All posts by : Scribe

From the inception of our country, its citizens have held certain beliefs and understandings in common, which have served as the foundational bedrock of our American civil contract. These understandings are rooted in our original Judeo/Christian ethic, namely that there is a God above us, that he is benevolent and merciful, and that he in his wisdom has laid down certain tenets and laws in order to guarantee our happiness and social prosperity, and that if followed, these tenets and laws would ensure our established and continued freedoms. Even non-religious Americans have traditionally subscribed to this common understanding—that there are principles of moral law and justice that if adhered to as a society will ensure that society’s peaceful social cohesion.

The original and longstanding practiced tenet of justice within the Judeo/Christian experience was described originally over 2,000 ago in the chronicles of the Bible. To love justice, and to do justice, was written of as a primary virtue, one which ensured the continued safety and happiness of all those to whom it was accorded. Justice was defined as the forced stoppage of a committed wrong against an individual or group of individuals—said wrong being defined by the commandments—and punishment for the unjust offenders, with the assurance that the injustice would not be allowed to continue. The application of traditional justice is what in essence ensures the actual peaceful coexistence of any society, by extending and ensuring the benefits of the moral law written to protect society’s wellbeing. This commitment to moral principles and justice is what allowed the extension of the broad individual rights and freedoms codified in the American Constitution. A population committed to shared moral principles, and to the application of traditional justice to ensure the safety of the citizenry and the continuance of these moral principles, was one who could be trusted with this novel and expansive new set of freedoms.

With the Judeo/Christian ethic firmly established in their minds through the religious beliefs of the original American citizens and their leaders, justice and individual rights were the primary focus of the organization of American society, and in particular of the American Constitution. These base tenets and laws have served as the bulwark of our internal peace for going on 250 years. The American Constitution, which grew out of the Judeo/Christian experience of our original citizens, codified the rights that could be safely given to a society that lived in respect for these philosophical tenets and laws.

Unfortunately, these tenets and laws, and the very nature of justice that springs from them, are under sustained assault in today’s America. There are specific forces at work attempting to undermine our long standing traditional moral tenets and laws, to replace them with new versions invented by men, and to reverse the traditional meaning of justice in our society. To those attempting this revolution, their definition of justice is diametrically opposed to the long standing and traditional definition—that just treatment is meted out in accordance with a set of just and loving commandments—that committing murder is unjust and must be sanctioned—that bearing false witness against your neighbor is unjust and must be sanctioned—that stealing your neighbor’s property is unjust and must be sanctioned.  But to the communist all these moral interpretations are relatively meaningless, and only of secondary and occasional importance. They hold to a different standard of morality and justice—that the struggle for equal economic outcome of all citizens is the absolute standard of morality, and that any other outcome is unjust, and constitutes a violation of their re-defined standard of justice.

Since the original meaning of justice, and the original code of ethics upon which it is built, is religious in nature and origin, communist thought therefore is inherently and diametrically opposed to religion and the concept of God. This is confirmed not only philosophically, but by the actions of every communist regime throughout history. During the reign of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Communists razed 50,000 churches, and drove the religious community underground. The church then had to meet in secret, and was subject to constant persecution and the threat of arrest. In the five years following the Bolshevik Revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were murdered by the regime. In China today, the communist regime closes active churches and persecutes their pastors. The hatred of the traditional Christian religion by all communists is inherent in their contrary interpretations of moral law and justice, and in their aggressive and violent attempts to destroy Christianity itself and its original form of societal justice. Karl Marx, who along with Fredrick Engels first defined communist theory, declared religion “an enemy of the people,” while the first leader of the Soviet Union Vladimir Lenin, stated: “religion and communism are incompatible in theory as well as practice. We must fight religion.”

In today’s America, a weakening of the long held meaning of justice is moving us towards adopting the communist interpretation, putting us in massive danger of losing the traditions and tenets that have held up our society and constitutional form of government for over two centuries. Without these supportive structures our traditional society will most certainly fall. Only an all out push with full resolve to crush these subversive attempts will suffice in the later stages of the revolution we find ourselves in. Our society is under sustained attack. We must awaken fully and fight back with whatever means necessary as defeat would prove to be catastrophic, signifying the end or our lives and our country as we have known them. And many of us would then most assuredly lose our lives at the hands of our communist enemies, as they then turn their attention to retribution.

