes charity. This is their reason for the end of the wealfare state. To let charities handle it.
I agree with this premise but it seems to me that a true objectivist can not condone charity
BECAUSE IT IS AGAINST RATIONAL SELF-INTEREST.
Only the infusion of Christian charity with an Objectivist mind-set brings about a prosperous
America, or any western nation.
Another Objectivist principle is the separation of economics and state. The belief that the government
has only 3 mandates in governance.
1. to provide a police force for local domestic security.
2. to provide for a military to maintain national security.
3. to provide for a court system to resolve civil disputes.
AND THAT"S IT !!!!!!!!
I'm not saying Christian Objectivism is the answer to everything for all people. Perfect examples
are Islamic nations.
Egypt has tried both capitalism and socialism and has found both incompatible with an Islamic
culture. There is no democratic principles in Arabic culture and no wish for any.
Arabic culture today has been formed by thousands of years of surviving a harsh existence.
To get where they have is a testament to their stubborn persistence. While I don't agree with much of
their cultural values, I do respect their code of honor. When I was in Kuwait, the people were very
hospitable if treated with individual respect and respect for Islam.
If not you would be lucky to see your family again. It is simple and straight forward. You either made
allies or enemies. It was up to you.
Arabic people are a very fatalistic group. There are many examples of this but this one is most telling.
When Hafez Assad sent troops into a town that was rebelling and executed EVERY (20,000 citizens)
person in town-- men, women and children-- then bull-dozed the town under the sand, the response
was NOT outrage but resignation that it was the will of Allah.
The belief of Syrian people was that if the rebels were right Allah would have made them victorious.
In a Christian nation, the citizens would never have supported this action.
What it comes down to is that no one system is right for everyone. The very idea of a one world
government is a utopian illusion with no rational thought behind its promotion. Indeed it will never be
feesable. So why is it being promoted?
One look at the major players and you will find a heavy influence of communist ideology. Who is
Kofi Annan?
Communism is really an intellectual (or lazy person with extended schooling, take your pick) tool for
achieving power. To play on the emotions of greed and envy.
To be honest, intellectuals produce very little of physical substance.
The simple fact is they hate to do manual labor. But without the inclination to work and achieve
individual prosperity, they stand upon any old stump and look for followers who will provide their
sustenance. They're not stupid. The only way they can find support is by giving promises to the
ignorant and lazy. The smart one's can see a con job a mile away. But they are forced to stay silent
(here is cultural marxism/political correctness in its full glory) or else be branded a racist or bigot.
Unfortunatly those in the middle vote by hearing the loudest voice.
Once they are propelled to a position of influence they need to widen their base. The larger the base
grows---- and since the premise of their position is to forcibly confiscate the wealth from the hard
working and give it back to their supporters, a position that is inherently unjust, it brings many out
from under their rocks--- the more power is gained by the intellectual and, through heavy taxation, the
wider the base grows.
( This is Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. To a tee! Thank GOD they have no official political power.
But we do have Klinton, Maxine Waters, Diane Feinstein, Algore, Chucky Shumer and Fidel Castro.
Well, maybe not Fidel, but it sure seems like it when it comes to the operations of the justice
department. )
It's truly a vicious cycle with ONLY one outcome. A two class system of patricians and plebians.
The intellectuals (read: LAZY) strive for a greatness they can never become because of their fear of
hard work and personal sacrifice. Is this what we see with Bill Klinton striving for a legacy?
The only way they can survive is off the blood and sweat of those they proclaim to serve. Here is the
true parasite, hiding behind a scrap of paper which proclaims their intelligence but gives no guarantee.
This outcome benefits even those wealthy who are not supporters. Cheap labor, a two tiered system
of justice and plenty of man servants and maids. Any wonder the republican elite are silent?
AHHHHH, the good ole days.
The idea of a commoner who can sit in judgement of a Harvard man or an Oxford boy has always
been a thorn in their side.
To anyone who works and has to answer to a recent college grad supervisor, I don't think your
hearing anything new. Only confirming what you have seen.
Democrats and Communists
At a speech before the 2000 Democratic National Convention, the Rev. Jesse Jackson proclaimed;
" this contest is not about race or religion, it's about resource distribution."
What is really meant is income/property re-distribution. This seems, as well, tied to the reparations
movement.
It amazes me when I talk to people who support Algore and the democrats, especially white males,
who find no concern in this whole redistribution scheme.
Yes Al, You are a dangerous scheme.
I guess they think that since they are registered democrats they will be immune from any confiscation
of their wealth. Could it be that they (the Utopian illusioned intellectuals, and their supporters) want to
position themselves to be granted their own fiefs?
Their own dachas on Cape Cod or the Hamptons? Their own "Kennedy compounds"?
Redistributing the wealth from OUR blood and sweat into their pockets?
This is not about race, but about the right to life, liberty and property. FOR EVERYONE.
