Tyranny

“And that’s exactly what you’ve got coming here…”


W.C. Varones tells of meeting a Cassandra.

H/t to the Prof, who blows it off.

We’ll know more in six months.

Tempus fugit.

Muir: Pattern


See the entire excellent ‘toon here; see also this related link.

Ask Max


AG has an “open question forum” going for soldier, author, and trainer Max Velocity.

Go and ask away!

Surrounded By Flattery Wherever You Go


…This post contains just a few paragraphs of commentary followed by the complete English translation of the letter from Der Gerade Weg. It’s a long letter, but I think it provides a valuable view into the perilous national situation in early 1930′s Germany. That situation involved the clear danger of a smitten and careless national press, ambivalence about public lies and a political party that, in Fr. Naab’s words, “promises all things to all men, even the most contradictory things.”

Thanks to 4GFC.

Pluralism finally separates the majority from the anti-majoritarians

Pluralism finally separates the majority from the anti-majoritarians

Watching the great Western experiment with democracy wind down, it now becomes clear how pluralism — the idea that we all agree to disagree, and have many groups disagreeing peacefully with each other in the name of a collage of diverse and interesting viewpoints — has run down and ultimately left us with two groups: the majority, and the anti-majoritarians.

In simple terms, the majority are those indigenous or native to a nation, and who need no “ideology” other than their own culture and interest in perpetuating themselves. The anti-majoritarians are those who don’t fit in, or want to fit in but on their own terms, and so wish to dissolve this majority and replace it with the pluralistic herd.

At first, they pitch this to us as the idea that many groups of different interests exist simultaneously. The majority likes this because it means they get to keep being themselves, only society adds some exciting layers. In reality, every layer represents a displacement, and the end result of the displacement is the creation of a permanent Other who hate the majority for being well-adjusted.

This other takes a negative form, meaning it is defined by what it is not. It is not of a culture, or heritage. It is not of a values system. It is not of a group — it is an anarchistic mass of individuals. But it even destroys that notion. Anarchy does not provide what it ultimately wants, which is for society to be forced to accept it and, as part of that, be forced to subsidize it.

With the Obama election the pluralist anti-majoritarians promised us that race relations would improve, we’d be “post-racial,” and in our new enlightenment we’d live in peace. Once in power, they did nothing but race to replace the majority with imported citizens, a new elite of government and private non-profit liberal ideologues, and new neurotic generations of kids raised on government propaganda in schools.

This event was seen as the culmination of the promise of the work of many generations, starting back a decade after our nation was formed. These groups saw the majority as bad, and exclusive, and so agitated for the inclusion of at first those close to the majority, all the way out to those totally alien to them. This liberal horde has agitated for successive additions to and dilution of the majority.

And now, with the Obama II election, the agenda has become clear. All those who want to think they’re dispossessed, which usually means those with either too much money and nothing to do, or too little money and no will to change their behaviors thus a need for government subsidy, are gathering with him. Their goal is simple: crush the majority once and for all.

All of the West is watching this election. It is a symbolic choice, more than anything. It comes down to a binary measurement: do we want something more like conservatism, or more like liberalism? All those who claim that the two parties are the same are missing the point, since these two similar parties each suggest which direction things will go after the election. The momentum will increase and that which is 10% conservative or liberal today will be 50% of the same four years later, just as it was with Obama.

Whoever wins will carry a mandate to expand upon the relatively mild policies discussed during election time, and to go farther toward the ideal that each side represents — much as elections in Europe do. The conservatives stand for the policies that benefit the majority, and the liberals stand for everyone else and the crushing of the majority. Whose side are you on?

Pushing back against the hivemind

They make one exception: any human notion that rejects the above is not protected.

This hive-mind is massively popular because you cannot resist it without incurring guilt, scorn and disapproval from others. If you don’t want confrontation, it’s best to just go along with it. And thus it became a trend, then an obligation, and now finally it is the de facto law of the land, 200 years past its real acceleration.

But the pushback is occurring: realists are recognizing that appeasement does no good, nor does pretending that our policies would be liberal, and it’s better to just attack the difference than to emphasize similarities.

We don’t need to agree with these men fully or even much at all. What’s more important is the principle: push back against anti-realists by pointing out the big deviations they make from reality, and the bad consequences of that, and thus don’t try to “fix” their broken programs, but demand another direction entirely.

American Empire in Decay

American Empire in Decay

from http://mauryk2.com/

To take a leaf from Gore Vidal: Since spades may not be called spades in freedom’s land, let me spell it out. This I’ll do by quoting Thomas Chittum’s introduction to the Russian edition of his book CIVIL WAR TWO back in 2008:

“Americans are so stupid they can’t remember anything longer than what you can put on a bumper sticker. ‘Save the Whales,’ ‘I Got Mine,’ ‘Nuke Iran,’ ‘I Love My Pet Hamster.’ Stupidity is the only thing that unites so-called Americans. Without our own common trait of stupidity Americans have no basis for a common identity whatsoever. The Establishment arranges these bumpersticker slogans into an infinite variety of combinations which they then sell back to the ravenous peasants in the form of movies, political parties, cults, lifestyles, TV programs, and even religions.

“All the previously mentioned garbage is paid for by a world-wide campaign of butchery and looting.”

Here comes the rub. According to Chittum:

“Unfortunately for America, the military expense of plundering foreigners is getting to be more than the market value of the loot.”

The New Dealers conceived the American Empire as resting on 2 pillars: the National Security State and the Welfare State. But the Empire is broke and can no longer afford both. THAT is the REAL reason behind the assault on Social Security & Medicare.

The rise of conservatism after the Sixties wasn’t a reaction to Middle America watching drug-addled hippies romping in the mud at Woodstock. Rather, corporate profits in the 1970s were half of what they were in the 1960s. Hence the assault on labor, what a UAW leader called ‘a one-sided Class War.’ So-called ‘social conservatism’ ala the Moral Majority’ was just a veil of mystification to hide what actually going on. Conservatives joined liberals in promoting the Dumbing Down of America. It worked. Too many Americans are just plain stupid.

Now it’s all in decay and starting to unravel. The Oligarchy is expecting violence and has the Police State all ready to go.

Saddle up for a rough ride.

Healthcare law?

America is dead. When we stop reaching for the stars, humanity becomes just another animal. We reduce ourselves to simply existing; nothing more.

