WhatFinger


As Christians--God's knights--we are instructed to put on the full armor of God and Stand!

Conservatism, Liberalism, Life, Love, and Truth



"What steps are you going to take to showcase this country, not as a lapdog of US imperialism, but as an independent nation, with an independent foreign policy which takes a lead in international diplomacy to outlaw the use of drones, the favorite method of extermination [used by] your friend Mr. Obama?"-- Clare Daly addressing a fellow Irish Parliamentarian regarding Obama's recent visit to Éire.
It's coming to America first; the cradle of the best and of the worst. It's here they got the range and the machinery for change, and it's here they got the spiritual thirst. It's here the family's broken and it's here the lonely say that the heart has got to open in a fundamental way. Democracy is coming to the USA. --Leonard Cohen "Democracy" Is "conservatism" now hip? Well, that depends on what you mean by the word. If by "conservatism" you mean knee-jerk approval of whatever the Republican Party hands out, then no, conservatism is decidedly not hip. If, on the other hand, by "conservatism" you mean distaste for global elites, distrust of bloated government bureaucracies, an appreciation for life, love, truth, freedom, and individual rights--then yes, conservatism is decidedly hip--more hip, slick, and cool every day.

Support Canada Free Press


No doubt I'm a "slow study," but I have just recently (within the last few years) begun to piece together what the heck was going on during the halcyon days of my youth in the 1960s. As is almost always the case with youth, being "hip, slick, and cool" was mucho importante, and I threw myself into the '60s "counter-culture" with a will. I, of course, listened to the major hip rock bands such as the "Beatles," the "Stones," "Jefferson Airplane," "The Who," and solo acts such as Dylan, Donovan, and Cat Stevens--as well as lesser known talents such as "The Fugs," "Pearls Before Swine," "The 13th Floor Elevators," and Leonard Cohen. I read books by Ginsberg, Corso, Ferlinghetti, and other "City Lights" poets; Kerouac's "On The Road;" Abbie Hoffman's "Steal This Book," and Mao's "Little Red Book." The list goes on, and on.... And then...then I got drafted, and not wanting to go to college or Canada I asked my local Navy recruiter if they could train me in underwater photography, and...well, that's a long story I won't get into here. Suffice it to say that my life took a hairpin turn at that point.

Why Bring This Up?

I bring this up because it very much ties in with what I see going on around me today. As I mentioned earlier, I am sometimes a slow study, and the political ramifications of the 1960s is something that I have only recently begun to grasp--and those ramifications, echoes, and reverberations from the past are coming in loud and clear these days. It may seem odd, but as immersed as I was in the counter-culture at the time, I never paid much attention to the political end of things. I say it may seem odd, because using 20/20 hindsight it is evident that the counter-culture movement was largely driven by, and permeated with, political activism. It's not that I didn't sense it, it is that I didn't care--my focus was on other things (e.g. sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll). Consequently, the darker side of the "If It Feels Good Do It" zeitgeist largely escaped me at the time. But I see that darker side today...boy do I ever.

Turning Virtues Into Vices

As you might imagine, entering the military was something of a jolt for me--transferring my focus from "Flower Power" to "Kill a Commie for Mommy" necessitated some internal adjustments. But my dad had served in WW II, and my maternal grandfather had served in France during WW I, and I was raised with respect for my country and its military, so when I was drafted it was not something I agonized over--I enlisted for four years (so that I could serve in the Navy like my old man, as opposed to being drafted for two years into the Army). While in the Navy I unconsciously assumed that when my time in the military was over I would pretty much take up where I had left off, culture-wise -- but it did not work out like that for me, not at all. I had changed too much--and American culture had changed as well. I had matured in the military--I had grown up, and I found that I could no longer turn a blind eye to the darker aspects of the counter-culture. It was during this time that I first noticed the phenomena of virtues morphing into vices. It seems so obvious to me today that it scarcely seems worth pointing out, but for many years the fact that a virtue taken to an extreme becomes a vice eluded me. That is, patience becomes procrastination, bravery becomes recklessness, charitableness becomes extravagance, humility becomes diffidence, and so on. It is a fairly common misperception that if a little bit of something is good, then a lot must be better--but such is usually not the case, as the above examples imply. The key is moderation, as spiritual teachings have told us for millennia. Buddha called it the "Middle Way," the path between extremes, and the Bible tells us to "Let your moderation be known to all men" (Phil. 4:5). Innocent sounding phrases that were counter-culture bywords during the 1960s, such as "If it feels good do it," "Make love not war," and that perennial favorite: "sex, drugs, and rock 'n' roll," morphed over time into polymorphous perversity on steroids, out of control hedonism, narcissism, and God knows how many lives maimed or ruined by drug addiction and a plethora of STDs. Too much of a good thing can definitely be bad for you. I don't say that to be a killjoy; it is simply a fact. I bring all of this up by way of saying that I am not opposed to liberal ideas simply because they are liberal ideas--in point of fact there are quite a few that I fully endorse, up to a point. The thing is, the Left has a well-known propensity for taking a mile if given an inch, and once the camel's nose is in the tent we all know what will follow. This truism of course applies especially in the political arena.

