|
James
Madison….”DEMOCRACIES have ever been spectacles of turbulence and
contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the
rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they
have been violent in their deaths….”
Let’s clear the
air right off the bat. Democracy and the democratic process; they are NOT
synonymous. Democracy is a system of government where might make’s right:
Period. Ask Bush.There are no rules or laws other than the imposition of the
people in power imposing their will on the others. No morality. No rule of
law; other than the will and appetite of the “Command Class”. No
foundational law, just “living” unpredictable law. No Constitutional
protections. No right to life, liberty and property, except at the pleasure
of the Command Class. No recognition of God as the Command Class is gods in
their own eyes: Amoral. A system of government best exemplified by Stalin
and Hitler in modern terms and “interesting” to the point it is the “vision”
of some in power in the US today.
The democratic
process; picking someone or some group by majority vote can and should be
used by the citizens of our forsaken Constitutional Republic to pick the
best among us to function UNDER the law of the land. People who self-govern
under said laws. People who do not see themselves as anything more than
servants to the populace and authors of laws that would be compatible with,
as the Founders put it, “The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”
Understand,
the Constitution is nothing more than a document spelling out prohibitions
and commands granted to elected officials by the people. To the extent it is
law, it is a document bound by and to be interpreted giving recognition to
said “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”, the Law spelled out in the
Declaration of Independence. It gives men possessing liberty from God the
right to over through any group or individual trespassing on said law, as
the Founders did.
Basically,
government falls into one of three categories. Autocracies, or rule by one.
It can be a Kingdom, Dictatorship or any other form where the power to rule
rests with one person. Kingdoms are only as good as the King himself. A
benevolent King or one who makes, “The laws of Nature and Nature’s God” the
limits of his power, is probably one of the best forms in that he is not
pressured by the thought of losing power and therefore devotes his concerns
to the good of his kingdom. While dictatorships are normally ruthless some
have been known to be good governments, again based on how the dictator
rules. Kings and dictators who make all give way to their own will and
appetite, rank with the worst but because they are one, these types of
governments are one of the easiest for the people to depose.
Aristocracies
or rule by a few. They could be described as a “Board of Directors.” Power
rests with a small body. Again, this type of government is as good or bad as
the people in charge and, although probably harder to dispose of, still not
so difficult that it has not been done throughout history without a lot of
blood shed. A Constitutional Monarchy would to some degree also fall under
this category. This is system where there is a king but he has to answer to
an elected body that is governed by a Constitution. Bureaucratic governments
are a form of aristocracy as well: Like the one we have established. They
are always totalitarian in that their rules are inflexible when it comes to
complying with their commands or prohibitions. They never take into account
circumstances, except when it comes to satisfying their will and appetite,
or the God given liberty and rights of the people.
Democracies,
as referenced above. James Madison’s description best describes them. The
reason for this is there is no foundational law in democracies, only the
wills of two or more opposing power bases. Although one of them might see
itself as functioning under “The laws of Nature and Nature’s God”, it is
breaching said law when it tries to impose it’s will on others. Power bases
are judge mental, except ones functioning under moral law, in that they have
deemed the views of those they oppose as wrong and they are perfectly
willing to use force to impose their views. God does not impose His law but
He does spell out the consequences of breaking them. Recognizing his law is
the source of equality in that no one is imposing his or her interpretation
of law on anyone else. History is full of examples for all who are willing
to learn from it. The progression is as follows, from democracy (people
rule) to mobocracy (reason yields to the
unreasonable) to tyranny. Tyranny and tyrants always comes in to play as all
sides seek out the one best able to impose, what they want to believe, is
their will. Are we there yet?
The
Constitutional Republic we had was, in a sense, made up of
all three. We had a President (I see him more as being an emperor now), a
Congress consisting of representatives elected by the people and a senate
consisting of representatives appointed by the state legislatures. We had
checks and balances in that any one of the bodies could hold the others in
check. The president represented the federal government, the senators, the
state governments and the congress the people. By making the senators
elected by the people instead of appointed by the state, we were and are
being drawn closer to becoming a democracy. States lost their voice in the
Federal government leading to a further concentration of power in the Fed,
particularly the executive branch. That budding tyrant I referenced.