What does the healthcare law really mean, let me laugh, because those liberals just signed their own death warrants, what they essentially did was pass a law that Every behavior, or failure to act, is now taxable and The President rules by fiat. It’s one of the final signs that as a nation we have turned inward, and that we have no national direction other then maintaining the current system which is unstable, unsustainable, unrepairable, and ultimately will lead to the greatest age of human history. The death of America will mark the fall of the west, creating a fight or die attitude in the europan population around the world, a civilization is in order, who will join us?

The Naked Face Of The Enemy

The Naked Face Of The Enemy

http://bastionofliberty.blogspot.com/2012/05/naked-face-of-enemy.html

I’ve considered long and hard. I’ve agonized. I’ve cast about for alternatives until all the skin has worn off my fingers. I’ve repeatedly refused to accept the implications of what my senses repeatedly told me. I simply can’t do it any longer. The evidence is overwhelming.

America is currently in a state of civil war, and has been for some time.

It’s not a conventional, easily recognized, flying-lead sort of war. That’s what makes it so deadly. That’s why the Right must win it. Should we lose, the carnage will be unimaginable.

I can practically hear what you’re thinking: “Porretto has finally flipped his wig.” Perhaps I have. That’s always a possibility. As the saying goes, there’s a fine line between genius and madness. But perhaps I’m right…and perhaps you’ve inhabited the same State of Denial in which I hid from reality for so very long.

We shall see.

* * *I have several citations this morning. They don’t stand alone. Indeed, none of them, in the absence of much other evidence would be significant at all. That’s part of what makes the ongoing hostilities so lethal: it takes a perspective both wide and deep to grasp the pattern.

The first is from the esteemed Mark Alger:

…Police and Fire are the primary fiduciary responsibilities of government. They should be budgeted first and cut last.An official was quoted as saying that the citizens he’d talked to didn’t want to raise taxes to “pay for the fire department.” How much you wanna bet he never heard any of them say, “… until you quit wasting taxpayer money on massage parlors and sweetheart deals for your brother-in-law.”

Right?

Step into my office. I’ve just heard about this bridge…

Here lately, Teh Won has been on the stump (How is it proper for a government official to campaign for particular policies?) trying to persuade us that, if Congress doesn’t raise the debt limit (How does that make sense?), we’re going to lose [insert laundry list of sacred cows]. Bridges, roads, armies — the latter day version of teachers, cops, firemen.

Saying nothing about bank bailouts, green energy boondoggles, union payoffs, CAGW scams, ACORN, and the rest of the treasury-looting going on…

Right.

No. What we want to do is bit-flip the selected duties of government which we are going to fund. We’re going to start with your charter, fiduciary responsibilities, like protect the borders, run the courts, maintain the roads, deliver the mail. The rest of that crap can hold a bake sale.

The tactic employed by the unnamed official (and by Barack Hussein Obama) has a long and dishonorable history. It’s called the Washington Monument Defense. It hearkens back to an incident in which, when Congress dared to reduce the rate of increase of the budget for the operation of the District of Columbia, the city’s lower levels of government immediately retaliated by closing down Washington’s most popular tourist attractions — that is, by denying non-residents access to the only features of the city they really enjoy and value. The outcry was so sharp that Congress immediately restored the full amount the bureaucracy had demanded.

Like other items with the WMD acronym, the Washington Monument Defense can bring an opponent to heel with no more than a suggestion. Consider, if you will, this passage from William E. Simon’s A Time For Truth, about the 1975-1976 New York City budget crisis:

When informed that cuts in jobs and in pay were inevitable, the municipal unions ran amok. It is only fair to say that Mayor Beame’s cuts in the summer of 1975, under the supervision of the Municipal Assistance Corporation (MAC), were deliberately inflammatory. They were calculated for the purpose of “proving” that the city needed state and federal aid. Beame dismissed nearly 5000 policemen and more than 2000 firemen (closing twenty-six firehouses) and fired nearly 3000 of the city’s 10,000 sanitation workers. The unions understood that this was an act of political blackmail. In June 1975 the firemen’s and policemen’s unions published a four page leaflet which they distributed to tourists. Titled “Welcome to Fear City,” with a lurid skeleton’s head on the cover, the pamphlet advised visitors to New York to stay indoors after 6 P.M., avoid public transportation, and, “until things change, stay away from New York if you possibly can.” In July the sanitation workers went on strike. They threatened to turn “Fear City” into “Stink City” and shouted from picket lines, “Wait till the rats come!”

Anyone familiar with New York City’s monstrously bloated government — no less so in the Seventies than today — will realize at once that Beame and the aforementioned unions were playing the Washington Monument Defense. It worked, by the way.

* * *The thrust of the Washington Monument Defense is obvious: Punish the citizenry for not conceding what the government has demanded. The original incident merely angered tourists to Washington, D.C. More recent invocations of the Defense have struck directly at the legitimate and proper functions of a government: defending the citizen against predation and maintaining peace and order in public places. Mark Alger’s piece above describes the dynamics of such incidents beautifully.

The attitude that gives rise to the Defense is one that divides the nation into “us” and “them.” The inside or “us” group is composed of those who regard their positions in government, or as beneficiaries of government, as theirs by right and not to be challenged or questioned. The outside or “them” group, against whom the Defense is wielded, is composed of everyone else — i.e., those of us who are compelled by threat of punishment to pay for the State’s activities. The Defense itself actuates the threat, albeit not in the conventional manner of indictment, trial, and imprisonment or expropriation.

Before I press onward, ask yourself: What makes the Defense possible? That is: what combination of circumstances and cessions produces a state of affairs in which the insiders — government functionaries (elected, appointed, or hired) — can deprive us on the outside — private citizens under a nominal regime of self-sufficiency — of the protections of life and property?

I’ll return to this.

* * *The Washington Monument Defense isn’t the one and only weapon in the State’s arsenal, but it does outline the mindset of those inside the “us” group:

If you’re not one of us, you’re the enemy. Any promises we might have made to you are not binding upon us. Our aim is to bring you to heel.Of course, the candor of that implication doesn’t entirely serve the “us” group. Insiders would generally prefer to maintain the facade of “service” — i.e., that they’re merely dedicated public servants straining to do their duties despite the obstinacy of the “them” group about providing what they “need.” Toward that end they’ll lie so baldfacedly as to create new low-watermarks in the annals of public deceit.

