Dr. Mary J. Ruwart shared a great message today from one of her social media accounts, that reads …
“Valentine’s Day is made for lovers. I like to think that those who love liberty are some of the best lovers of all. Real lovers won’t try to coerce you, manipulate you, or try to take your stuff. Real lovers care enough to give you the very best—freedom of choice. Many people think that lovers of liberty are cold and uncaring, because they don’t support government intervention and taxation. Just the opposite is true.”
To add to that, a number of people today seem to regard the love of liberty as childish; merely a selfish, egoic pursuit of the freedom to do whatever one wishes, damn the consequences. I submit that these same people tend to view the institution of the State through the lens of a kind of ‘parental love’, regarding it as a duty of the mother and father to watch over and protect the child who has not yet the inherent capacity to meet their own needs without possibly falling into trouble and hurting themselves or others, and that this justifies a responsibility to prevent the child from doing whatever they want, thus limiting their freedom.
The fundamental caveat to this viewpoint is that the child must eventually grow up, else they forever remain a child.
At some point, if children are to mature, they must have the freedom to think and act for themselves, as well as the freedom to fail, and assume responsibility for those failures, which is the process of learning and growth. When control and structure eventually cease to foster growth and instead begin to constrict and stifle it, then the parental love that seeks to protect must also grow with it, otherwise, it risks turning into its opposite, thereby ceasing to be love. It then becomes overbearing and domineering, and paradoxically irresponsible. This is precisely what the State has become. [This article originally appeared on Steemit.com. Continue reading here …]
Communism, like other forms of Collectivism, is predicated upon control
Looking back at the history of Russia during the early 20th Century, those who came to power calling themselves Bolsheviks were responsible for creating conditions under which mass starvation ensued among the Russian population, ultimately leading to the horrific practice of cannibalism.
“The Russian famine of 1921–22, also known as Povolzhye famine, occurred in Bolshevik Russia. Civil war and Lenin’s policy of seizing food from peasants caused the devastating man-made famine. Around 30 million people were affected and around five million died” (1)
Who were the Bolsheviks?
“The Bolshevik party led the Russian Revolution, and under the new name of the Communist Party, would be the only ruling political party of the Soviet Union. The party championed its vanguard role, and operated under the organizational principle of democratic centralism.”
“Meaning “majority” in Russian, the Bolshevik party was formed after the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903. The Congress as a whole had agreed on the tactics for the coming revolution: the need for a revolution in Russia was clear, and members agreed on the ultimate end: to establish Socialism. The party adopted a stagist theory of societal evolution; that with the yoke of feudalism thrown off, a capitalistic system should be built; i.e. society needed to naturally evolve along a set pattern of progression: from feudalism to capitalism to socialism to communism; one stage needed to be completed before the next was possible.” (2)
Just like many today, the Bolsheviks espoused the ‘revolutionary’ ideals of socialism under a democratic society. But did they come to power organically through force of truth, or by virtue of some ulterior motive? Writing in ‘The Creature From Jekyll Island’, G. Edward Griffin explains, … [This article originally appeared on Steemit.com. Continue reading here …]
Ancient Cave Art That Shouldn’t Exist Pointing Back To the Human Condition
On another social media network that shall remain nameless, Graham Hancock, a noted author and researcher into ancient mysteries and the hidden origins of human civilization, recently posted the following update:
“Some years ago there existed an ancient painting of this species inside the Hypogeum of Malta. It was scrubbed off the walls of the Hypogeum on the orders of a former director of the National Museum because it suggested that the Hypogeum — a truly amazing rock-hewn underground structure — might be much MUCH older than archaeologists want it to be. Specifically it raised the paradigm-busting possibility that the Hypogeum might not date to the relatively recent Neolithic, as preached by archaeologists, but to the Upper Palaeolithic when humans, according to orthodox teachings, are not supposed to have had the ability to create massive rock-hewn and megalithic structures like the Hypogeum…..”
Here is a link to the article he referenced: The Higgs Bison—mystery species hidden in cave art
Is something such as the denial of ancient cave art by an ostensible archeological authority merely a telling symptom of the greater human condition?