Both/And Versus Either/Or

If moderation is generally something to cultivate, and extremism something to avoid, then "Houston we have a problem," because our society tends to yawn at moderation and celebrates excess. Rather than being centered and grounded in moderation, we tend to swing from one extreme to the other--flitting from distraction to distraction like an ADD patient on crack. There is a rather simple treatment to cure this problem--or if it is not a cure for the "disease," it is at least a way to minimize its symptoms. I am referring to a way of sidestepping the extreme positions that using the "either/or dichotomy" often forces us into. Adopting the either/or frame of reference tends to automatically polarize our questions and answers--e.g. Either you believe in Evolution or Creationism; Either you side with Nature or Nurture, Either you are a saint or a sinner, Either you are a liberal or a conservative, etc. Such stark positionalities are generally false dichotomies which can trap us into treating opinions as facts, and vigorously defending stances that we may have doubts about--not to mention denying ideas that we may be more open to than we will allow ourselves to admit.. I don't like being painted into a corner, either by others or by myself, and the Either/Or dichotomy often does just that. A solution that often works for me is to adopt the Both/And paradigm. If nothing else it helps to keep me centered and more open-minded than I would otherwise be (I don't want to be so open-minded that my brains fall out, but I don't wish to be so closed-minded that I shut out innovative, exciting new ideas either. As is most often the case, moderation is the key--the Middle Way). Using the above examples again, using the Both/And frame of reference you might say "I believe in both evolution and God," "I believe in both Nature (genetics) and Nurture (environment)," "I am both a saint and a sinner," "I embrace both conservative and liberal ideas. That is not to imply that the above statements should be interpreted as 50/50 arrangements. For example, while it is true that I embrace both conservative and liberal views, I am decidedly more conservative than liberal, and although I am both a saint and a sinner that does not mean that I do not try to nurture and cultivate the "saint" part of my psyche. There are difficulties with the Both/And way of looking at things, but nonetheless it is a much more fruitful, and much less stressful way of looking at things than the Either/Or method, and perhaps its day has come and it will become a much more widely used paradigm. The idea has been around for quite a while of course, but the Either/Or dichotomy has for one reason or another ruled the day--with deleterious results IMHO. Nowhere is the importance of dropping the Either/Or dichotomy in favor of the Both/And equation more evident than when dealing with the subject of spirituality--a topic we will delve into shortly.