But there are lies and lies. Some lies are easier than others to establish and perpetuate. Take as an example the lie that labor laws, by which Washington can descend on a firm for not having hired enough Negroes, or cripples, or brain-damaged welders of Moldovian descent, actually serve the interests of those of us who work for a living. Or the lie that the many “affirmative action” (i.e., preferential treatment by race, sex, and ethnicity) laws truly improve the prospects of minorities and the character of the American workplace.

Let it be said at once that such intrusions into properly private relationships do nothing to help their supposed beneficiaries, but rather do them a great deal of harm. The statistics speak unequivocally on this point. Indeed, the apartheid regime of pre-Mandela South Africa was brought into existence in part by the imposition of minimum-wage laws; high-ranking members of the National Party admitted that they knew what result would come of them, and steered deliberately toward it. But for a member of the “them” group to speak openly about such effects is to court counterfire of the most devastating sort.

Which brings me to my second citation: a thirty-year-old essay by the great Thomas Sowell:

In the movie, Absence of Malice,lives are damaged and even destroyed by irresponsible reporting — and the law offers no real protection. In real life as well, the most damaging, unsupported, and inaccurate statements about an individual can be written and broadcast coast to coast, without the law’s offering any meaningful recourse. Judges have so watered down the laws on slander and libel that only in special cases can you nail those who are being irresponsible, vindictive, or even outright liars.I know. As one who has taken controversial stands on various issues, I have been the target of a smear campaign for more than a year. Demonstrably false statements have been made about me in the media and positions attributed to me that are the direct opposite of what I have said for years in my own published writings. And yet a lawsuit would probably do nothing but waste months of my time, at the end of which the smear artists could slip out through one of the many loopholes — and proclaim themselves vindicated and their charges substantiated.

[Applause to Mike Hendrix of Cold Fury for digging up this stunning piece.]

The entire essay is invaluable. It should be read and digested by every American with an interest in the consequences of supposedly well-intentioned public policies. Nor is Dr. Sowell, one of the nation’s strongest and clearest voices for limited government, the only target the “us” group has attacked.

(An aside: In For The Defense, the second of F. Lee Bailey’s legal autobiographies, he narrates the legal ordeal of Captain Ernest Medina, one of the officers accused of perpetrating the My Lai butchery. A telling passage in that tale concerns Time magazine’s slanders against Captain Medina as he awaited trial, for which Bailey and Medina sued under the libel statutes. Time escaped the judgment by claiming, successfully, that Medina was a “public figure,” and thus fair game for anything, by virtue of Time’s own efforts to that effect. Enjoy the irony.)

To give the lie to an “us” group’s representations is, in the minds of the “us” group, a declaration of war — and they believe in total war, in which no weapon and no tactic are off limits. Their entire cadre of hangers-on in the communications trades will mobilize at once to destroy the target. The truth or falsity of their chosen shafts is never under consideration. Victory — the silencing of the dangerous “them” voice — is all that matters.

Compare that behavior to what totalitarian regimes have done to dissenters. Americans of the “them” persuasion aren’t yet in fear for our lives, but it needn’t remain so forever.

* * *Some years ago, back at Eternity Road of late, lamented memory, I posted the following:

Just a few days ago was the first anniversary of the judicially sanctioned torture-murder of Terri Schindler-Schiavo by her soi-disant husband, Michael Schiavo. During that gruesome process, your Curmudgeon penned a cri de coeurthat, had he had his druthers, would have been read by every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth.To cut to the chase: it wasn’t. At least, it wasn’t taken to heart.

On March 2, 3, and 4 of this year, the Texas Academy of Sciences held its annual conclave, at which it awarded a certain Eric Pianka, a biologist at the University of Texas, with its Distinguished Texas Scientist Award. Whatever Dr. Pianka’s achievements as a researcher or educator might be, they were overshadowed, for the moment at least, by his proposition that 90% of the human race must die:

“Every one of you who gets to survive has to bury nine,” Eric Pianka cautioned students and guests at St. Edward’s University on Friday. Pianka’s words are part of what he calls his “doomsday talk” — a 45-minute presentation outlining humanity’s ecological misdeeds and Pianka’s predictions about how nature, or perhaps humans themselves, will exterminate all but a fraction of civilization.Though his statements are admittedly bold, he’s not without abundant advocates. But what may set this revered biologist apart from other doomsday soothsayers is this: Humanity’s collapse is a notion he embraces.

Indeed, his words deal, very literally, on a life-and-death scale, yet he smiles and jokes candidly throughout the lecture. Disseminating a message many would call morbid, Pianka’s warnings are centered upon awareness rather than fear.

“This is really an exciting time,” he said Friday amid warnings of apocalypse, destruction and disease. Only minutes earlier he declared, “Death. This is what awaits us all. Death.” Reflecting on the so-called Ancient Chinese Curse, “May you live in interesting times,” he wore, surprisingly, a smile.

So what’s at the heart of Pianka’s claim?

6.5 billion humans is too many.

In his estimation, “We’ve grown fat, apathetic and miserable,” all the while leaving the planet parched.

The solution?

A 90 percent reduction.

That’s 5.8 billion lives — lives he says are turning the planet into “fat, human biomass.” He points to an 85 percent swell in the population during the last 25 years and insists civilization is on the brink of its downfall — likely at the hand of widespread disease.

“[Disease] will control the scourge of humanity,” Pianka said. “We’re looking forward to a huge collapse.”

Let’s get one thing straight before we proceed: Anyone who agrees with Dr. Pianka had better keep his hands where your Curmudgeon can see them.

An attitude like Pianka’s can only come from an ivory tower. One must be utterly isolated from real life and real people to contemplate their extinction with such cheerful equanimity. Yet according to the linked story, Pianka is well supplied with admirers and acolytes:

Most of Pianka’s former students are bursting with praise. Their in-class evaluations celebrate his ideas with words like “the most incredible class I ever had” and “Pianka is a GOD!”Mims counters their ovation with the story of a Texas Lutheran University student who attended the Academy of Science lecture. Brenna McConnell, a biology senior, said she and others in the audience “had not thought seriously about overpopulation issues and a feasible solution prior to the meeting.” But though McConnell arrived at the event with little to say on the issue, she returned to Seguin with a whole new outlook.