Imagine a dinner party on the deck of a fine home overlooking the ocean. High above the water, the wine flowed and the conversation was stimulating and interesting. Then one party goer asked everyone to please be quiet for a moment, because he thought he heard a strange noise coming from the basement of the home. As silence ensued, a sawing or hacking sound could be heard emanating from the basement. Three men then went down to the basement to investigate, and found two men busily working, sawing through the massive support pillars in a slow, methodical manner. Hardly looking up from their work, as they sensed no danger from the three men, they continued their slow hard work. The men who had gone to investigate knew what the consequences were of the work, but in their amazed stupor, simply returned to the party, ignoring the sure knowledge that the large deck, holding sixty five inhabitants, and indeed the entire home, was soon to plunge over the cliff into the ocean below, surely killing all the inhabitants. Should this reaction by the three men not serve as the new definition of insanity? They had the numerical advantage, and the ability to overcome the two men, but declined to do so, putting sixty five celebrants in imminent danger of violent death.

What sane man would not rush to detain the men at work destroying the pillars that held up the lives of so many in sure safety, forcefully stopping the work, and then should the two men fight back, not counterattack with full force to save the lives of so many?

Yet this is the exact case in today’s America. We have hard leftists at work sawing and hacking away at the foundations of our society and form of government, with the full intent of seeing it fall. And make no mistake, as can be easily deduced by studying the consequences of historical hard leftists revolutions—many millions will be imprisoned, and millions will be killed. Will we be any less to blame than the three men who had overwhelming force in the basement in their favor, and yet in their disbelief at what was transpiring, and refusal to understand the certain results, neglected to come to their senses, exercise courage, and save their countrymen?

I will ask you the one seminal question upon which the future of our beloved country depends—do you have a working semi-automatic rifle, and 1,000 rounds of ammunition, and do you stand ready to utilize them in defense of your country? If not, simply return to the party and await the inevitable. You have effectively chosen not to prepare to finally stand in her defense. It will prove to be insufficient to ask an enemy in control of virtually all the levels of government, media, academia, and entertainment to “please stop.”  It will also do no good to try to organize politically at this latter stage of their revolution. They have amassed tremendous power as we slept, down to the very control of our communication mediums and election methods and machinery, effectively silencing our voices and stealing our vote, and have shown certainly that they have no intention to do anything else than to finish their demonic work currently unopposed.

Welcome to the party that is now our America! Consider your position carefully, as your decision will add its weight to the developing conservative mind that may provide the national salvation and renewal so sorely needed—or instead add its weight to the currently dominant hard leftist form of American destruction.

American Renewal

Before the advent of modern Western medicine and sophisticated sanitation systems, human beings were relegated to much shorter life spans and constant susceptibility to disabling physical maladies. Whereas people previously were apt to consider their maladies to be simply the will of God, now we see that they were just an indication of our lack of scientific advancement.

The same can be said for the arena of the mind and emotions. Deep depressions and emotional angst were occurrences not previously well understood. Sufferers were considered afflicted by demons or simply to be smitten without remedy by unknown causes. Not that modern psychology in general has offered much better answers than those offered in earlier centuries. The heavy reliance on psychotropic medication in order to mask and further the same lack of understanding of the root causes of these maladies is what generally passes for modern advancement in psychotherapy today. It seems masking symptoms is currently preferred to truly understanding and curing them.

There are avenues of modern psychology that do suggest real evident root causes and solutions, but because of the great difficulty in coming to grips with these causes and applying the solutions, they are not widely applied by the mainstream professional community. They can be understood only esoterically, and not by traditional analysis. They are not understood without the integration of the mind and emotions on a personal level by the professional therapist, who in most cases remains willfully blind to these causes in their own lives, and therefore, as a result, in the lives of their patients.

These more enlightened approaches are designated by numerous titles—primal therapy, regressive therapy, childhood trauma therapy, etc. Their approach springs from the premise that all mental and emotional dysfunction—all neurosis and psychosis—is a product of an inability to process grief and trauma, which is almost always laid down in childhood when the human emotional structure is at its most immature and vulnerable, and the child is unable to face and process the experience. This approach teaches that these blocked traumas must again be accessed in the memory, and this time fully experienced by the now mature adult, who is more able to understand and process the trauma and its resultant grief. They must be experienced and fully reacted to with both the mind and the emotions. Our God given natural human responses must be employed to bring natural healing—expressing anger, crying out in pain, deep weeping. The immature and completely vulnerable childhood system is not equipped to deal with the expressions of a lack of love from a parent—from neglect to emotional, physical, or sexual abuse. It is simply locked away until one is better able to process the experience. But far too often it is simply locked away permanently and then acted out for a lifetime.