A Spiritual Journey

One of the things that I did carry with me from my counter-culture days in the 1960s was a lifelong fascination with spirituality. I was raised a Catholic but "lost the faith" rather early on. In place of religiosity I discovered an insatiable desire for spirituality. (That is not a dig at Catholicism, which I have discovered has spirituality in spades if one knows where to look, but at the time I wasn't even sure what I was looking for, let alone where to find it). I fell in love with the writings of Alan Watts, especially his books on Zen--I read everything he wrote that I could get my hands on. After Alan Watts died (1973) I moved on to Sufism. I had Darshan with, and was initiated into the Chisti Order of Sufis, by Pir Vilayat Inayat Khan in 1974. (When I was at Pir's place at the newly opened "Abode of the Message" I picked up a copy of Pir's book "Toward the One" for $5.75 (I still have it--with its price on the back cover. I looked it up recently on a whim at Amazon.com, and the going price was just over $404. Yikes--am I that ancient; is inflation that bad?). I drifted away from the Sufis after a few years. Nothing wrong with the Sufis--the falling away was all on my part, and mainly due to the fact that I started spending a lot of time in Scotland around that time--far from "The Abode." Although I am no doubt one p--s poor excuse for a Sufi, I still very much enjoy (and profit from) reading the poems of Hafiz and Rumi (I especially enjoy the translations of the latter by Coleman Barks). I gradually moved on to Hinduism, and became a big fan of the writings of Ram Dass, and later a devotee of Roy Eugene Davis, who initiated me into the linage of Paramahansa Yogananda, and I practiced Kriya yoga (not to be confused with the popular Hatha yoga). "Stand up Arjuna!" To cut to the chase, around the end of the 20th century I ran across "Power Vs. Force" by Dr. David R. Hawkins and have been a devotee of his ever since. He made his transition from this life last fall. All through the years, however, although I didn't consider myself a Christian, I felt drawn toward the teachings of Jesus like an iron filing drawn to a magnet. Around the same time that I came across the teachings of Dr. Hawkins, someone handed me a copy of "The Sermon On The Mount" by Emmet Fox--and my inner life lit up like the Fourth of July. I was blind but now could see--I became a Christian. That is, Jesus became my guide, my guru, my spiritual avatar, my God -- and Christ Consciousness became my lodestone. I have taken this short little detour through my spiritual background because I want to give the reader at least an inkling of where I'm coming from, and establish enough "street cred" so that what I say regarding spirituality won't be immediately dismissed out of hand. I don't claim to be any kind of guru or guide, but I have traveled through the spiritual realm and I am no novice in that area.

Spirituality and Experience

Alan Watts was a great teacher, who had the rare ability to explain complex and profound things in simple and easily understood language. When he explained how everything is interconnected, how everything is One--I got it. I grasped the concept completely--intellectually. (This was also my introduction to the paradoxes that abound in the spiritual realm: e.g. we are both individuals and One, we are both insignificant and glorious, we are both saints and sinners, and so on). I also got it when Watts explained that understanding something with our intellect was not to be confused with experiencing the concept nonverbally, that is, spiritually. (Spirituality is sometimes referred to as "mysticism," but I have learned to be wary of that word as it often carries a connotation of effete ephemeral haziness, and nothing could be further from the truth as regards spirituality). I love logic and reason, but I accepted long ago that intellectual constructs, are no substitute for experience. Knowing all about water is of no help to a thirsty person--possessing knowledge concerning water is no substitute for the experience of water. And knowing about God is no substitute for experiencing God. I trace much of Western Civilization's spiritual ennui to the acceptance and popularity of René Descartes' dictum "Cogito ergo sum," which by blithely ignoring the fact that one would not even know that they had thoughts unless they possessed awareness, positioned our intellect in the driver's seat and relegated awareness to the back seat--if not locked away in the trunk. This focus on the intellect at the expense of our consciousness (and state of being) has had a subtle, widespread, and deadly dampening effect on Western culture's ability and desire to access spirit. Pure awareness can be accessed outside of time in the spotless silence of the eternal now. "Water cannot wet it, wind cannot dry it, weapons cannot cleave it, fire cannot burn it. It is ancient, it is unborn, and it never dies." Ancient Indian axiom.

Life, Love, and Truth

What I am attempting here amounts to a "drive by" explanation of "life, the universe, and everything" in 25 words or less, so I ask for forgiveness in advance for the many omissions and truncations that such an approach necessitates. Western culture has become so unspiritual, however, that I feel that a quick primer on some spiritual basics might be helpful to some readers. Before I discuss God it would be prudent to discuss how some of the world's major faiths approach the topic--specifically Buddhism, Judaism, and Christianity. Buddhism neatly sidesteps the whole issue by simply ignoring it--no God, no problem. Judaism deals with the ineffable nature of God (G-d if you prefer) by the use of euphemisms and arcane and/or unpronounceable appellations. Christianity is the "Chatty Cathy" of the three faiths, and has no problem discussing God, and isn't shy about letting you know it. I believe that all three approaches of dealing with God have their good and bad points. Be that as it may, when Christianity talks about God what does it say? Probably the most important thing it tells us is that God is love. "Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love" we are told. The emphasis here is not on God being loving, or God giving love--but God as love. (This is not in reference to "love" as it is commonly (mis)understood. God's love, or God as love, cannot be put into words--experience, not intellectual constructs, is what is called for here--but to describe it as a peace "which passes understanding," infinite power, and ineffable radiant goodwill would give the gist of it, and not be too terribly misleading). Christians are also told that God is Spirit, and along with many other Christians I believe that God is Life: "I have come that they may have life, and have it more abundantly." I am speaking here of a God that doesn't just give life, but is life. Earth is a peculiar place -- the moment our body starts living it starts dying. It is no place to grow roots, that's for sure. It is a temporary gig at the best of times. Our body, which is made of matter -- i.e. congealed energy -- dissipates, but our life energy carries on its uninterrupted journey. Paul said of God, "In Him we live and move and have our being"--but very few are aware of this, and even fewer have experienced it. We are so blind--it would be comical if the results were not so often tragic.

