I have resisted the idea for a while but as we continue down the path to one of two inevitable ends, the totalitarianism of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World or the total anarchy of Cormac McCarthy’s The Road, I’m beginning to see that massive civil disobedience and violent confrontation is the only way that we will ever be able to recover the liberties that we have lost since the New Deal era of FDR.
I understand the truth and wisdom of Alexis de Tocqueville’s statement:
If ever the free institutions of America are destroyed, that event may be attributed to the omnipotence of the majority, which may at some future time urge the minorities to desperation and oblige them to have recourse to physical force. Anarchy will then be the result, but it will have been brought about by despotism.
Why is it that we must accept the “progressives” definition of “liberty” as a managed descent into government servitude and totalitarian control?
I propose that we do not.
The primary function of the “progressives” use of relativism and revisionism is to eliminate an objective assessment of change, to remove any anchor point that could be used as a reference point to calculate what we have lost.
Why must we accept the proposition that Obama isn’t a corporatist and Marxist just because the punditry says he isn’t? This is a punditry that is in collaboration with the state, so what else would be expected from them?
It is easy to recognize taxation without representation. It is easy to recognize the tyranny of the majority. It is a simple matter to ferret out a lie and the liar who issued it. It is easy to recognize the conflicts between the collectivist tyranny and natural law. It is plainly evident that God is being removed from the affairs of man and government idolatry is being substituted. It is a fact that we have a majority of Baal worshipers in the Obama cult of personality.
We need a charismatic leader to make this clear to the people, we need a communicator who can break through the internal frames of reference that many are convinced are true – yet are not. The Biblical story of Noah is an apt description of the characteristics of such a leader. He heard God, believed God’s word and resisted the false prophets and the ridicule of the unbelievers.
I recently read an article by Tony Robbins that basically is a roadmap for convincing the inconvincible. Robbins states:
After one of my seminars open to guests, a man came up with three friends and sternly told me, “I’m not sold!” He was doing everything he could to egg me on. It quickly became obvious he was sorting by an internal frame of reference. (Externally oriented people rarely come up and just tell you what you should do and how you should do it.) And from his conversation with his friends, it also became clear that he moved away from things.
So I told him, “I can’t convince you to do anything. You’re the only one who can convince you.”
He didn’t know how to handle this response. He was waiting for me to strut my stuff and have him reject it. Now he had to agree with what I said, because he knew it was true inside. Then I said, “You’re the only person who knows who would lose if you didn’t attend the course.” Normally such a remark would have sounded terrible to me. But I was speaking in his language, and it worked. Notice, I didn’t say he would lose if he didn’t attend. If I’d said that, he never would have. Instead, I said, “You’re the only one who knows” (internal frame of reference) “who would lose” (moving away from) “if you didn’t go.” He said, “Yeah, that’s true,” and he went to the back of the room and signed up.
Before I learned about metaprograms, I would have tried to persuade him by having him talk to other people (external frame of reference) who had taken the course, and I would have told him about all the benefits he would derive (move toward). But that would have been the way to get me interested, not him.
It references once again Dr. Newberg’s theory that “the right words spoken in the right way can bring us love, money, and respect, while the wrong words – or even the right words spoken in the wrong way – can lead a country to war.”
For a hundred years, the “progressives” have counted on people not taking the time to convince themselves, just be blindly led by political leaders who cater to their pre-conceived biases. Reagan was the kind of leader who challenged people to see beyond those biases. Obama works hard to confirm them.
I believe in the theory of the eternal champion. This is a science fiction construct, a concept that is rooted in Greek and Roman mythology and one that is used by a favorite author of mine, Michael Moorcock. It is described as:
The Eternal Champion, a hero who exists in all dimensions, times and worlds, is the one who is chosen by fate to fight for the Cosmic Balance; however, he often does not know of his role, or, even worse, he struggles against it, never to succeed. Since his role is to intervene when either Law or Chaos have gained an excess of power, he is always doomed to be surrounded by strife and destruction, although he may go through long periods of relative quiet.
I believe that men like George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams were such men.
Are there men and women with those characteristics among us today?