ENEMIES!

Opponents or Enemies?

In any conflict, it is a deadly error to mistake or underestimate the adversary’s capabilities, will to employ them, or ultimate goals.

Around the globe, what was once confidently deemed “Western civilisation” is in an end-stage battle with champions of a collectivist and statist ideology which, over the last century, has enacted programs of redistributive taxation, borrowing, and spending whose unsustainability has now become self-evident and which, unless the present course is altered, will collapse in at most ten years. Further, the second- and higher-order effects of these policies have led to demographic collapse in the societies which have adopted them, crippled capital formation and the creation of productive enterprises, and been used as a justification for mass immigration from regions hostile to the culture and values of the West which have been responsible for its prosperity.

Those who would destroy a society, destroy first its language. As Orwell observed, when the terms of discourse are corrupted, the corruption spreads into every domain the language is used to debate. So deep has this language rot penetrated, that it is difficult to write an essay like this without succumbing to it—that is the intent of those who spread the contagion. The present-day culprits identify themselves as “progressives” or “liberals”. Take a step back and ponder how manipulative this is: if you’re a “progressive”, then you must obviously be on the side of progress, even though the outcome of the policies you advocate will ultimately roll back all of the advances in individual liberty and prosperity made since the Enlightenment; if you’re a “liberal”, surely you must advocate liberty, notwithstanding that the consequences of your prescriptions will be descent of society into serfdom for the masses, deemed property of the state, ruled by an unelected, unaccountable élite.

These so-called “progressives” or “liberals” are not advocates of progress or liberty: they are enemies of them, and the sooner champions of liberty acknowledge what they are, the better our slim chances for defeating them will be. Libertarians and conservatives are inclined toward civil discourse and respect for the rule of law. They must come to terms with the fact that their enemies—not opponents—are implacable, bent on winning whatever the cost may be, willing to use any means whatsoever to prevail and, once triumphant, to deprive their opposition of the means to reverse or even impede the implementation of their agenda.

They are enemies.

What is to be done?
In the middle of World War II, would it have made sense for Roosevelt and Churchill to have arranged a secret meeting with Hirohito and Tojo to try to “work out their differences” and “find a middle ground” where, say, Imperial Japan would be allowed to keep half of its conquests in the Pacific? Of course not: Japan was the enemy, and only its definitive defeat could undo the damage its conquests had wrought.

Enemies of individual liberty control the high ground today in most of the institutions through which they have made their long march in the last half century, and they perceive themselves as winning: with every generation they educate, inform, entertain, and rule, they create more dependent subjects who acquiesce to their rule and groom a new self-perpetuating class of élite. They are not people who have a different vision of how to create a society in which the aspirations of the majority of the people for themselves and their families will be achieved, but rather aspiring rulers of infantilised subjects dependent upon the largesse of their betters.

How does one deal with enemies? To survive and prosper, one does not negotiate with them—one defeats them. There is no “reasonable, achievable compromise” between liberty and tyranny, freedom and slavery. One must vanquish the tyrants and slaveholders and ensure that their spawn cannot reinfect society.

We will never defeat them as long as we view them as “opponents” who play by the same rules and share the same goals as we. They are enemies, and must be completely defeated and removed from the political stage. That is how they view us—they have no desire to compromise but rather intend to destroy us. [emphasis added] Until we take the battle to the enemy with an equal fierceness, we shall have no hope of success. Here are a few things we can do, starting immediately, once we come to terms with the fact we’re confronted with an enemy, not a well-meaning opponent.

Reclaim the language from the enemy.
We should have a “swear jar” for every time we utter the words “liberal” or “progressive” except in scornful irony. May I suggest “statist”, “collectivist”, “socialist”, or “communist” as alternatives?

Do not trade with the enemy.
Do not patronise businesses which support enemy causes; by doing so you support them yourself. While an individual choosing not to be a customer of a mega-corporation has negligible impact, millions of like-minded people deciding to go elsewhere can. On the local scale, telling the owner of the pharmacy who’s posted a petition supporting socialised medicine that he’s just lost your business and why does have an impact—I did this two weeks ago myself.

Don’t be taken in by enemy propaganda.
The mainstream media are almost entirely in the hands of the enemy. Help to make them the legacy media by ignoring everything they say, not subscribing to their enemy propaganda. Rely instead on first-hand reporting on the Internet whose veracity you can judge based on a network of trusted sources who comment upon it.

Do not entrust your children to the enemy. So-called “public schools” (the correct term is “government schools”, since in recent decades the public—parents—have lost all control over them) have been entirely captured by the enemy and become institutions of indoctrination and moral corruption which fail at teaching even basic skills. It is parental malfeasance verging on child abuse to send one’s offspring to these corrupt, corrupting, and nonperforming schools. If you cannot afford a well-run private or religious school (most have per-pupil costs well below that of government schools, but of course you have to pay that tuition on top of your taxes supporting the failed government schools), consider home-schooling your children, perhaps in conjunction with other like-minded parents. Even if you can afford it, don’t assume a private or religious school supports your values; talk to parents of students enrolled there and teachers: if they show signs of being enemies, don’t send your kids there.

Do not become indebted to the enemy. Higher education is overwhelmingly in the hands of the enemy. One of the greatest scams in recent decades has been the explosion in tuition and fees, which results in graduates of four-year and postgraduate programs burdened with six-figure debt they’re forced to pay off in the key years they should be saving to accumulate capital for starting a family, buying a house, educating their children, and retirement. This is not accidental: by blocking capital formation in people’s key earning years, they are rendered dependent upon the state for their retirement and health care in old age, which is precisely the intent.