Spirit Versus Ego

Our egos are fear based by their very nature (you versus infinity = bad odds). We generally bury our fears under a pile of denial and by as I mentioned earlier, "flitting from distraction to distraction." Narcissistic ego inflation will block off spiritual truth like a lead curtain, but considering yourself to be a "lowly, sinful worm" is no good way to get to know God either--quite the opposite. It is in fact a clever way to strengthen the ego's hold -- awful me, terrible me, lowly me, sinful me.... Me-me-me-me! How can you get close to a God who is love if you feel unworthy of love? I would advise that anyone wishing to know God get rid of any sense of unworthiness as best they can. Meditating on certain verses from the Bible can be of help in that regard--for example, "We love Him because He first loved us." It is best not to view the ego as an enemy to be conquered, but as an unruly, willful aspect of ourselves that needs to be reined in, purified, and eventually transcended. Surrender is the process by which this is accomplished. Jesus taught us to surrender to God by loving God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Jesus based His admonition on scripture from the Jewish TANAKH (Old Testament)--Deuteronomy 6:5). Since God is love--we are in essence to love...Love. (I have found contemplating Philippians 4:8 to be helpful in this regard). To be sure, God has an infinite number of aspects, of which love is only one--but it is a prime aspect. I would go so far as to say that it is the prime aspect. It is also generally the easiest, and usually the quickest path to knowing God. Jesus was no doubt aware of this and fashioned his message accordingly. Before moving on to other things, I would like to address a topic that has been the cause of great confusion--I am speaking of humility. Humility is a vital component of spiritual surrender, but it is more misunderstood than not in our culture. Hence a little time spent on understanding what humility is (and what it is not) will be of value. I would define humility as a state of mind, a state of being, that aspires to place God's will before your own--that simple. It has nothing to do with shame, guilt, or feeling small and contemptible. Humility is actually a very positive, uplifting virtue. Cultivating humility is often a challenging and difficult process of a "three steps forward and two steps back" variety (I said it was simple, not easy), but it is a necessary component of spiritual progress. How do we best accomplish the divine balancing act between ego and spirit, between humility and being "with Christ...heirs of God's glory?" Darn good question. Personally I have found the following statement to be a great help in this regard: "I am not God, but God is me." That statement both uplifts and glorifies my being, while whittling away at my ego at one and the same time. Namaste. In a "drive by" of this nature so much must be left unsaid. It would have been nice to delve into such questions as "If one hand claps in a forest is there any sound?" and the significance of the number 42, but alas the time has come to move on to other matters.