An entry to her online blog captures her initial response to what’s become a new conviction:

“[Pianka is] a radical thinker, that one!” she wrote. “I mean, he’s basically advocating for the death for all but 10 percent of the current population. And at the risk of sounding just as radical, I think he’s right.”

Today, she maintains the Earth is in dire straits. And though she’s decided Ebola isn’t the answer, she’s still considering other deadly viruses that might take its place in the equation.

“Maybe I just see the virus as inevitable because it’s the easiest answer to this problem of overpopulation,” she said.

Of course, “this problem of overpopulation” is a completely impersonal matter. It has no bearing on the identities or futures of identifiable individuals. Were Miss McConnell asked if she expected to be among the doomed 90% or the fortunate 10%, what do you suppose she would say? Is it not likely that in her unspoken thoughts, she assumes herself to be among the architects of the annihilation, rather than an honoree?

Your Curmudgeon calls this the Commissar Complex. It puts him in mind of an anecdote from the 1848 French Revolution, when a coal-carrier scoffed at a lady of the upper classes: “Yes, madam, everything’s going to be equal now. I’ll go in silks and you’ll carry coal.” They who imagine the remaking of the world after their own preferences are like that.

Never imagine that they aren’t serious. Consider the following:

“The ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!'” — philosopher Paul Taylor in Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics

“Human happiness [is] not as important as a wild and healthy planet….Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along.” — biologist David M. Graber, in review of Bill McKibben’s The End of Nature, in the Los Angeles Times, October 29, 1989.

But in keeping with the “death cults” motif, your Curmudgeon must emphasize the underlying attitude: Superior individuals, disdainful of the common herd and disinclined to rub elbows with them, theorize about the management of the hoi polloi while sipping Cointreau. Such management connotes a shepherd-to-sheep relation. Certainly it would include a willingness to “thin the herd” at need — with need determined solely by the self-nominated master intellects in the closed circle.

“Kill five-billion-plus people because their continued existence offends us? Why not? Haven’t we acceded to the deaths of millions of unborn children in the name of convenience? Haven’t we argued that to let a child be born with a birth defect, or against its mother’s will, is an act of ‘wrongful life?’ Don’t we have such luminaries as Peter Singer to justify infanticide as a form of retroactive abortion? Haven’t we condemned a president and his administration specifically for liberating two nations from monsters who were slaughtering tens of thousands each year? Haven’t we argued in the highest chambers of power that ‘a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy,’ and that rocks and moss and tundra are more precious than the human lives the oil beneath them could sustain? When we argued for those things, did anyone rise to stop us? Who could stop us now?”

Gentle Reader, I wish I had preserved for your edification the batch of hate mail I received after posting that piece. It was an undifferentiated mass of viciousness. You would have thought I’d come out in favor of executing homosexuals, or discriminating against rhythm-challenged Negroes, or the designated hitter rule. But if memory serves, not one of my correspondents dared to address the central thread of Pianka’s lectures — that the death of 90% of the human race would be a good thing — even though Pianka himself has openly said so.

Why would a hate-mailer address that thesis? It’s so clearly anti-human that only someone who actively hates other people and desires their destruction would adopt it. So anyone determined to defend Pianka, but equally resolved to represent himself as a “good guy,” must treat Pianka’s thesis as “off the table.” He must assail the one who dares to express shock and horror that anyone could espouse such an idea as somehow evil.

Doesn’t that suggest that the hate-mailer finds the thesis worthy? Doesn’t it bring to mind the faux-equality of the Parisian coal-carrier — the “Commissar Complex” mindset I alluded to in the above piece?

Which brings me to my third citation: a look at one of Pianka’s more overtly genocidal fellow-travelers:

This is Finnish writer Pentti Linkola — a man who demands that the human population reduce its size to around 500 million and abandon modern technology and the pursuit of economic growth — in his own words. He likens Earth today to an overflowing lifeboat:

What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.

He sees America as the root of the problem:

The United States symbolises the worst ideologies in the world: growth and freedom.

He unapologetically advocates bloodthirsty dictatorship:

Any dictatorship would be better than modern democracy. There cannot be so incompetent a dictator that he would show more stupidity than a majority of the people. The best dictatorship would be one where lots of heads would roll and where government would prevent any economical growth. We will have to learn from the history of revolutionary movements — the national socialists, the Finnish Stalinists, from the many stages of the Russian revolution, from the methods of the Red Brigades — and forget our narcissistic selves. A fundamental, devastating error is to set up a political system based on desire. Society and life have been organized on the basis of what an individual wants, not on what is good for him or her.

As is often the way with extremist central planners Linkola believes he knows what is best for each and every individual, as well as society as a whole:

Just as only one out of 100,000 has the talent to be an engineer or an acrobat, only a few are those truly capable of managing the matters of a nation or mankind as a whole. In this time and this part of the World we are headlessly hanging on democracy and the parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of mankind. In democratic countries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most. Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromising control of the individual citizen.

Linkola’s ground assumption is that the current penetration of environmental alarmism is an adequate popular basis for his recommendations. He’s wrong, of course; most Americans, at least, would not consent to having nine-tenths of their number liquidated and the survivors subjected to rigid totalitarian rule for any reason, much less to “save the planet.” But his aim isn’t truly to bring about mass death and totalitarian rule for the sake of the environment; it’s to use “the environment” as the rationale for mass death and totalitarian rule. Indeed, he hardly bothers to disguise it.

The disturbing things about this vile notion are:

  • That there are many, including many in the United States, who would call Linkola’s unsubstantiated assumptions of ecological crisis, like those of the aforementioned Eric Pianka, rational and defensible;
  • That the “us” group now promulgates those assumptions as dogmas beyond question;
  • That those dogmas are now the overt basis of public policies at all levels of government;
  • That anyone who gives these obscenities true coloration — i.e., as expressions of hatred and contempt for Mankind — will come in for the full vituperative, calumnious force of the “us” group, most particularly via their mouthpieces in the media.

Do you disagree? Read this, and tell me if you still do.

* * *I hope my central point hasn’t been lost among all the atrocities covered in the above. My tiny participation in the incidents I related is insignificant; I’m so far down the list of English-language political commentators that I don’t deserve personal mention. The pattern beneath these incidents is what matters.

