My Country ‘Tis Of Thee…
&
"Independence" Is a Town in Missouri . . .
I have to preface this article with a statement.
Many of you will not like what you read and it will be uncomfortable, if not
impossible, for you to finish. Sometimes the truth hurts. I can’t blame you
for feeling mad, sad, betrayed, or simply befuddled. Some of you will accuse me
of being unpatriotic and anti-American. The fact is, those of you who do so are,
in my sole opinion, ignorant creeps whose grasp on Patriotism is nothing more
than blind robotic obedience to usurped authority. You are not
"patriots," but merely followers of anyone who will wave a familiar
flag and spew meaningless inspirational pabulum designed to make you feel all
warm and cozy. My only feeling for you is a certain sorrowful pity and a disgust
at your apparent lack of self will.
It is difficult for me to discuss the perceived
failures and betrayals of the government of my country. I love my country and
what it truly stands for. Once, we were a beacon for the world to flock to, a
rally point for those with good will and hope for the future. Perhaps we still
hold some remnant of the noble cause upon which our Nation was founded. But the
light has been dimmed, the reputation tarnished, by the arbitrary actions of
successive generations of governments which cannot seem to help warring with
itself - and against the very people it was created to protect.
I can already anticipate the rebuttal of those
who may view this article as blasphemous. Something on the order of: "If
you don’t like it, then get the hell out." The extent of the logical and
rational failure in this argument is so great that it defies definition. I
won’t justify it with a personal response. Suffice it to say that I believe
the DUTY of an AMERICAN is to stand up to injustice, to defy tyranny, to expose
fraud, corruption, and deceit at every level of government, and to battle the abuse
of political power and governmental authority wherever it is found.
Having said as much, and given fair warning, here
is my piece. Let the chips fall where they may.
"Independence"
Is a Town in Missouri . . .
It’s the 3rd of July, 1998, as I
write this article. Outside, some of my more celebratory neighbors are starting
the holiday off a little early. Sparklers, snakes & mini-fireworks light up
the early evening sky, releasing colorful displays with a whoosh and a bang and
a crackle. Pretty neat. Inside, on the news, I’ve just listened to a story
where the reporter had asked several people what the 4th of July
stood for and what it meant to them. Most of them knew it was "Independence
Day." Only one of them knew what the "independence" part of it
meant or where it originated. A couple of them didn’t have a clue. Welcome to
modern day America.
I’m not going to preach to you folks. I figure
that most of you who read this (from these sites) already know the origin and
meaning of our greatest national holiday. But I thought it was time to post
& review the documents that relate to this holiday and comment on their
particular applicability, today. My comments won’t have the poetic ring to
them that Thomas Jefferson and company provided, but lest you get confused,
the
words you see in blue are
mine.
The Declaration of Independence
In Congress, July 4, 1776
A Declaration by the Representatives of the United States of America, In
General Congress Assembled
When, in the course
of human events
, it becomes
necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected
them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and
equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a
decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the
causes which impel them to the separation.
This opening statement, which
is almost apologetic (yet firm) displays the difficulty our forefathers had in
making the decision to break away from the King and the country of their origin.
They didn’t want to do it, but felt compelled to break away.
Having felt this way, they further agreed that some explanation was in order. It
should be pointed out that not all of the citizens of the colonies agreed with
this decision, and the Declaration was as much a tool for the conversion of
public opinion among their fellow colonials as a statement to the King and the
rest of the civilized world.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness.
In those days, the population
was separated by "class" distinctions. There was a "Ruling"
class and a "Subservient" class, each containing several strata within
themselves. Among the Ruling class, the government officials held the greatest
authority, followed by landed gentry and the high officials of the Church. Among
the Subservient class, lesser religious leaders and businessmen topped the list,
followed by ordinary citizens, servants and apprentices, and women (in roughly
that order). Slaves and Indians had no rights.
Thomas Jefferson composed
several forms of the Declaration of Independence. The original drafts condemned
slavery (although just about everyone agreed with the policy of indentured
servitude – a kind of limited, voluntary, slavery in return for some form of
compensation) and blasted the policy of viewing and treating any man as an
animal or chattel. The original draft of the Declaration contained the following
passage in a latter section of the text:
"… he has
waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights
of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him,
captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur
miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the
opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great
Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold,
he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to
prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of
horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very
people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has
deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them - thus
paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with
crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
Had this passage, or some form
of it, remained in the final draft, slavery would have been abolished with the
birth of our nation. Unfortunately, the majority of landowners from the southern
colonies refused to join the cause if the passage remained. They feared they
would neither be capable of operating their vast land holdings (without the use
of slavery), nor manage to escape the retribution of the people they had
enslaved.