Spiritual vs. Religious vs. Secular

Okay, finish up the s'mores and put a cork in the "Kumbaya" -- time to get back to business. I have spent time discussing spirituality because it is the heart and soul of religion--more specifically it is the heart and soul of the Judeo/Christian tradition -- and everywhere I look I see the Judeo/Christian tradition in Western Civilization looking fractured, splintered, eroded, worn, and tired. I am reminded of William Wordsworth's (1779-1850) "The World Is Too Much With Us:" ...Little we see in Nature that is ours; We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon! This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon; The winds that will be howling at all hours, And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers; For this, for everything, we are out of tune; It moves us not. Great God! I'd rather be A Pagan suckled in a creed outworn; So might I, standing on this pleasant lea, Have glimpses that would make me less forlorn.... Which in turn brings to mind Matthew Arnold's (1822-1888) "Dover Beach:" ...The Sea of Faith Was once, too, at the full, and round earth's shore Lay like the folds of a bright girdle furl'd. But now I only hear Its melancholy, long, withdrawing roar, Retreating, to the breath Of the night-wind, down the vast edges drear And naked shingles of the world. ...we are here as on a darkling plain Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight, Where ignorant armies clash by night. Western Civilization has sold its birthright for a mess of pottage. It has exchanged the "greatest story ever told" for atheism's "tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." It has exchanged Christianity for "secularism" (a euphemism for Godlessness). I will not spend time here defending religion, because religion is not the key issue--spirituality is. Religions are vehicles that carry spiritual truth, and without the spiritual truth that is their raison d'etre, religions become merely ecclesiastical bureaucracies of little if any value. It is the spirit at the heart of the Christian faith that needs to be rediscovered, reinvigorated, and reintroduced into Western Christianity (It is worth noting that while Christianity is dying on the vine throughout the West; in Asia, Africa, and South America it is vibrant, healthy, and growing). Christianity has been so watered down, perverted, over-analyzed and over intellectualized in the West that its spirit is on life-support. Ken Wilbur has called academic religion "the killing jar of spirit"--and so it is. (A "killing jar" is a large glass jar into which live insect specimens are placed to die and be studied at leisure). I am not opposed to orthodox religion--quite the contrary--but I do believe that the major Christian denominations are in dire need of a shake-up of biblical proportions. I see the current state of affairs in the West as an opportune time to separate the wheat from the chaff, throw out the dross, prune the vines, and make way for the Spirit and Light. Jesus told us that "By their fruits you shall know them," and I see the fruits of secularism and they are rotten with corruption and shriveled with greed and arrogance. With God out of the equation there can be no other result. But enough of spiritual concerns, it is time to move on to more mundane matters. I apologize for skipping around so much, but I have been attempting to cover a lot of ground in a small amount of time and space. I hope that what I shared above will be of some help to someone.

Freedom vs. Tyranny

I like freedom--I like it a lot. The cookie-cutter blandness favored by globalist social engineers is not for me. They want "we the people" to be good little interchangeable cogs so that their social machinery will run quietly, smoothly, and efficiently. Consider me a wrench in the works. I believe along with Henry David Thoreau that "That government is best which governs least." My idea of a utopia is a place where there is no government at all, a place where no government is needed--the ultimate democracy. Such an idea is, of course, 180 out from the liberal ideal, which is "the more government the better"--i.e. more control, more taxes, more regulations, more lies, more rules, more power in the hands of a ruling elite, and less freedom, less options, less choice, less truth, less honesty, and less democracy. As touched on earlier, moderation is surely the key here. Because of humanity's present level of consciousness ("human nature" if you will), both too much government and too little government are social paradigms doomed to failure from the start. The clumsy ineptitude, tin-eared arrogance, heavy-handed oversight, and out-of-touch elitist leadership that is the hallmark of all bloated government -- be it fascist, socialist, communist, or whatever -- is guaranteed to lead to civil unrest and corresponding Draconian measures by The Powers That Be. The Draconian measures result in more civil unrest, which result in more rules and regulations...and so it goes, see-sawing back and forth until it all erupts into chaos. It follows as night the day. On the other hand, anarchy or too little government is no answer either--not at this point in humanity's spiritual evolution. Again, chaos is the end result (a result reached even more quickly than with the Big Government approach). The answer lies somewhere between the extremes of too much government and too little. This insight is of course nothing new--it was very much on the minds of the framers of the US Constitution, and they did a pretty darn good job of balancing the need for a strong central government with the need for democratic freedom. The result was a republic--a democracy with a representative form of government, which the Framers split into three counterbalancing branches. That was the idea, and it worked quite well while we had it, but we do not have it anymore. We have not had it for quite some time, sad to say.