We are at war. Not by our decision — that is, the wills of those of us in the “them” group — but by those in the “us” group. The “us” group aims at our complete, unquestioning subjugation, a campaign in which effort no weapon is to be held in reserve, and no tactic deemed beyond the pale.

Bu really, that’s only one of the major points I’d like to make today. The other concerns this snippet from an earlier segment:

Before I press onward, ask yourself: What makes the Defense possible? That is: what combination of circumstances and cessions produces a state of affairs in which the insiders — government functionaries (elected, appointed, or hired) can deprive us on the outside — private citizens under a nominal regime of self-sufficiency — of the protections of life and property?

Like most of the genuinely basic questions about social and political affairs, to ask the question — sincerely, determined to know the answer regardless of what it might tell us about ourselves — is to answer it.

We are no longer self-sufficient.
We have ceded all responsibility for the protection of our lives, our property, and peace in the streets to The State.
The State has taken advantage of that cession to reduce us ever more completely to helplessness before it — in some regions, mainly psychological helplessness, but in others objective helplessness as well.
The State has compounded our subjugation by creating numerous mascot groups, some of which are merely strident, others of which are ready and eager to use violence, in support of the State’s overall agenda.
Our response to these developments has mostly been to shrug.

Please, please, please: Interpret “the State” broadly, not narrowly. Anyone who, for any reason, wields coercive force or the threat thereof to compel obedience to some external dictum is at that time and in that place an agent of the State. Ask Massachusetts ice cream vendor Mark Duffy whether it mattered to his livelihood whether the “armed environmental police” were hirelings of Washington, or Massachusetts, or the town of Carlisle, or claimed to be “private citizens” solely interested in “the public good.” Ask him whether he would have regarded an equal or greater force that dared to stand in his defense against those “armed environmental police” as enemies, or as courageous and infinitely praiseworthy American patriots.

Then ask yourself whether, should you ever be in a position comparable to Duffy’s, such a force is at all likely to appear in your defense.

* * *Political salvation has become extremely unlikely. Yes, I meant what I said in this essay about the desirability of buying time. We need time for the general recognition of the war between “us” and “them” to burgeon and mature. But I can’t see a reversal of the trend through political mechanisms alone as plausible.

If that’s the case, we can go in only two directions from here:

  • Acceptance of de jure subjugation, coupled with as much “underground resistance” as is possible to us;
  • Open armed revolt.

We are not ready to revolt. Not only do far too many Americans still believe in “the system;” there aren’t enough of us ready, willing and able to put “our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor” at risk for a chance at a Constitutional restoration. Among the Constitutional movement’s weaknesses is that too many of us are in our “declining years.” Though we recognize the rumble of Juggernaut’s carriage, we’re far more inclined toward “riding it out” than taking up arms against it.

Far more Americans must grasp the enormity of our common plight before an overt uprising would have a significant chance of success.

* * *One cannot recognize a state of war yet deny that an enemy exists; the latter posture makes the former impossible. My overriding purpose in the above was to make it more difficult to deny the existence of the enemy — to some extent, to give us of the “them” group “a face to hate.”

I wish I could think of a way to end that last sentence with some other phrase. Hatred is always destructive. Indeed, it’s the engine of willed destruction itself: the conscious desire to do harm to someone else. Christians are enjoined against hatred…with one exception:

Then an experience that perhaps no good man can ever have in our world came over (Ransom) – a torrent of perfectly unmixed and lawful hatred came over him. The energy of hating, never before felt without some guilt, without some dim knowledge that he was failing to distinguish the sinner from the sin, rose into his arms and legs till he felt they were pillars of burning blood. What was before him appeared no longer a creature of corrupted will. It was corruption itself to which will was attached only as an instrument. Ages ago it had been a Person: but the ruins of personality now survived in it only at the disposal of a furious self-exiled negation. It is perhaps difficult to understand why this filled Ransom not with horror but with a kind of joy. The joy came from finding at last what hatred was made for. As a boy with an axe rejoices on finding a tree, or a boy with a box of coloured chalks rejoices on finding a pile of perfectly white paper, so he rejoiced in the perfect congruity between his emotion and its object.

Elwin Ransom’s Adversary was already damned. We cannot wish for — certainly not labor for — the damnation of the “us” group; that’s theological hatred, hatred unto eternity, which is the worst of all kinds. But we can ardently desire their downfall and disgrace. We must look upon their faces, not merely as a group but as individuals, dispel the notion that they’re simply “misguided,” acknowledge the enmity between us, and respond to their ill-concealed desire for our subjugation with a confident, justified desire for their ruin. More, until we allow ourselves to do so, we will make no headway at restoring liberty and justice to these United States.

Atlanta, Affirmative Action, and White Managerial Elites

Gone With the Wind: Atlanta, Affirmative Action, and White Managerial Elites

stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com

 

Ronald H. Bayor’s Race & The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Atlanta is one of Disingenuous White Liberal (DWL) scholarly books that blames the current state of the Black Mecca on the lingering vestiges of white racism.

The growth of Atlanta is in predominately white areas

Despite Atlanta – since 1973 – being a city firmly under the iron Black heel when it comes to who controls City Hall and the hiring/firing of public employees (not to mention the creation of the Minority Business Enterprise, which mandates a significant portion of city projects go to minority firms), Bayor’s book places all the blame for The City too Busy to Hate’s shortcomings on white people.

Just as in Detroit, it was white flight from Black criminality to virtually crime free white suburbs surrounding the city that allowed Black people to become the majority of Atlanta by 1970 and elect Maynard Jackson in 1973. This event was the culmination of years of cohesive actions by the Black community in Atlanta:

“The black response to a city being shaped by segregation was to form their own self-help organizations, develop businesses and colleges to serve the African-American community, negotiate for land and housing, fight for political inclusion, and, most important, to continually point out to white Atlantans what should have been obvious: measures that diminished black life in the city also had negative effects on whites. Black Atlanta’s community development, resistance to or bypassing of white policies, and implementation of their own policies after 1973 were some of the shaping aspects of race that one could see in Atlanta.”(p. 257, Race & The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Atlanta)

Black Atlanta did implement their own policies starting in 1973 (minority contracting mandates, which transferred tax-revenue to the Black community) as outlined here:

The election of Maynard Jackson, who has died of a heart attack aged 65, as the first black mayor of Atlanta, Georgia, in 1973 was a major landmark in the southern US city’s history.


