0 comment Tuesday, September 16, 2014 | admin
There is a short piece today from Fjordman at Gates Of Vienna, titled Heeding Locke and Jefferson.
Apparently it's from a longer essay which is to appear soon.
A couple of excerpts:
...Every single day we get more evidence that the authorities are totally incapable of protecting any semblance of security and freedom for their citizens. The only thing the State still seems to be capable of is indoctrinating our children with hatred of their own civilization and taking away our money so that it can be given to those who colonize our countries and abuse our children, verbally and physically.''
Well-articulated, and true.
Or are our leaders incapable of protecting our security and freedom, or simply neglecting those things as they pursue conflicting goals? Such as promoting the colonization by our countries by those who abuse not only our children but us? The Western governments can't do both, obviously, and it's clear that our safety and security are not on their list of priorities, but promoting colonization is at the top of the list.
Fjordman quotes Locke, from the Second Treatise on Government:
"The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property, and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society�.whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people�.By this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society."
Yes -- by their actions, our 'leaders' forfeit their lawful powers invested in them by the people, because, as Locke says, their actions have put them into a state of war with the people. That's it in a nutshell.
But how did it come to be that the 'leaders' who were ostensibly chosen by the people to represent and defend our safety and security and to look out for our national interests are now serving other global masters, and serving the interests of every people except those who elected them, and the very people of which they are genetically a part?
Selwyn Duke has a new essay on this issue:
Political Elections, Cultural Elections, and the Votes that Really Matter
I recommend you read it; he discusses the upcoming election, the sad choices being offered to us between two evils, and the ways in which he believes we have brought ourselves to this pass. He quotes the maxim which asserts that 'people get the government they deserve'. That saying is usually attributed to Joseph de Maistre, and I have quoted it here from time to time. (Duke attributes it to Thomas Jefferson, and I am not aware that he said or wrote those words anywhere, but I am open to being corrected.) In any case, whoever first said it, I believe it's true. I know some have disagreed with me about the validity of that sentiment, but I think in some sense it is always true.
Those who disagree will usually say something along these lines: "How did the people of Iraq deserve Saddam Hussein?" or "What about dictators, who seize power and silence all dissent? The people don't deserve them.'' Or another variant but broader argument: 'some governments are so bad that nobody could be said to deserve such a government.''
I think that dictators, including some of the more odious examples in history, have been nurtured and brought up in a particular society, a particular culture. In some cases, the people from whom the dictator originates are people with a barbaric culture or history, or certainly a tolerance for such traits. The fact that such cultures exist, and as such are assented to by the majority of people, supports the idea that the people in a sense deserve the harsh rulers they produce. Tyrants don't come out of nowhere. If a psychopathic, bloodthirsty man arises in a humane and advanced society, they would surely recognize his dangerous qualities and not elevate him to power, not reward him.
Selwyn Duke describes how we in a sense 'elect' the culture which ends up at the particular crossroads at which we find ourselves. It's an interesting piece, and something to think about.
Apparently it's from a longer essay which is to appear soon.
A couple of excerpts:
...Every single day we get more evidence that the authorities are totally incapable of protecting any semblance of security and freedom for their citizens. The only thing the State still seems to be capable of is indoctrinating our children with hatred of their own civilization and taking away our money so that it can be given to those who colonize our countries and abuse our children, verbally and physically.''
Well-articulated, and true.
Or are our leaders incapable of protecting our security and freedom, or simply neglecting those things as they pursue conflicting goals? Such as promoting the colonization by our countries by those who abuse not only our children but us? The Western governments can't do both, obviously, and it's clear that our safety and security are not on their list of priorities, but promoting colonization is at the top of the list.
Fjordman quotes Locke, from the Second Treatise on Government:
"The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their property, and the end why they choose and authorize a legislative is that there may be laws made, and rules set, as guards and fences to the properties of all the members of the society, to limit the power and moderate the dominion of every part and member of the society�.whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people�.By this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people, who have a right to resume their original liberty, and, by the establishment of a new legislative, (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society."
Yes -- by their actions, our 'leaders' forfeit their lawful powers invested in them by the people, because, as Locke says, their actions have put them into a state of war with the people. That's it in a nutshell.
But how did it come to be that the 'leaders' who were ostensibly chosen by the people to represent and defend our safety and security and to look out for our national interests are now serving other global masters, and serving the interests of every people except those who elected them, and the very people of which they are genetically a part?
Selwyn Duke has a new essay on this issue:
Political Elections, Cultural Elections, and the Votes that Really Matter
I recommend you read it; he discusses the upcoming election, the sad choices being offered to us between two evils, and the ways in which he believes we have brought ourselves to this pass. He quotes the maxim which asserts that 'people get the government they deserve'. That saying is usually attributed to Joseph de Maistre, and I have quoted it here from time to time. (Duke attributes it to Thomas Jefferson, and I am not aware that he said or wrote those words anywhere, but I am open to being corrected.) In any case, whoever first said it, I believe it's true. I know some have disagreed with me about the validity of that sentiment, but I think in some sense it is always true.
Those who disagree will usually say something along these lines: "How did the people of Iraq deserve Saddam Hussein?" or "What about dictators, who seize power and silence all dissent? The people don't deserve them.'' Or another variant but broader argument: 'some governments are so bad that nobody could be said to deserve such a government.''
I think that dictators, including some of the more odious examples in history, have been nurtured and brought up in a particular society, a particular culture. In some cases, the people from whom the dictator originates are people with a barbaric culture or history, or certainly a tolerance for such traits. The fact that such cultures exist, and as such are assented to by the majority of people, supports the idea that the people in a sense deserve the harsh rulers they produce. Tyrants don't come out of nowhere. If a psychopathic, bloodthirsty man arises in a humane and advanced society, they would surely recognize his dangerous qualities and not elevate him to power, not reward him.
Selwyn Duke describes how we in a sense 'elect' the culture which ends up at the particular crossroads at which we find ourselves. It's an interesting piece, and something to think about.
Labels: Consent Of The Governed, Elections, Elites, Globalism, Rogue Government