Waking Up

As I mentioned at the beginning of this article I have only recently (within the past five years) become cognizant of the long term political ramifications of what transpired in the 1960s. Until the Obama Administration came into power I had been content to mosey along living my life while paying scant attention to politics. I have long agreed with the axiom that "absolute power corrupts absolutely," so I favored a "changing of the guard" every so often--that is, I didn't like to see either political party in power for too long, but that was about the extent of my involvement in politics. I had opposed Obama's election in 2008, but when he won I was not aghast or torn up over it. I figured that the Republicans had been running the show for eight years, and that was long enough for corruption to have settled in pretty deeply, so a change might be for the best. I buried the hatchet and even wrote an article wishing Obama well. That atmosphere of genial bonhomie was short lived however, and the article that I wrote wishing Obama well makes me cringe these days (God, was I really that naïve?). My awakening started as the result of the machinations of the thoroughly despicable 111th US Congress (which has been followed by the only slightly less deplorable 112th US Congress). I thought to myself "Good God, what the h--l is going on here," and I started educating myself about American politics with a will--and I have been playing catch-up ever since. I started by reading Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" (with its Dedication to Lucifer, and oh so clever talk of "# Ins" and "Fart Ins"--ha,ha, that Alinsky sure was a cut-up), and then moved on to Keynesian economics, the Marxist roots of fascism (not to mention the socialist roots of Hitler's Nazis -- National Socialist German Workers' Party -- hello?), Antonio Gramsci and his design to destroy Western Civilization, Fabianism, the Frankfurt School's infiltration of American schools with Marxist indoctrination and the insidious poison of Critical Theory, the American Progressive movement and their fondness for racial genocide and eugenics (Hitler admired their teachings), and...well the list seems endless. I have also been educating myself about American history--not the leftist revisionist tripe but the real deal. I took Hillsdale College's free course on the US Constitution, and read up on George Washington, John Adams, John Locke, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson.... I studied "The Declaration of Independence," "Bill of Rights," and the history of our three branches of government--paying special attention to the Judicial Branch and the SCOTUS. Again, the list goes on and on. I have finally come to understand the Marxist/Fascist/Communist/Globalist movements behind the counter-culture activism of the 1960s, and have become somewhat knowledgeable concerning the long and complex web of maneuvers that led up to the 60's "cultural revolution"--as well as the web of deceit and duplicity that followed in the wake of the 60s. I came to the conclusion some time back that "we the people" have been, and are being, well and truly screwed.

Earned Distrust

I have come to distrust Democrats, liberals, and the Left as a whole. Why? Because they have shown themselves time and time again, with increasing frequency and vociferousness, to be untrustworthy. I have read that their duplicity and hypocrisy is due to the fact that they feel that because they are working toward a utopian vision then anything and everything is on the table--the end justifies the means. That may be true of some on the Left, but thrown in with them is a mixed bag of sociopaths, asocial misfits, and just plain crooks that see a golden opportunity to game the system and line their pockets under the guise of "helping the cause." How are you supposed to tell the difference between a sincere leftist ideologue and a common crook, and at the end of the day what difference does it make--they all lie. Consequently, whenever I hear someone mention a liberal buzzword or phrase such as "social justice," "diversity," "smart growth," etc., I immediately tune them out with an alacrity that would put Pavlov's dog to shame. I recognize that my behavior is unfair to those Democrats who are honest and honorable, but as the saying goes: "Ninety percent of Democrats give the others a bad name." I'm not playing their game anymore; I'm tired of being lied to (or as Thomas Sowell might put it, I'm tired of being the target of "verbal virtuosity"). I mustn't leave this section of the article without writing a few words about the Republican Party (oy vey). The Republican Party has historically been to the right of the Democratic Party--so it has been, and so it is. The thing is, the whole political spectrum has shifted to the left over the years, to the point where the Republican Party currently holds a position on the political spectrum that is comparable to the position that the Democratic Party held decades ago (Hey, I was there, remember?). So the Republicans may be to the right of the Democrats, but that is not to say that they hold a conservative position. To find a true conservative you generally have to go straight to "we the people." Anymore all too many Republican politicians are simply shills for big government--there are exceptions, but they are few and far between. These days the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is like the difference between Democrats and new "Dem Lite." Pathetic.