So why then do we
hear so much about Democracies, particularly from people who put their hands
on the Bible and swear before God and Country to uphold the
Constitutional Republic our Forefathers gave
us. For this undertaking, to a point, I’ll give
them the benefit of the doubt and call some of them
ignorant of the difference, not that ignorance is an excuse.
We usually
relate Democracies to the majority in numbers of the people, but that is not
necessarily the case. A Democracy is better interpreted as the majority of
the: Power. Those that hold the majority of the power, regardless of
numbers, are the ones who control and dictate. Their will and appetite is
not only the power to decide “if” actions are right or wrong, but the
definition of what “is” right and what is wrong. This definitely applies to
politics in America today.
I’ve heard
Democracies described as two sheep and a wolf voting on what’s for lunch or
two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch. The power base calls the
shots irrespective of the majority in numbers. Another example would be a
lynch mob: The guy lost the vote.
Looking back through history, evidence points to the first Democracy coming
on the pages of history as being when Satan challenged God’s supremacy as
the “Source.” Pride was his motivation and his sin; as it is with all the
world’s despotic leaders, including ours. Satan challenged God’s position as
“The Source”: A position God could not change if He wanted to. Genesis
chapter 3: 1-5 teaches…Now the serpent was more crafty
than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the
woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the
garden’?”…And the woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the garden
we may eat; but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the
garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it
or touch it, lest you die.’ ”And the serpent said to the woman,” You surely
shall not die! “For ‘God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes
will be opened, (for Democracy) and you will be like God, knowing
good from evil.” Satan did not ask of Eve she
worship him, but, be like him; discount God as the source which obviously
would mean she would see him as the source instead of God in that she had
more faith in his word than God’s. Adam and Eve voted God out, or so they
thought. The power of good and evil came head to head and mankind, which
God did not deny freedom of choice, chose evil. If God denied man choice,
there could never be respect of persons between them.
Democracies do
not necessarily constitute large numbers of people. A democracy can exist
when so much as two people challenge each other as gods. The winner, one
with more might, or source, imposes his or her will and appetite on the
loser.
Democracies can
be a floundering society where morality (God’s code of conduct for action
and interaction) collides with amorality (man’s code of conduct for
temporary existence), or, more often than not, amorality collides with
amorality. In America, democracy, like the clash
between the serpent and his followers and God and His followers, to some
extent, it can be related to the former. In other words, our Constitutional
Republic was constructed on a moral foundation. Now it is engaged in warfare
(to the extent people professing to be moral have the backbone to fight it)
with amorality, personified in a budding, or maybe full blown, democratic
form of government best called an ‘Involuntary Socialist Democracy.’ Ancient
Democracies, like that in Athens etc. consisted for the most part, of
amoral/immoral masses and their leaders engaged in warfare with other amoral
/immoral masses and their leaders for the purpose of perpetrating their will
and appetite on the loser. Occasionally a leader came along who limited his
power to behaving under transcendent law. History teaches those societies
lasted the longest, but not forever, as the prosperity they enjoyed under
the transcendent “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” inevitably lead them to
believe, they could do it on their own; without God. Fools!
As John Locke;
speaking to the person and people put it…”Thus that learned King, who well
understood the Notion of things, makes the Difference betwixt a King and a
Tyrant to consist only in this, That one makes the Laws the Bonds of his
Power, and the Good of the Publick,
the End of his Government; the other makes all give way to his own Will and
Appetite.” One (the Tyrant) is the mighty one arising from a democracy
degenarated
into mobocracy ie:
The mob leader. The other, serves in a benevolent form of government.
Bear in mind,
because God gave us Rights, which, when exercised in a moral environment,
extend to Liberties, we must govern ourselves under the laws which protect
both, those being, God’s laws of morality. Amoral governments and citizens
lack the protective shield of the Creator of foundational law; moral law.
Liberty (God given freedom) degenerates to freedom
from the human perspective (a word which only describes a temporary status),
not at all akin to liberty as a gift from God, but more appropriate when
describing Democracies.