Unfortunately most professional therapists prefer to prescribe psychotropic medications, dealing with the chemical imbalances that result from these blocked grief experiences instead of with the experiences themselves which precipitate the chemical imbalances, and therefore setting the internal chemical system back in balance.  Instead of doing the necessary work themselves, and then seeing clearly in order to lead others in their own attempt  to naturally heal, they decide to choose other avenues of approach—mostly to no avail.

While the general field of psychology has offered fresh perspectives to society, irrespective of their limited approach to human healing, there has been a correlative dark purpose applied to the field in general, in order to promote other societal agendas by both some within and without the profession.

When society was informed by the clinical observations of professionals that occurrences from our pasts can lead sufferers to the commission of crime, the assumption was made by many that rather than being correlative, the resultant historical deficit was the root cause of the later committed crime. The conclusion could of course be made then that the criminal was not fully responsible for their crimes, but rather that their criminal act out would not have occurred outside of their original abuse, and that their will and ability to know and to choose differently had been somehow disconnected. This divided allotment of responsibility cut against the grain of America’s long standing Christian heritage and tenets, which had always informed us that each of us was solely responsible for our own actions, and not for those of another, regardless of the circumstances we might find ourselves in. Throughout our history, it was always taught and assumed that no matter if our circumstances were tragic or idyllic, we were never the less still responsible. Whether life started out hard and then became easy, whether it started out easy and then became hard—it made no difference relative to our still remaining moral obligation to God and our fellow man—we were still able to know and to do the right.

As this newly skewed perspective gained a partial foothold in American society, it had a profound affect on our legal profession, and on the adjudication of crime and punishment. Whereas before the introduction of this perspective into society each member was held personally and strictly responsible for their actions no matter their background or experience—thereafter the legal system began modifying its judgements, considering a defendant’s past experiences as at least a partial root cause of the commission of their crime, naturally altering  the nature of the perpetrator’s level of responsibility. The introduction of the insanity plea became a common occurrence in courtrooms throughout the country, allowing in some cases brutal murderers to avoid suffering a fate at all equivalent to their innocent victims. This resultant criminal/victim power imbalance made the physical and emotional suffering of the murdered victim and their families and friends subservient to the past emotional suffering of the perpetrator, though they had committed no crime.

There are historical power structures that find this weakening of the American system of justice beneficial to their ultimate goals.  The leader of the Italian Communist Party at the time of Stalin, Antonio Gramsci, attempted his own version of the Bolshevik Revolution in Italy. He quickly found that the Italian society in general—the Italian family, the Italian Catholic Church, the Italian legal system, and the Italian school system—all stood by as pillars fully supporting the Italian government, rendering it impervious to overthrow. Italy’s legal system threw Gramsci in prison for 25 years for his sedition, where he proceeded to write his Prison Diaries, in which he ruminated on what went wrong during his attempted revolution, and what could have been done differently in order to realize success.

Gramsci came to the conclusion that any attempted overthrow of a Christian oriented nation would be impossible without first attacking, in a long term fashion, the supportive pillars of the target country. He proceeded to chronicle his recommended means of attack, which focused on the breakdown of the Christian church and its traditional tenets as the seminal attempt in order to topple the remaining pillars, which were all based on the church and her teachings.

One of the tenets of the church that has traditionally undergirded American society is the tenet of personally responsibility. Each person is solely, only, and fully responsible for their own actions, and not those of another, in front of God and their fellow citizens.  If, according to the destructive strategy of Antonio Gramsci, this primary tenet of the church can be at least partially degraded, American leftist followers of Gramsci will have scored a victory toward their ultimate goal—subverting the American psychological and legal professions in the ultimate service of their desired revolution.

Considering a criminals childhood experiences and deficits as causative agents in the commission of their crimes, effectively at least partially mitigating their direct responsibility for their crimes—opens the door wide not only for a partial nullification of the preventative influence of the application of strict legal  justice, but also for the subversion and breakdown of the traditional American pillar our legal system represents. It is a direct assault on one of the supportive pillars of American society, as intended.