Signs of Hope and Signs of Trouble

I opened this article with the quote by Clare Daly in order to underline the fact that more and more people, left and right, are becoming alarmed at the direction that the political elites (and the elites in general) are taking us. Ms. Daly is no conservative by any stretch, so I especially admire her stance against the tide of "the anointed one's" hagiography. There is also a rising tide of liberals opposed to Agenda 21, and many are starting to sense a noisome fascist smell emitted by the current collusion between big government, big banking, and big business. To be sure, there were plenty of Obama groupies and Irish elites yelling "Failte!" (welcome) to Obama during his recent visit to Éire, but there were no doubt more than a few lads and lasses shouting "téigh trasna ort féin!" as well. (For those of you with an interest in foreign linguistics, that last bit is pronounced tay-trassnah-ohrt-fayn. Sláinte). To get back to the USA -- what a difference it makes when "your team" isn't in the White House, huh? A number of die-hard Republican voters have awakened to the fact that maybe the "Patriot Act" was not such a great idea after all--just as many Democrat voters will wise up to the fact that the NDAA Bill is not so groovy, and that an IRS targeting conservative groups under "their team's" administration, can be quickly turned around to target them when the other team holds the reins. Left, Right, it makes no difference to the Global Elites, the NWO puppet masters--they have us coming and going. People are starting to wake up to the fact that while "we the people" were being indoctrinated into political correctness and distracted by the dog and pony show of national politics, we were also being slowly herded into a killing jar of spiritual apathy and moral numbness. "We the people" are being fed and fattened for a feast, and we are certain to have a place at the table. We are being fed and fattened on a misanthropic diet of abortion, euthanasia, and population control -- a diet of death. We are meekly allowing ourselves to be led into an abattoir of Godless perverted science--sacrifices to the ruthlessly efficient smoothly-running materialistic "utopia." ...if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new dark age made more sinister...by the lights of perverted science. Sir Winston Churchill "Their Finest Hour" speech Destroy another fetus now; We don't like children anyhow. I've seen the future, baby: It is murder. Leonard Cohen "The Future"