The removal of this passage
was the first compromise of our Nation and has lead to the form of government we
experience today. This action was undoubtedly hypocritical and greatly injured
the just principles of its creation and implementation. However, without it’s
removal, it is highly unlikely that those capable of leading, financing and
carrying a war of Independence against the King would have rallied to the cause.
This single compromise has
allowed our government the leeway to implement further compromises to justice
and basic human rights throughout its history. The use of national and economic
security as the foundation for the abuse of these rights continues to this day.
In reality, it has more to do with the continuation of power & personal
security among the ruling classes (those who control the economic &
political mainstreams) than any real threat to "national security."
This grave injustice is a
black eye on history of our nation, but we must remember that IT IS HISTORY. It
is in the past and cannot be changed. None of us alive today have the ability to
alter those events, nor have we participated in the implementation or receipt of
these abuses. We should remember the past but not live in it. We should make
sure that these mistakes are not repeated, but not demand retribution for
something none of us had any part of.
Today, our Nation
recognizes that "… all men are created equal…"
regardless of the color of their skin, the origin of their birth, or their
economic status. That this principle has been (and continues to be) abused does
not remove the recognition or inherent correctness of this truth. It merely
condemns the false implication and application of the policy that "some men
are more equal than others."
Back to the document:
That to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these
ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety
and happiness.
Here we have the main
justification for the formation of governments among men. To secure the
unalienable rights of man from usurpation by others. We also see the
justification for abolishing or seceding from any government that imposes its
will in conflict of these rights, and replacing it with one that does recognize
and adhere to them.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments
long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and
accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such
government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
Such has been the patient sufferance of these
colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their
former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain
is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object
the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let
facts be submitted to a candid world.
Again we see the apologetic
tone and a warning against casually switching allegiances, followed by a
condemnation of the tyrannical actions of the King, which are about to be
enumerated. It is in this enumeration that the deleted slavery passage
originally appeared.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most
wholesome and necessary for the public good.
In other words, he ignored
those bills submitted by the people for laws against the injustices committed by
his officials against the colonials. He further refused to punish or remove from
office those who committed the atrocious acts, and any admonitions against such
acts were little more than a slap on the wrist. Can anybody draw any
similarities to our own system? Hmm?
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of
immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his
assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to
attend to them.
What these laws were, and why
they were considered important, is really not the point. The point is that the
King refused the colonials the right of self-government and self-determination
on issues of local importance. When such laws were allowed to pass, they were
suspended and ignored and superceded by the existing laws of the King. Kind of
like Federal laws superceding, and effectively blocking, those of individual
states, counties, and municipalities.
He has refused to pass other laws for the
accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish
the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and
formidable to tyrants only.
This was a form of political
extortion. A carrot-and-stick tactic, where a small benevolence was granted in
return for the dissolution or quieting of a group. It was used when the King had
nothing to lose by the granting of a boon, and everything to gain by removing
the discordant voices forever from the legislative structure. This is a lot like
the two major political parties incorporating the demands of independent parties
into their own platform, simply to shut up the dissident clamor and calm the
masses. That they never have any intention of following through on these
particular reforms is irrelevant to them. The purpose is to steal the votes and
kill the independent movement.
As stated above, "…all
experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed." People don’t want to change if
there is any alternative to it. They don’t have faith in new parties or their
ability to govern any better than the old ones. So when the Big Two declare
their undying faith to the concerns of the new groups, it is easier for the
people to keep their original party allegiances – whether they truly believe
that anything will change or not! The appearance of sincerity is all the public
requires to capitulate.
He has called together legislative bodies at
places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public
records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his
measures.
If the colonials wanted
change, or even to voice their opinion of the inevitable, they had to make their
way to England. Of course, the time and place were usually unreachable from the
colonies when crossing the Atlantic took several months. Our own government –
from local to Federal – does something quite similar. They demand petitions
for introduction of new bills and laws that must be so exactly worded or
composed as to make it virtually impossible to get it right. They place
announcements for debate on new regulations and bills in out of the way and
unusual places, requiring attendance in uncomfortable or distant locales, and
never give enough time to study the convoluted and multifarious aspects of the
indecipherable legal jargon composing the bills.
He has dissolved representative houses
repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the
people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others
to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have
returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the
meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions
within.