The people of Zimbabwe are now fighting this demon right now, yet no word in the mainstream
press. Why not? Are they afraid to wake a sleeping giant here in America? Are they afraid images of
armed mugabe thugs beating and shooting white farmers while white property is taken (and black
property if they oppose this redistribution scheme against the white population) will cause a wide
spread outcry and alienation of the middleclass towards the democratic party and its communist/
socialist proposals? I think it is likely.
I am not in the least materially wealthy, but I also feel I have the right to earn whatever I work for.
I know I am not alone in this belief. Is the goal of increased non-european descent to bring white
Americans to a level where any wealth they accumulate can be "voted" away by a majority taught
to hate and despise "the oppressors."
And who will benefit by all this? That's right, the mostly white, lazy intellectual elite.
And is this why the concept of a Constitutional Republic (which we are supposed to have) been
replaced by the "noble" term of democracy?
The use of the term democracy in the fifties to differentiate America from Soviet Russia
can be understood, but now I can see why the left clung to it's use as well, and continues to use the
term with such vigor.
Communists and Capitalists
A proposition put forth by the author James Perlof is probably the most fascinating and eye-opening
insight of the mess we Americans are in. As well, it also clarifies many inconsistences of our foreign
policies since Woodrow Wilson and again since FDR.
Why did the United States initially support staunch anti-communists like Ferdinand Marcos in the
Philipines? How about Augusto Pinochet in Chile? How about Jonas Savimbi in Angola and the
Republic of South Africa?
Why did we turn on them????????????????????
The belief put forth by James Perlof is that it is intentional.
Why do large foundations, especially those foundations set up by Carnegie and Ford, why do they
provide grants to leftist professors and leftist universities that advocate collectivist (read: communist)
philosophies when it goes against the very way they made their wealth?
Think about this,
Your a very wealthy businessman. You made your money in a free marketplace WITHOUT
government regulations. It is the 1870's to 1900 and the without government interferance in business
you are not the only fish in the pond. YOU ARE PETRIFIED OF ANY COMPETITION THAT
WOULD JEPORDIZE YOUR HOLD ON YOUR ASPECT OF THE ECONOMY AND THE
SECURITY OF YOUR CONTINUED WEALTH.
With all your wealth you pressure, bribe and buy politicians who will promote and pass legislation
that will make it as difficult and, if possible, stifle any new competition that can threaten you.
But, because of a Constitution that limits government involvement in a freemarket, you find it very
difficult to get support among a very independent and suspicious people armed with the power of
the vote and the power to forcibly remove a corrupt government.
So what do you do? Do you have any allies?
Along comes an economic and political philosophy that advocates NO COMPETITION in
politics and economics. A philosophy that advocates a monopolistic control of all forms of wealth,
the banking system, the education of the population, the disarmament of the population, a centrally
controlled police system, a single political party and most importantly, a belief in not individual rights,
but collective rights.
No more hearing that this can't be done because it harms the individual, but this HAS to be done
for the greater good. You can put a face on an individual. Where is the face of the greater good?
So here is your dream come true. With your money you can control legislation. Without competition
you control the marketplace, without competing political philosophies you control government,
with a defenseless population you have no scrutiny.
Who cares who runs the government when you control the government.
Communism is the ultimate monopoly for the ultimate monopolist.
Money is power. If your smart you stay in the background. You need a way to shake the population's
confidence in themselves and a system that provides them with unrivaled freedom and control.
The people will never get rid of a freemarket overnight.
Destroy it completely for a few years! Make them go hungry in a land that can feed everyone.
take their security away from them and blame it on a system that is too free and with not enough
controls. Turn it around so they bow to you, through your bought politicians, instead of you bowing
to them hoping they buy your products to keep you in wealth instead of your competitors.
Stretch the collapse out long enough to weed out your competitors. Oh, you'll take a loss for the
time being, but you have enough reserves to last out the storm.
Once it is over you are the only game in town. Get legislation passed to make it more difficult for
wealth to accumulate among the population. Become concerned with the "little" guy. Safety is a good
start. Products must be made safer. Working conditions must be made safer. Promote the idea that
the wealthy have too much. Make the people pay taxes. Make it graduated to "soak the rich."
Keep it low, say 1% for 90% of the population. This will allay the fears of the sheep.
The more you earn, the more you pay. Stop the wealthy from passing on their wealth through an
inheritance tax.
The only problem with this is; if you all ready have substantial wealth you can keep up with the drain
through exemptions and loopholes built into the legislation.
If your trying to build wealth, on the other hand, you end up taking one step forward and two steps
backwards. The more you earn the more is taken. Any wealth you want to leave to your children is
cut in half. Until after a few generations most of your families original wealth is gone.
And what about the wealthy? Well lets just say who is buying the wealth of families who have to sell
their assets to pay the taxes?
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/desus/airborne.htm
http://people.ne.mediaone.net/desus/home.htm