Tommy Robinson and Sheriff Mack

As I say, people are waking up--but then...so what? There seems to be nothing "we the people" can do--the trap has been sprung, the gate is closed, the door is barred, there is no exit. As the author of "They Fired The First Shot 2012" ("TFTFS2012") puts it: People are awakening, but is it too late? Yes, it is too late. Everything is already in place. That is why we have no way out. No hope for a way out. No hope for a way out if we continue to play by their rules that is, the rules we have been told we must use. The rules that they flout and break at will. They bend and break the rules when it suits them, or, since they write the laws, they write laws to suit their need and greed--but as Martin Luther King Jr. observed in his famous "Letter From A Birmingham Jail," just because something is legal doesn't make it right, or just, or moral (which is where an obligation for civil disobedience comes in, but that's a topic for another article). I am not going to advocate breaking the law, but I am going to advocate thinking outside of the box, and being very proactive about it. There are a number of people doing just that I am happy to report, but there are two that I wish to focus on as we near the end of this article. The first is Tommy Robinson of the EDL (English Defense League). I first heard of the EDL in 2009, by way of a video they released for a march planned for Manchester, England. I researched the EDL on the Internet a bit, and most of what I read made the EDL sound like the rebirth of the Nazi SS. I didn't really pay much attention to them after that, until a reader in Australia sent me a video promo for another EDL march in Manchester this past March. My Aussie friend then sent me a video interview with EDL founder Tommy Robinson, and a radio interview with him. I thought to myself, This guy (Robinson) is great, I love him! What a pair of...bollocks. A couple of weeks ago I read a book review by Chilton Williamson Jr. (the review had nothing to do with the EDL or Robinson) in which the following paragraph appears. As I read it I immediately thought of Tommy Robinson: Contrary to what contemporary Western establishments think, this ordinary man is not, in his natural loyalty to his own people, his own religion, his own culture, his native country, morally and intellectually atavistic, stunted, twisted, and sick. He is, indeed, splendidly sane and whole, robustly healthy, his best instincts intact together with his common sense. Not he, but advanced liberalism is perverted and sick. Multiculturalism is an intellectual and a spiritual illness. It is also a dangerous social disease, a pervasive syphilitic ideology that rots the brains and destroys the central nervous systems of the societies it attacks. Tommy Robinson is "a street fighting man," but his fight (on the part of he and the EDL at least) has been one of peaceful, if passionate, protest. He has the stalwart resoluteness that must be cultivated if one plans on confronting tyranny and demonic mobs. He has the humor that is a saving grace that keeps us from bitterness and rage. He has the passion and patriotism that fuels a healthy fervor, and the courage and faith to confront the possibility of martyrdom on a daily basis. I respectfully salute him, and pray that God protects him and all the members of the EDL--it is no easy thing to participate in the people's struggle against the loud, ubiquitous propaganda machines and legal smoke and mirrors of a corrupt Establishment. If you reside in the USA you may wish to contact the USDL (United States Defense League), which is "fully supported by the English Defense League." (Note: The EDL does not welcome Nazis, old or new, in its ranks). The second person that I would like to talk about briefly is Sheriff Richard Mack, who I had the pleasure of running into at the Ron Paul Festival in Tampa last summer. I very much like what Sheriff Mack has been up to for the past few years--it is definitely proactive and thinking outside the box. The author of "TFTFS2012" tells us that "there is no way out," and indeed there is not, not if we play by their rules. But that is not to say that there are no solutions. The author gives this advice: We must act offensively not defensively. Don't go where they expect us to. It is a trap. Do not play them on their home field. Force them to play on our home field. Theirs is the courts, Congress, voting--ours is The Declaration of Independence and the legal right to throw off tyranny. The author suggests that first of all we pray. This does not mean to beseech God to be on our side, but that we be blessed with being firmly planted on God's side (no doubt there are theological and ontological conundrums present in that last statement--whatever...just do it). After praying to be on God's side, then pray for what you deem best--but pray effectively. Which means to do your best to drop all anger, resentments, jealousies, and such before you pray, and then to pray with thanksgiving (i.e. as if what you are praying for is already a done deal--or at least thank God for something while you pray). "The effective prayer of a righteous man [or woman] can accomplish much." In conjunction with prayer a, grassroots revolution must erupt. In order to be successful the revolution must come from the bottom and work its way up. Keep on calling and writing your "representatives" in Washington DC if you wish, but trying to work from the top down will not work -- that is playing their game, on their field, with their rules. I am not talking about a violent revolution, but one that is legal--passionate but peaceful. It cannot be otherwise, for one of the key elements of a successful grassroots revolution is the participation and leadership provided by county Sheriffs nationwide, and they will not condone breaking the law. I strongly suggest that if you have not done so yet, you read "TFTFS2012" (especially you Sheriffs). It is written with a Catholic audience in mind, but any Christian (or Jew, or what have you) should be able to read it profitably--just skip over or otherwise ignore those parts that you feel do not apply to you. In closing I would like to share an anecdote from the Hindu holy book the "Bhagavad Gita." On the exoteric level the "Gita" is about the warrior Arjuna fighting a battle against a great army. On the esoteric level Arjuna is everyman (or woman), and the battle he is involved in symbolizes the struggle for spiritual enlightenment. When Arjuna first sees the vast size of the army with which he must do battle (representing the innumerable traps and ploys of the world and ego) he despairs, and his friend and mentor Krishna comes to his aid and first berates, and then motivates Arjuna: Arjuna: 1:29 "My limbs grow limp, my mouth becomes dry, my body trembles, and my hair stands on end." 1:47 Having thus spoken in the midst of the battlefield, throwing down his bow and arrows, Arjuna sank down on the seat of his chariot, his heart overwhelmed by sorrow. Krishna: 2:2 "From whence has this weakness come to you at this difficult time? It is not befitting you who are of noble character." 2:3 "Yield not to this immature behavior: it is not suitable for you. Abandon this show of weakness and faintheartedness. Stand up Arjuna!" "Bhagavad Gita" Translation by Roy Eugene Davis That is some great advice IMHO. Do Christians receive similar advice in the New Testament? Indeed we do. As Christians--God's knights--we are instructed to put on the full armor of God and STAND! Deus vult.


View Comments

Jim ONeill -- Bio and Archives

Born June 4, 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two.  Worked as a commercial diver in the waters off of Scotland, India, and the United States.  Worked overseas in the Merchant Marines.  While attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student in 1998 was presented with the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award,” 1st place undergraduate division.  (The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with money she won from successfully suing a national newspaper for libel).  Awarded US Army, US Navy, South African, and Russian jump wings.  Graduate of NOLS (National Outdoor Leadership School, 1970).  Member of Mensa, China Post #1, and lifetime member of the NRA and UDT/SEAL Association.


Sponsored