It signposted a change of guard in the local political class from white to black; no white person has since been elected mayor.


Jackson, who served three terms in office, was a prominent exponent of affirmative action.


In his first two terms, he rattled Atlanta’s old cosy business relationships, alienating some, but wooing them back in his third term with deft deal-making skills. In 1978, he signed a law requiring 25% of the city’s projects to be set aside for minority firms. The policy, which still operates today, made Atlanta the most hospitable place in America for black entrepreneurs.


He also pushed through an affirmative action program that made it mandatory for contractors to take on minority-owned businesses as partners, and forced the city’s major law firms to hire African-American lawyers. He threatened that “tumbleweeds would run across the runways of Atlanta airport” if blacks were not included in city contracts.

This is the reason Atlanta is known as “The Black Mecca”; an aggressive affirmative action program implemented to enrich Black citizens of Atlanta, that resulted in enticing Black people from around the country to return to the city (and surrounding metro Atlanta area) to get a piece of the pie. An article from Ebony in 2002 notes:

Though Census figures show that Atlanta’s Black population has dipped slightly (it peaked at 282,911 in 1980 and stands at 255,689 today), more than 150,000 African-Americans still moved into the city during the 1990s. The real boom was in the surrounding bedroom communities in DeKalb, Fulton and Cobb counties. More than half a million Blacks swelled the population of those communities in the 1990s. In fact, more Blacks moved to metropolitan Atlanta than to any other metro area in the country during the last decade.

Even in once-segregated strongholds like DeKalb County, which cuts a small swath through the city of Atlanta, Blacks have changed the face of the social and political landscape. In November 2000, DeKalb residents elected 41-year-old Vernon Jones as the county’s first Black chief executive. “The times are definitely changing in and around this metropolitan area,” Jones maintains. “The whole area is just much more diverse, and that’s changing things. There are some glass ceilings, too. We still don’t have a Black senator or a Black governor. But the population is growing. More and more Black people are moving here, affluent Black people. That is making a difference.”

Today, Atlanta boasts more Black-owned companies per capita than any other city in the nation except Washington, D.C., according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. It is home to the nation’s second-largest Black insurance company, Atlanta Life. Citizens Trust Bank, the fourth-largest Black bank, also is based there.

“There are business role models here like Jesse Hill and Herman Russell who allow young people to see what the possibilities are,” says Thomas Dortch, national chairman of 100 Black Men of America.

But the new economic landscape produced by the labor, lobbying and civil rights leadership of Atlantans such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Andrew Young and Congressman John Lewis also has created scintillating opportunities in areas where Blacks previously were shut out. As Atlanta has grown, so too have the fortunes of scores of Black businessmen who have participated in its amazing development. With the backing of Maynard Jackson, who is credited with initiating the building boom that put Atlanta on the map (some call Hartsfield airport “the airport that Maynard built”), business owners like construction magnate Herman J. Russell, whose H.J. Russell & Co. is the 14th-largest Black business in the country, literally paved the way for the unprecedented success of the Black businesses that followed.

Using aggressive affirmative action initiatives, Jackson ushered in an era in which the percentage of the contracts Black businesses received from the city grew from less than one-tenth of 1 percent in 1970 to more than $250 million today. It is said that 90 percent of the contracts that go to minority-owned firms that do business with American airports are at Hartsfield. Herman Russell, along with his partner, pioneering restaurateur James Paschal, operate several of those concessions, but many young Black business owners also have broken into this lucrative territory.

More and more Black people – who are vacating cities they helped ruin during the Great Migration of 20th century – are moving back to Atlanta. Fittingly, there is a correlation to property value drops, lower tax revenue collected – resulting in teacher and public employees layoffs and a lack of funds for improvements in infrastructure (and increased crime) – and further white flight from these counties Black people are settling in.

Attracted by affirmative action policies that helped enrich one segment of the population, one wonders if metro Atlanta’s white population would ever dare unite to defend their interests? The looming showdown over North Fulton vs. South Fulton would lead one to say “yes, they will.”

But its not just affirmative action policies that have helped enrich Black people in the private sector.

In describing Freaknic – a raucous Black spring break event that was eventually evicted from Atlanta – in the opening chapter of A Man in Full, Tom Wolfe writes:

Atlanta was their city, the Black Beacon, as the Mayor called it, 70 percent black. The Mayor was black… and twelve of the nineteen city council members were black, and the chief of police was black, and the fire chief was black, and practically the whole civil service was black, and the Power was black. (p.17)

But going back to that quote from Boyer, one glaring inconsistency with logic sticks out:

to continually point out to white Atlantans what should have been obvious: measures that diminished black life in the city also had negative effects on whites.

Actually, it’s measures that improved Black life in the city that have had negative effects on whites. More importantly, it’s had negative effects on Black people. Despite these affirmative action programs, poverty (and crime, which has no relation to poverty) in the Black community in metro Atlanta is at levels that rival any in all of America:

Atlanta’s status as a haven for African-Americans was greatly reinforced by the election of the city’s first black mayor, Maynard Jackson, in 1973. This accomplishment was due not to the progressive sentiments of the majority of Atlanta’s white population, but rather their departure from the city in big numbers. In the book Imagineering Atlanta: The Politics of Place in the City of Dreams, Charles Rutheiser reports:

He (Jackson) assumed a confrontationalist posture vis-a-vis the white business community, arguing passionately for a greater distribution of the benefit of growth among African-Americans. Ina  showdown over the new airport, Jackson succeeded in establishing a minority business enterprise program that became widely regarded as a model for minority set-asides for municipal contracts. Together, with extensive affirmative action hiring by Atlanta-based corporations like Coca-Cola and Delta Airlines, and an already-established black business community, the set-aside program made Atlanta a nationally known center for African-American economic opportunity in the latter part of the 1970s and 1980s.


Despite economic opportunities for the middle class and a continuous black presence at city hall for two decades, Atlanta was far from being a decent place, much less a paradise, for the majority of its African American residents. By any and every statistical measure, from poverty and unemployment to graduation rates and crime, the quality of life “enjoyed” by the city’s African-American majority plummeted during this period. The percentage of black households living in poverty nearly doubled between 1980 and 1990, to more than a third of all households. Over half of the city’s children lived in poverty. 