American Renewal

Upon his exit from the Constitutional Convention of 1787, anxious citizens were gathered outside Liberty Hall to learn what had transpired in the proceedings. A Mrs. Powell of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Franklin answered without hesitation, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Franklin did not reply, “A democracy, if you can keep it.” Political representation secured by American national sovereignty was the primary philosophical basis of the Declaration of Independence written by Franklin’s contemporary Thomas Jefferson. Being shut out of representation in the British legislature, yet being subject to its whims and laws while having no representative say in the making of British law that regulated them, the American Colonists therefore moved to separate themselves through force from the British. When freedom was won by war and America’s national sovereignty was firmly established, colonial leaders set their minds to devise forms to deepen and strengthen the shallow basis that they knew simple democracy to be as a stand alone form of governance.

The colonial leaders knew full well that the whims of men and their potential liberty infringing votes were no basis for a successful governmental structure protective of the personal freedoms and general liberties that they sought to secure for United States citizens. They knew that influential citizens might at any later time convince a majority of their fellow citizens to vote for even the most egregious proposals and to enact the most oppressive laws by simply gathering a majority of citizens to temporarily agree, and thus to enact long enduring laws that would flagrantly strip personal freedoms—freedoms which the colonial leaders sought to enshrine in perpetuity.  They knew that simple democracy was too reliant on present and transitory passions as compared to enduring eternal principles. Franklin commented on another occasion, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what they are going to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” Franklin, Jefferson, and the other American founders knew that in order to have a republic that not only secured simple political representation, but also secured broad and permanent personal rights and freedoms for its citizens, a deeper and more sophisticated governmental structure was needed. Franklin’s comment spelled out the need for a buttress to exist that could thwart the whims of a simply democratic and therefore potentially oppressive government. The buttress in that particular case was the Constitutional protection securing the God given right to arm oneself sufficiently to prevent the stripping of personal freedoms and prevention of one’s own personal legal and political subjugation. The vulnerable lamb now not only had a vote, but a Constitutionally protected right to bear equalizing arms sufficient to prevent its own oppression by fellow citizens who might gather a majority of their fellow citizens to agree to its oppression.

The right to carry a defensive weapon to protect oneself from tyranny was certainly the seminal Constitutional right enshrined by our Founders, one secured to defend against the dangers of a strict American democracy. This though was only one of numerous rights they intelligently enshrined in our Constitution in order to fashion a form of governance permanently protective of human freedoms and happiness, while also guaranteeing that each citizen shared in the decisions of self government. The right to speak freely, and to associate with those one saw fit to associate with, were recognized also as God given rights not to be abridged. The right to protect one’s personal papers and communications from their intrusive inspection and confiscation by government authorities was protected by our Constitution. The right to practice one’s religion was also secured, along with other specified constitutional rights.

The hard left in America today is enamored with a political form called Democratic Socialism. It is in effect simply socialism instituted by the agreement of the majority through democratic means. (Communism’s founders Marx and Engels stated that socialism was simply the waypoint between capitalism and communism, the world’s greatest killer in the last century) These purely democratic means towards instituting socialism entail gaining democratic hegemony through mass propaganda programs, suppressing countervailing positions, instituting aggressive voter fraud, propagandizing the general public to accept the purported advantages of the socialist form of government, then effectively instituting it through the popular vote. In order to accomplish this goal, they must indeed degrade the primacy of the Constitution and its protective personal freedoms, and enshrine above it the notion of strict democracy. Leftists in America therefore constantly work to degrade the protections enshrined in the Constitution—speech, assembly, firearm ownership, freedom of worship, etc. and alternatively strive to promote the primacy of strict democracy as a principle—therefore whatever the current crop of in-power politicians see as the new rules would then be the new rules, whether or not they align with our original Constitution and its protection of personal rights or not. If they can convince the populace to vote for Democratic Party policies that strip rights and personal freedoms from the people, their desired form of authoritarian government can then be democratically instituted.

This is the essence of Democratic Socialism, and it must be resisted on all fronts. It’s promoters and their subversive system need to be eventually, if ultimately necessary, faced with overwhelming force in order to block their corrosive philosophies from permanently taking hold in America.

American Renewal