Perhaps a large part of human kind’s problem is that when confronted by some bit of reality that doesn’t fit with the carefully constructed maps we’ve created and by which we pretend to actually know about ourselves and our world, that we would much rather ‘scrub it off the wall’ than be unsettled by it. Ultimately we can’t scrub away whatever is, no matter how uncomfortable, any more than we can scrub our own shadows off the ground … [This article originally appeared on Steemit.com. Continue reading here …]
More Proof Government’s Alleged Duty To Protect Is Arbitrary At Best
The Georgia Guidestones are a modern-day megalith erected in 1980 in Elbert County, Georgia, by a mysterious benefactor whose identity to this day has never been revealed. The giant stone tablets contain a series of commandments that, among other things, call for maintaining a global population under 500,000,000.
It doesn’t take a Doctorate in Mathematics to conclude that this number represents a more than 90% reduction in the world’s current population.
Given the US Government’s war on terror and purported stance against weapons of mass destruction, one would think this ought to warrant looking into. It is therefore curious that they have never issued a public statement or news of an official investigation into who is behind this veiled global death threat.
Leaving aside talk of the New World Order and of conspiracy theory for the moment, let’s explore instead the notion that the Guidestone’s very existence represents something of an obvious double standard. [This article originally appeared on Steemit.com. Continue reading here …]
With November just around the corner in this election year of 2016, partisan political discourse is at its usual 4-year fever pitch. In antidote, I present the following collection of quotes from one of America’s great literary icons of the 19th century, Henry David Thoreau.
Thoreau is best known for Walden, his widely celebrated ode to nature and radical self-reliance. Tragically, few today are as familiar with his other works, which are no less superb, including his withering critique on the character of voting and obeisance to the State from the classic, On the Duty Of Civil Disobedience, that is said to have influenced Tolstoy and Gandhi.
As we are made to suffer yet again under a delusion that the future of the free world is staked on the outcome of another ham-handed dog and pony show, these words are worth bearing in mind, as well as taking to heart …
In 1954 the U.S. House of Representatives formed a committee under Rep. B. Carroll Reece and tasked it with investigating the use of funds by tax-exempt organizations such as the Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation, for subversive purposes.
What were the Reece Committee’s findings? Judge for yourself based on the written summary of lead researcher to the Committee, Norman Dodd in his own words.
In summary, our study of these entities and their relationship to each other seems to warrant the inference that they constitute a highly efficient, functioning whole. Its product is apparently an educational curriculum designed to indoctrinate the American student from matriculation to the consummation of his education. It contrasts sharply with the freedom of the individual as the cornerstone of our social structure. For this freedom, it seems to substitute the group, the will of the majority, and a centralized power to enforce this will – presumably in the interest of all. (p. 11)
When something activates my interest in the social media sphere, I tend to drill down on it. In the form of Facebook posts and YouTube videos that entails reading through as many of the comments as possible, and not only the comments, but the comments to the comments, and the comments to those comments. I find it massively interesting to see what people of all walks and worldviews are actually thinking and saying on a topic, especially on a topic of controversy.
said FB post
I offer this recent Facebook thread as an example, not because I endorse its content, but because I read copiously through the comments to judge how people from all sides of the argument and everywhere in between are weighing in, and I think if you do the same, from a dispassionate detached point of view (as much as possible), you are likely to find it interesting too.
I am of a belief that mankind, in some sense, is suffering from a sort of epistemological crisis, if I may use that term.
A friend and I were talking last night and he said something that cut to the very core of what I believe deeply but often fall short of being able to convey. The effect of what he said was so striking to me it was like having a diamond suddenly polished from a piece of coal before my eyes, revealing the essence of a single shining and translucent reality, or truth.
We live under a collective, where individual action and autonomy must be curtailed if it does not conform to the stated ideals and objectives of the group at large. What’s more, individuals are not free to live apart from the collective. You don’t have a choice.
The evidence, is that if you live within the bounds of a certain geographical region commonly known as a “Country”, then you can and will be physically forced and coerced into paying your “fair share” of the entire group’s operating expenses. Since the whole world is divided into countries, there is no use in saying “if you don’t like it leave”, as there is no where one can go that one would not be subject to the same collective force and coercion.