Nowhere was the divide between the two black Atlantas more manifest than in the area of crime. Atlanta was nationally renowned for its high crime rate in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Its homicide rate more than doubled between 1965 and 1970, making the city the country’s “murder capital.” Atlanta has retained the dubious honor of being one of the nation’s most violent cities to the present day. The vast majority of these crimes occurred, then as now, in the cities poorest census tracts to the south, east, and west of downtown, areas that are more than 95 percent African American.

Violent crime hasn’t stopped in Atlanta (where Black people have a virtual monopoly on crime), it’s just no longer reported by the police or the Atlanta Journal Constitution.

A simple question has to be asked at this point: who were those white people in power in Atlanta that caused Black people to unite and create cohesive organizations that would – in turn – consolidate political power in their own hands (both in the public and private sector)? Who were these white people that allowed Atlanta to become the Black Mecca?:

An incredibly close-knit group of friends, neighbors, and business partners from the city’s posh Northside, the power structure shared a common history. “Almost all of us had been born and raised within a mile or two each other,” remembered Ivan Allen Jr., a member of the group who would succeed (William) Hartsfield as Atlanta’s mayor from 1962 to 1970. “We had gone to the same schools, to the same churches, tot he same golf courses, to the same summer camps. We had dated the same girls. We had played and worked within our group.” Member of the power structure not only shared a common past and present; they shared a common vision of the future. In Allen’s telling, they were “dedicated to the betterment of Atlanta as much as a Boy Scout troop is dedicated to fresh milk and clean air.”(p. 28, White Flight: Atlanta and the Making of Modern Conservatism, by Kevin M. Kruse)

The actions by the white elite (what can only be described as the white “Managerial Elite” of Black-Run America) from 1940 – 1970 resulted in the vacating of the city by middle class whites (who couldn’t insulate their families from Black crime and integrated schools as the Northside elite could with private schools) and, in turn, resulted in the nightmarish of 2012 metro Atlanta: an entire metro area witnessing property depreciation, increased crime, and staggering costs for commutes.

Interesting that despite government mandated policies of affirmative action, minority contracts, and hiring practices that have turned all public jobs (tax supported) in the metro Atlanta area into a Black vocational program, Black communities there are in complete disarray.

Those areas that stayed white (despite a hostile government, private sector hiring practices that favor non-whites, and an onus on entrepreneurship): thriving. Atlanta has been rebuilt up Georgia 400 to Roswell, Sandy Springs, Alpharetta and Forsyth County.

The tallest buildings in all of suburban America, the 30+ story King and Queen Towers – The Concourse at Landmark Center in Sandy Springs – recently went on the market and analysts predict the sale will rival what the tallest building in the southeast (which was foreclosed), the Bank of America Plaza, went for. The former complex is located Outside the Perimeter, in a city that is majority white; the latter located in downtown Atlanta.

Sandy Springs is one of these primarily white cities in North Fulton that could secede from the county tomorrow and instantly see property values rise dramatically.

More on this later this week.

Since 1973, untold financial investing in the Black Mecca (through primarily white tax-dollars and the appropriation of collected revenue toward minority contracts and the establishment of an entrenched Black monopoly on public jobs) has resulted in the creation of a Black elite in Atlanta, which should now represent a sunk cost. No matter how many private companies enact affirmative action policies in hiring, this too will represent a sunk cost over time.

Atlanta – The City too Busy to Hate – represents a microcosm of how one can look at the entire nation after Black-Run America (BRA) rose to power: The white managerial elite rushing to cede power to Blacks, who have and always will maintain a close racial cohesion. It has been the zeitgeist in America for some time to be seen as “progressive” when it comes to Black America.

The state of 2012 Atlanta and the metro Atlanta area is directly correlated to two things: 1. Blacks moving from around the nation to city to take advantage of affirmative action policies enacted in 1973 that have created the facade of a “Black Mecca” — only because of the misappropriation of tax-dollars by a racially cohesive drive to augment Blacks, and, 2. White people trying to avoid living anywhere near Black people. No matter the distance of the commute, having limited interaction with Black people is preferred.

One will never be able to quantify (nor qualify) what might have been for Atlanta – and metro Atlanta – were a race-based policy not enacted in 1973 and instead, a merit-based policy enshrined into law.

The white managerial elite of Atlanta sold the city to Organized Blackness; as a result, every one has suffered.

Such is the case for all of America.

To look back at what Mr. Boyer stated in his book, it should become clear: the day that white people decide to do any of things he listed as the Black response to “segregation” in Atlanta, is the day BRA ends.

Hilariously, it looks like it will be in the very Northside of Atlanta (North Fulton) that sees secession attempted and a new county created… Look to a forthcoming essay on Vdare to see what this means.

The seeds of BRAs destruction are in the soil of Atlanta.

Obligations Of Obedience

Obligations Of Obedience

As our country continues its transition from liberty toward tyranny, we are going to have to face questions that have, traditionally, been alien to Americans. These questions will concern the extent of our loyalties, the demands for our obedience, and the extent to which we will honor these demands.

Like all Americans who have served in our military, upon induction I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. And, I have always understood that this oath has no expiration date. By implication, this oath also requires me to support and defend the government of the United States of America. For years, I have accepted this implication. However, given the current direction of our government, I now amend my commitment to support, defend and obey the U.S. Government to be binding only to the extent that that same government acts is strict accordance with the Constitution, as written.

Stated differently, I have never sworn any oath nor do I acknowledge any loyalty to any arbitrary rule or to any “government”, legitimate or otherwise. Two basic principles are essential to the successful operation of a constitutional republic – as America was intended to be:

The first is that all citizens of the republic are governed with and by their own consent, freely given. What we usually call “government by the consent of the governed”.

The second is that those who make and enforce the laws of the republic are chosen by their fellow citizens and that, despite their election or appointment to an office of authority, they remain fellow citizens, as fully subject to the laws of the republic as those who have not been elected or appointed. That is, in a functional republic, no one is above the law, regardless of office, employment or wealth.

I hereby assert that the republic known as the United States of America no longer qualifies as a valid and functional constitutional republic. I further assert that its government no longer operates as demanded by its constitution and that it no longer operates with the consent of a majority of its citizens.

According to our original founding document, the Declaration of Independence, people are prone to tolerate abuses by governments so long as those abuses are tolerable. And, once such abuses become intolerable, it is up to the citizens to abolish the abusive government and establish an new one better suited to the protection of their natural rights.