While the King simply
disbanded representative groups, our government has turned to the tactic of
judicial annihilation. These days, we actually do get our day in court. The
problem is that the court is no longer concerned with justice, but the
conservation and imposition of the State and Federal will. Now, SOME judges and
SOME courts actually do try and serve justice – but these are generally
overruled and their decisions thrown out by a higher court. It is difficult to
tell if the lower courts are simply practicing a policy of pacification or are
actually attempting to serve justice. I’d like to believe the latter, but have
to suspect the former. Anybody who has spent time in traffic or tax court (when
they actually were innocent of the charges) will understand exactly what I am
talking about. So, too, will those who have stood before a grand jury, a
hearing, or a parole board and witnessed the release of violent criminals for
one reason or another. The victims (and victim advocates) of these criminal’s
actions – whether the defendant is a common thug or a government thug – are
often treated with less respect than the accused criminals! Even in flagrant
cases where the thug was caught in the act.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of
these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of
foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and
raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
I don’t think I need to
point out the problems with immigration, these days. The government is not
holding up their end of the bargain when it comes to immigration, at all. They
are neither securing our borders from illegal immigration (or smuggling, for
that matter), nor processing the application of beneficial applicants with
proper diligence. Those who weasel their way in are getting a better deal than
those who try and adhere to our Nations laws. Those who would make outstanding
citizens are being brushed aside, while the criminal immigrant is welcomed with
open arms (provided they can be counted on to vote the "right" way).
This is outrageous!
As far as adding new lands, we
are no longer capable of unfettered expansion. Unless we want to invade Mexico
and Canada, we’ve pretty much reached the limit. Instead, the government has
followed the course of internal expansionism. It has claimed
"ownership" of 80% of the land mass which makes up our Nation,
restricts its usage by the general public, yet doles out permits, leases and
grants to its friends and political/financial supporters for ridiculously low
"fees" which, for some reason, are not available to the average Joe.
What is up with that?
He has obstructed the administration of justice,
by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. He has made
judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the
amount and payment of their salaries.
I’m open to suggestions
& debate on this one. It pretty much explains itself and, for the life of
me, I see no major difference between today’s judiciary and the above. Sure,
there are minor differences – and sometimes the appearance of
great differences – but the fact remains that justice is what the government
wishes it to be. It doesn’t matter if there is any real justice involved. The
term has lost meaning in the courts. The LAW has become justice, instead of
JUSTICE becoming the law.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and
sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their
substance.
I don’t think I need to say
anything at all about this one. We experience the exact same thing on a daily
basis. We have the bureaucracies and agencies that exist outside of the powers
granted by the Constitution, and their officers and agents who like to carry
guns – whether legally or not – as well as the full weight and authority of
the State and Federal government. We are surrounded by rules and regulations
imposed upon us by officials who have never been elected, yet hold what amounts
to autonomous and lifelong positions which are generally EXEMPT from the very
rules and regulations they would impose upon us!
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing
armies without the consent of our legislature. He has affected to render the
military independent of and superior to civil power.
Okay, I’ll give our
government its due on this one. Our legislature (in direct conflict with the
Constitution), has consented to a standing Army. And a standing Air Force. And a
(Constitutionally correct) standing Navy. But they have, with the NSA and the
DOD, pretty much given them independent powers which often are used to supercede
local civilian authority. Granted, the so-called "civilian"
politicians are supposed to hold sway over the actions of the military, but I
seriously doubt that our modern day politician actually fits into the definition
of a common civilian, these days. Certainly, they would never believe it of
themselves (at least not TO themselves).
He has combined with others to subject us to a
jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving
his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
Witness the last 20 years of
trade agreements between the US and foreign powers, as well as our involvement
in the UN.
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among
us:
OK – I know of no foreign
troops stationed in the States for the suppression of US Citizens. That’s one
for the government, and kind of a relief. I was beginning to think I could come
up with a current example for everything, and it was starting to irk me.
For protecting them, by mock trial, from
punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these
states:
Well, maybe I spoke too soon.
When you consider the implications of diplomatic immunity from prosecution for
crimes – including everything from shoplifting and drunk driving to rape,
child molestation and murder – then it kind of makes you stop and think.
Doesn’t it?
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the
world:
Well here’s one! Of course,
they couldn’t really cut the teat from which they drink, now could they? It
would be a bit like a vampire swearing off blood and taking long strolls in the
sunshine.