Cicero, writing
in his De Republic Legibus during the period
51BC to 44 BC described Democracies thusly…”It necessarily follows in such a
state that “liberty” (in this case interpreted to mean immorality or
amorality) prevails everywhere, to such an extent that not only are homes
one and all without a master, but the vice and anarchy extends even to the
domestic animals, until finally the father fears his son, the son flouts his
father, all sense of shame disappears, and all is so absolutely free that
there is no distinction between citizens and aliens: The school master fears
and flatters his pupils, and pupils despise their masters; youths take on
the gravity of age, and old men stoop to the games of youth, for fear they
may be disliked by their juniors and seem to them too serious. Under such
conditions, wives have the same rights as their husbands, and in the
abundance of “liberty” even the dogs, the horses, and the asses are so free
in their running about that men must make way for them in the streets.
Therefore, “he concludes,” the final result of this boundless license (an
opposite of liberty along with legalism) is that the minds of the citizens
become so squeamish and sensitive that, if the authority of government is
exercised in the smallest degree, they become angry and cannot bear it. On
this account they begin to neglect the laws as well, and so finally are
utterly without a master of any kind: Including God.”
“Well, to
return now to my own style of discourse, he also says that from this
exaggerated license, which is the only thing such people call liberty,
amoral tyrants spring up as from a root, and are,
as it were engendered. For just as an excess of power in the hand of the
aristocrats results in the overthrow of an aristocracy, so liberty (license
and/or legalism) itself reduces a people who possess it in too great degree
to servitude. Thus everything which is in excess – when, for instance,
either in the weather, or in the fields, or in men’s bodies, conditions have
been to favorable – is usually changed into its opposite: And this is
especially true in States, where such excess of liberty (license and/or
legalism) either in nations or in individuals turns into excess of
servitude. This extreme license and/or legalism gives
birth to a tyrant and the utterly unjust and cruel servitude of the tyranny.
For out of such an ungoverned, (lack of self-government in a moral fashion)
or rather, untamed, populace someone is usually chosen as leader against
those leading citizens who have already been subjected to persecution and
cast down from their leadership – some bold and depraved man, who
shamelessly harasses often times even those who have deserved well of the
State, and curries favor with the people by bestowing upon them the property
of others… To such a man, because he has much reason to be afraid… official
power is given and continually renewed; he is also surrounded by armed
guards, as was Pisistratus at
Athens; and finally he merges as a tyrant over the very
people who have raised him to power.” From a system of government that
functions under the “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God” to a Democracy.
From a Democracy to Mobocracy.
From Mobocracy to Tyranny.
It always works that way.
James Madison
contrasted a Democracy and a Republic when he wrote:
“Democracies
have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found
incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in
general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their
deaths…
A Republic, by
which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place,
opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking.”
(Federalist papers, No. 10, page 81.)
The U.S. Army’s
Training Manual No. 2000-25, published in 1928, contained a whole section
explaining the difference between a Democracy and a Republic in their
original, historical sense.
The manual had
the following to say concerning the characteristics of each of them.
A Democracy:
A government of the masses.
Authority
derived through mass meetings or any other form of “direct” expression.
Results in
Mobocracy.
Attitude toward
law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based
upon deliberation or government by passion, prejudice, and impulse without
restraint or regard to consequences.
Results in
demagogism, license, agitation, discontent,
anarchy… (legalism and tyranny)
A Republic:
Attitude toward
property is respect for laws and individual rights, and sensible economic
procedure.
Attitude toward
law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and
established evidence, with a strict regard for consequences.
A greater
number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its
compass.
Avoids the dangerous extremes of
either tyranny or mobocracy.
Results in Statesmanship, liberty,
reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
Karl Marx and
his comrade, Engles, wrote in the COMMUNIST
MANIFESTO…”The proletariat will use its political supremacy (power) to
wrest, by degrees, all capital (means of production including human beings)
from the bourgeois “and” to centralize all instruments of production in the
hands of the State…” To accomplish this, they said, it is necessary first
“to win the battle for DEMOCRACY.” Marx was a disciple of
Darwin. Their theories have been combined to form the
fanatical Secularist Humanist religion which is the backbone of today’s
social and political orders in America.
Samuel Adams
once commented … “The people can take the head of an unjust King but who can
stand against the mob when it writes the laws?” This is not a direct quote,
but from my memory.