I hereby assert that the government of the United States of America now operates in a fashion that poses a direct threat to individual life, liberty and property. I further assert that, in posing such an ever-increasing threat, it has now passed the threshold of tolerance and that the time has come for the people to band together for a renewed Declaration of Independence.

Rulers, Makers, Takers and Useful Idiots
The current state of our nation divides us into three principal groups:

A Ruling Class of elites who, to a large extent, directed the activities of the “elected” officials who supposedly work for the electorate. This Ruling Class is based, primarily on an international financial cartel.
The Makers who produce (and consume) the goods, services and overall wealth of the nation , including the wealth that ends up in the hands of the financial cartel.
The Takers who consume far more than they produce (it, indeed, they produce at all).
The Useful Idiots who live in a totally artificial world and who know little or nothing about the real world of the Makers. Because of their detachment from reality, these Useful Idiots are prone to support emotion-driven ideas that have no rational basis. This group is made up primarily of those who operate in the realm of subjectivity (usually entertainers of various types including many so-called journalists) – a realm where definite conclusions are rarely possible – as opposed the the realm of objectivity where results can be known and measured.

The news media and their allegedly honest polls would have us believe that a large percentage of our population (mostly Takers and Useful Idiots) actually prefers to live under a dictatorship. I don’t believe this. What I do believe is that a large percentage of our population have allowed themselves to be convinced that government can give them (or someone else) something that they did not earn. Well, lately it sure must seem that way to many of us because all the Takers need do is hold out their hands, moan and whine a bit (with supporting moaning and whining from the Useful Idiots), and, voila, some politician promises them any and every thing they could possibly want or need.

For the Ruling Class

All I can tell you is that you will be destroyed. Your kind always are although, like the mythical phoenix, your replacements will inevitably arise again, proving yet again Lord Acton’s maxim. We could spend pages exploring your existence and its root causes but that is fodder for another rant.

For the Takers

I now want to speak directly to the Takers – those of you who live off the labor of your fellow citizens: What you fail to consider is that government does not produce anything. So, anything the Ruling Class (via their puppet government) has to give to you must first have been taken from someone else.

But, says you, why should you worry, they only take it from the “evil rich”. Well, I ask, just who are these “evil rich”? Might they simply be your fellow citizens who just happened to be more productive than you? Might they be the very ones who are producing the things you require for your continued existence? Things like food, shelter, clothing, medical care, etc.? And, after these “evil rich” have been drained, their enterprises destroyed, then what? Let me tell you what. Those “evil rich” will have been changed into Takers, just like you. So, what happens after all the “evil rich” have been converted to Takers – what then? Well, we all know what “then” – only “then” will occur long before all the rich have been drained.

What will happen is that the dictatorship established by the Ruling Class, in order to get the production it must have in order to continue, will enslave all the Takers. Yes, even you. Does it still sound like a promise of a perpetual good life? Did they not explain to you that, in becoming a Taker, you were trading your precious liberty for a future as a slave?

Maybe you let yourself become convinced that you were somehow enslaving the “evil rich”? After all, they expend an ever-increasing amount of their effort working for your benefit. Is that not the very definition of slavery – to be forced to toil for the benefit of another? Let me clarity things for you. You haven’t enslaved anyone because you lack the means to do so. What you have done is helped created a surrogate slave master to do the enslaving for you. This surrogate slave master is the puppet government operated by (and for) the Ruling Class. And, let me assure you, they are “equality opportunity” slave masters. For sure, like any plunderer, they will strike first where the plunder is richest. But, as they plunder our wealth, they destroy the means of replacing that wealth. As the means of replacing wealth diminishes, more people must be enslaved to make up the difference.

The Ruling Class must think you are stupid not to have seen through their long-term plan for you. Indeed, for us all. Might it be time for you to quit believing in fairy tales, start looking at the situation realistically, and begin taking some responsibility for your own future?

For the Makers

Just as you are called on to produce the goods and services we all depend on, likewise, if we are to be saved, you will called on to be the saviors. To this end, I urge all of you to arm yourselves, just as we were urged to do by our Founders. However, I do not advocate the use of such arms for anything other than defense. Our basic response to further predations on the part of our now illegitimate government should be simply to say NO. To refuse, individually and in groups, to submit to further demands for the fruits of our labor or for the surrender of any of our property, including arms. I make this recommendation on the realistic understanding that isolated groups of fed-up citizens stand no chance in pitched battles with government thugs. However, the lack of our production can surely starve the beast.

If they come for your arms, simply say NO, even though they will probably arrest you.

If the come to demand tribute (in the form of taxes), simply say NO, even though they will probably arrest you.

Remember, there are very definite limits to the number of us the government thugs can arrest and imprison. Plus, the more they attempt to do so, the greater damage to the production that they require from us. Also remember that the start of mass arrests will do much to help convince our more timid fellow citizens that the time to stand up for our rights is upon us.

If, however, they come to do you physical harm, defend yourself, your family and your property in any fashion you can.

I can hear many of you thinking that I am probably crazy, that the situation is not nearly this bad, and that, even if it were, what I propose would never work. My response is that, yes, I may well be crazy, that the situation is even worse than I make it seem, and, while what I propose might not work, on the other hand, it just might.

However intimidating it may sound to you, consider the consequence of continuing to do nothing.

For All

Whether you are a Maker or a Taker, please think about this.

For sure, the coming dictatorship does promise one thing than many of you might think is good – equality. The only problem is that we will all be equally enslaved.

We still have a chance to survive. But the odds against us increase with each passing day. With each day that we do not stand up enmasse and demand a return to the constitutional government of a fully functional republic, the odds of success diminish. Failing that, there is then a lesser chance that a dedicated group of patriots might actually prevail in a civil war and eventually restore our liberty. But, neither of those is the path we are currently on.

And, please, don’t any of you try to tell me again that you are just “too busy” to be concerned about your own liberty and that of your offspring. The people at Valley Forge also had other things to do, other places to be. So did those on the beaches of Normandy and Iwo Jima. So did those who spent so much time founding this nation that they neglected their own fortunes, and, for the most part, lost them in the process.

Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask instead what you MUST do for yourself.

Troy L Robinson

https://i0.wp.com/www.thoughtsaloud.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/political_spectrum.png