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
Is anybody out there familiar
with the term "Voluntary Compliance?" Do you know how it is used and
actually coerced in the administration of income tax laws? Ever heard that
"ignorance of the law is no excuse" and how that is applied to
voluntary compliance? Do you know that you are presumed to know and understand
the law, and that simply by applying for a Social Security card, a driver’s
license, or a voter registration card, or patriotically serving in the military
for the benefit of your Nation, you have "consented" to voluntarily
comply with any tax assessed upon the fruits of your labor? Now, some folks do
actually consider it an act of patriotic duty to pay taxes on what they earn –
and this is a wonderful and amazing thing. But I suspect that a great majority
of them use this as a convenient excuse for something they view as inevitable
and unavoidable. A justification for something they’d rather not do. And,
since most folks do view the income tax as inevitable and unavoidable (through a
lack of understanding of the law) they pretty much MAKE IT inevitable and
unavoidable for the rest of us. They give the government the power, through
popular opinion, to do whatever they please in pursuit of the tax dollar. But
I’m not writing this to educate you on the income tax, so let’s move on.
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits
of trial by jury:
We still have the right to
demand trial by jury. Of course, if you want to remain locked up – or have
your wages and bank accounts frozen and can survive until your trial that way -
by all means, demand a jury! The use of passive intimidation when requesting a
jury trial is quite prevalent. Most folks can’t afford to request a jury
unless they’ve got nothing left to lose. The remainder of us have to decide if
we’d rather pay whatever price the court/government demands, or lose our
homes, our jobs, our community standing, and our ability to survive by standing
our ground and demanding our rights. It doesn’t matter if we are guilty or
innocent. The nolo contendere plea is often the only reasonable way out. Pay the
extortion and drive on. In a matter of principles vs. survival, most folks will
reluctantly choose survival.
Even if you do demand a trial
by jury – and get one – the jury is likely to be manipulated by the courts
through erroneous or persuasive instruction. How many people know how a court is
supposed to work that they didn’t learn from Perry Mason or LA Law? How many
people know the law? How many people ever heard of Jury nullification? (Present
company excepted) Get the point? Your chances are slim to none. If your lawyer
is better than theirs, you might get a decent jury – but that’s kind of like
trusting the rope to break when they hang you.
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for
pretended offenses:
Ok. That’s two for the other
side. Way to go, guys! But what about transporting us to court for pretended
offenses? Again, the IRS and the rest of the treasury department play a big role
in this little escapade. They seem to relish the opportunity to crush decent
citizens who oppose their inflated sense of authority. How do they accomplish
this? By crashing in to the civilian’s home and charging them with any number
of outlandish "crimes" (which they never committed), and hauling them
off to jail. They then confiscate everything in that civilian’s home and sell
it, or "lose" (keep) it. After the civilian is exonerated in court –
because the charges were so ridiculous they couldn’t possibly stand, the
civilian is released to a completely destroyed life. All of his stuff is gone
and he can’t get it back without filing a lawsuit, waiting for the trials and
appeals, and paying enormous sums for legal fees to get a judgment that won’t
be paid in any case. Hellooooooo, justice!
For abolishing the free system of English laws in
a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and
enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit
instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
Yikes! This sounds a lot like
the establishment of Federal zones and the use of precedent in a court. But
it’s a little too difficult for me to explain without a lot of big words,
hours of research, and too many long examples. We can go ahead and skip this
one, but if anyone is interested, the research is easy to find, it just takes a
strong stomach and a bit of effort.
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most
valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
Read the Constitution and see
how similar our present government is to that described and authorized by our
founding fathers. Think that constitutes fundamental altering? I do.
For suspending our own legislatures, and
declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases
whatsoever.
Since we have no legislatures
– other than the ones we elected and who now think we are too ignorant to
understand or participate in the lawmaking procedure – I guess this one is a
toss up. Of course, State legislatures and laws are often quelled by the Fed
system. They might have something to say about this. Ditto the municipal bands
of merry men and women. Certainly the tribal leaders of the various Indian
Nations could make a few points on this one.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us
out of his protection and waging war against us.
The children of Waco, Texas
might have something to say about this – if they could.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts,
burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
The excesses of the industrial
age could be similarly viewed. The government allowed the large corporate
entities to lay waste to an awful lot, through indiscriminate use of our natural
resources, while in pursuit of the mighty dollar. They were supposed to protect
us and our children from these actions, but instead sold the rights to the
highest bidder. Granted, these corporate giants helped build the nation and the
society we enjoy today – but it could have been done in a "kinder,
gentler" and infinitely more sensible manner if it weren’t for the greed
for money and the lust for power.