AMERICA’S TURN
Consider these
things in the aftermath of the recent election. Did we search out a leader
to impose “our will” or a leader that would serve all with justice under the
transcendent law? Is transcendent law, the only common law, best described
in the Ten Commandments (all of them) to all humanity, even in the equation?
Are either of the bodies who made up the contest
in this election truly bound by the transcendent law or are they bound by
“their interpretation” of transcendent law as it satisfies their lust? Can
there be unity when morality and amorality are vying for power over each
other? Are morality and amorality the real combatants, or is morality not
even in this equation? A NATION DIVIDED AGAINST IT SELF CANNOT STAND and as
long as the “legal” murder of our unborn is amongst us along with so many
other laws contrary to morality, by the grace of God, we are divided.
Have you taken
notice, of the new “living Constitution” and how it is interpreted? The
Constitution is being applied to accommodate the amoral times in which we
are living or better said, to accommodate laws
and rules without any Godly or Constitutional foundation: The will of the
mob and the mob leaders. We appoint judges based on their political
persuasion, not knowledge of, or desire to, judge law and the lawless under
the transcendent law. How can a President who does not hold himself to said
laws, nominate people who do? If he appointed such a person, he would become
the first one they would restrain. The better question would be,
can a moral man even run for office with a chance of winning in today’s
America?
When I consider
the turn out in numbers on election day and the
fact we were not searching out the best amongst us to rule over all of us
but a person to impose “one sides will,” over the lives, liberties and
property of the other side, I see history repeating itself. How does it go?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and
expecting a “different” result.
How is all this
accomplished? Aside from reading the section on this website entitled
Education, these quotes from “The Road to Serfdom” written in 1944 by
Frederick A. Hayek, Co-Winner of the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1974
might interest you. In chapter XI “The end of truth”, Mr. Hayek tells us…”It
is significant that the nationalization of thought has
proceeded everywhere PARI PASSU with the nationalization of Industry.
The most
effective way of making everybody serve the single system of ends which the
social plan is directed is to make everybody believe in those ends. To make
a totalitarian system function efficiently, it is not enough that everybody
should be forced to work for the same ends. It is essential that the people
should come to regard them as their own ends. Although the beliefs must be
chosen for the people and imposed upon them, they must become their beliefs,
a generally accepted creed which makes the individuals as far as possible
act spontaneously in the way the planner wants. Totalitarian governments
(born out of democracy) succeed to a high degree in making people think as
they want them to.
The most
effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to
serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those which they,
or at least the best among them, have always held, but which were not
properly understood or recognized before. The people are made to transfer
their allegiance from God to the new (god) under the pretense that the new
god really is what their sound instinct had always told them but what before
they had only dimly seen. And the most efficient technique to this end is to
use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian
regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and
yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual
climate as the complete perversion of language, the change of meaning of the
words by which the ideals of the regimes are expressed.
The worst
sufferer in this respect is, of course, the word “Liberty”.
It is a word used as freely in totalitarian states as elsewhere. Indeed, it
could almost be said – and it should serve as a warning to us to be on our
guard against all the tempters who promise us the validity of “license and
legalism” disguised as liberty for the old definition and its relationship
to Rights from God. Wherever liberty as we understand it has been destroyed,
this has almost always been done in the name of some new freedom promised to
the people. (Freedom from responsibility and moral
accountability).
The “Collective
freedom” they offer us is not the freedom of the members of a moral society
but the unlimited freedom of the planner (Command Class) to do with society
what he pleases. It is the confusion of freedom with power carried to the
extreme; A “RESPONSIBILITY” TRANSFERRED TO THE PLANNERS BY AN
IRRESPONSIBLE OR APATHETIC PEOPLE.”
Has government
education perverted language in America to a point
where Dr. Hayek’s perceptions have taken hold? Today’s unlettered
Christians seem to be willing to seek an
Autocratic leader as the religion points toward the day of the Lord. They
seem to accept the idea of a man saying he “comes in the name of God” as an
endorsement of his stature as being between them and God. The planners need
only lead them to this man. A man who, unbeknownst to them because they do
not check his credentials as they would any one in the secular world, is
busy mending the veil in the temple that was ripped in two giving mankind
direct access to God.
May God save us
from those purporting to come in His name. |
|