He is at this time transporting large armies of
foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny,
already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in
the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
Yeah, buddy – haven’t done
anything close to this yet. Let’s hope it stays that way.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken
captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the
executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their
hands.
The Civil War – and every
war (or Police Action) since – incorporated the draft or the threat (option)
of the draft. It wasn’t just Viet Nam. Kent State was not the first episode of
the US military firing upon US citizenry. Not exactly parallels to the above,
but close enough for government work.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us,
and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless
Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of
all ages, sexes and conditions.
No comment. Some really flimsy
arguments could be posed, but for the most part we are more than capable of
exciting our own domestic squabbles. Whether or not they are encouraged or
supported by covert government actions belongs in the realm of the conspiracy
theorists. Not my venue. There is, however, the irritatingly common reference,
by both the media and the government, equating survivalists and self-reliant
individuals or groups to "terrorists." Granted, some of the so-called
"militias" (some of which consist of only 1 – 3 individuals),
calling for armed insurrection and an overthrow of the government really don’t
help much. But if you’ve read my previous editorials, you know that I consider
these people as grandstanding buffoons seeking annihilation – not
survivalists, at all.
In every stage of these oppressions we have
petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have
been answered only by repeated injury.
Now doesn’t THAT sound
familiar? The practice of temporary appeasement followed by renewed efforts to
do the same darn thing (albeit in a different manner), seems to be the
distinguishing mark of top-heavy governments.
A prince, whose character is thus marked by every
act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Hear, hear! I couldn’t have
said it better.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our
British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their
legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded
them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have
appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by
the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would
inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore,
acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we
hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
And so, having listed the
particular grievances, the colonials threw down the gauntlet and declared their
separation from the government of their birth.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United
States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme
Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by
the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and
declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and
independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British
Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great
Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent
states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances,
establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states
may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance
on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
Quite a bold move. The
similarities I have drawn, above, are not meant to stimulate any similar
actions, but to bring to light the fact that we are perilously close to
substituting our government with the very same type of government our
forefather’s rebelled against. In our case, however, we have nowhere left to
run. No ocean exists for us to cross and separate us from our antagonist, save
the rift of our ideals, morals, and values. We are in the minority and there is
not a chance in hell that we could ever hope to separate from our government
through the threat of force and survive the extermination/incarceration it could
– and would – inflict upon us. We couldn’t even manage, in my opinion, to
keep the various groups who think and feel the same way – yet worship
differently or have a different pigmentation – together long enough to agree
that it would be a good idea.
The only hope that we have for
returning to an original Constitutional government, is from within the present
system. That simply isn’t going to happen. The majority of U.S. citizens are
content to sit back, watch TV, ignore the government and whatever they do, and
hope that something bad doesn’t happen to them. They are neither patriots, nor
individualists. They just don’t want to be bothered.
In conclusion:
No one in their right mind would advocate the
violent dissolution of our government, and it would be ridiculous to assume that
anyone could replace a modern government with something that could immediately
handle the task at hand. My only intention in writing this article was to expose
the misconceptions that we have all been kidding ourselves with for generations.
Our present government is neither benevolent nor predominately malevolent. But
it certainly bears little resemblance to that which most of us want to believe
it does. If anything, it is closer to the monarchy we separated from 225 years
or so ago, than anything else. It is a self perpetuating, self important,
somewhat benign totalitarian regime – with a heart of … mmmm … silver,
perhaps, but certainly not gold.
It is highly unlikely that anything will ever
change for the better. Too many of the 270 million "Americans" are
satisfied with the illusion of freedom and the illusion of a Constitutional
Republic, and the illusion of being American, to ever set things right. It is
true that the United States is still the most powerful nation on earth. It is
true that we are still the most benevolent nation on earth. And it is true that
we enjoy the greatest standard of living on earth, from a societal standpoint.
But it is equally true that we are a far cry from
what we were meant to be, and from what we once might have become. We are,
indeed, living the American Dream. I just wish we could all wake up and create
an American Reality.
"Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream.
All this the world well knows; yet none knows well
To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell."
William Shakespeare
Sonnet 129
meg
July 1998
Please Read The Website Disclaimer!
Copyright 1986-2009, The Survival & Self-Reliance Studies Institute (SSRsi), All
Rights Reserved
Site conceptualized, designed, created & maintained by MEG Raven
Snail Mail: SSRsi, PO Box 2572 Dillon, CO. 80435-2572