What élite universities and professional schools provide for the exorbitant fee is a credential which offers entry into the ranks of the enemy, and the “education” they provide is indoctrination in the enemy’s belief system. If you need a credential, shop around and get what you require at a price that doesn’t sink you into debt throughout your peak earning years. Unless you’ve bought into the enemy’s credential game, where you went to college will be irrelevant after you’ve had a few years of job experience.

Do not hire the enemy. Are you an employer? Why should you pay those who support the destruction of your livelihood? In our information-intense age, nothing could be easier than determining the political affiliations and contributions of applicants for employment, as well as their sentiments posted on public fora. If they are enemies, don’t hire them. You wouldn’t hire somebody without a police background check to make sure they weren’t a crook, would you? So why should you employ an enemy who will use your paycheck to destroy the values you cherish and spread the enemy’s perverted belief system among co-workers?

Roll back the enemy’s gains. One of the enemy’s key intellectual force multipliers is the concept of the “ratchet”: that any movement in their direction is irreversible and that consequently the debate is only about how rapidly one will arrive at their destination. Those who view the enemy as an “opposition” fall for this completely—in effect, their slogan becomes, “We’ll deliver you unto serfdom, but later than the other guys”. This is not how one deals with an enemy: they must be definitively defeated, removed from all positions of influence, and their pathological beliefs cleansed from the society. Any politician who speaks about “reaching across the aisle” or intellectual who grants any legitimacy to the anti-human, liberty-destroying nostrums of the collectivists is a fool at best and a collaborator at worst. Failing to acknowledge that an enemy is an enemy is to preemptively surrender.

We do not compromise with enemy politicians; we defeat them, regardless of the political party from which they hail. If they’re enemies of freedom and the other party’s candidate is worse, challenge them in the primary.

We do not consent to enemy occupation of the media. These are businesses, and we will withdraw our support from them by letting subscriptions lapse and withdrawing advertising from them. This will provoke a “circulation collapse” death spiral for them. All public funding and subsidies for media must be defeated.

We choose not to fund enemy occupation of our educational institutions. All taxpayer-supported institutions must have their funding made contingent upon abolition of tenure (from kindergarten through university professorships) and retention based upon objective measures of merit by third parties outside the academic system.

In the U.S., many state judges are elected; Federal judges are not, and have lifetime tenure. But their courts are funded by the legislature, which can abolish them with the consent of the executive. Abolish abusive and misbehaving courts, and create new ones, and let that serve as a lesson to those who would legislate from the bench.

If you’ve gotten this far, go to the site and read the rest!

You just had to know that things would come to this, based on what has already been going on with regulation nad legislation dictating the availability and use of food. It is LITERALLY not too far out to call these types of food police Nazis. Hitler WOULD have approved…he was a strict vegetarian, tee-totaler, and non-smoker, although even he wasn’t ready to enforce his personal preferences on others…yet. Fortunately he met his fate, and that problem went away, at least until its latest revival.

To encourage healthful eating, Chicago school doesn’t allow kids to bring lunches or certain snacks from home — and some parents, and many students, aren’t fans of the policy

What’s next? 2-way “telescreens” with compulsory daily physical exercise under surveillance monitoring a-la 1984? What’s scary about that concept, is that we now have the technology to actually pull that off!

A Latin tag comes to mind: NON SUPER NOS – “You ain’t the boss of us!”

Sometimes the Chief has heard seni-laughing references from Minnesota friends about the “People’s Republic of Minnesota.

If this is any indication, maybe the laughter should be gone, leaving nothing but the “People’s Republic”…for real.

Do you believe in the American dream — the idea that in this country, hardworking people of every race, color and creed can get ahead on their own merits? If so, that belief may soon bar you from getting a license to teach in Minnesota public schools — at least if you plan to get your teaching degree at the University of Minnesota’s Twin Cities campus.

This is because of a series of “reforms” in the teacher education program being drafted and proposed for the U of M that forces compliance with a set of attitudes and procedures that are nearly exact reproductions of procedures implemented in ChiCom Chairman Mao Tse Tung’s disastrous “Cultural Revolution”.

In a report compiled last summer, the Race, Culture, Class and Gender Task Group at the U’s College of Education and Human Development recommended that aspiring teachers there must repudiate the notion of “the American Dream” in order to obtain the recommendation for licensure required by the Minnesota Board of Teaching. Instead, teacher candidates must embrace — and be prepared to teach our state’s kids — the task force’s own vision of America as an oppressive hellhole: racist, sexist and homophobic….

The report advocates making race, class and gender politics the “overarching framework” for all teaching courses at the U. It calls for evaluating future teachers in both coursework and practice teaching based on their willingness to fall into ideological lockstep.

The first step toward “cultural competence,” says the task group, is for future teachers to recognize — and confess — their own bigotry. Anyone familiar with the reeducation camps of China’s Cultural Revolution will recognize the modus operandi.

Wait, it gets worse:

The task group recommends, for example, that prospective teachers be required to prepare an “autoethnography” report. They must describe their own prejudices and stereotypes, question their “cultural” motives for wishing to become teachers, and take a “cultural intelligence” assessment designed to ferret out their latent racism, classism and other “isms.” They “earn points” for “demonstrating the ability to be self-critical.”…

The goal of these exercises, in the task group’s words, is to ensure that “future teachers will be able to discuss their own histories and current thinking drawing on notions of white privilege, hegemonic masculinity, heteronormativity, and internalized oppression.”

Good grief, Charlie Brown!…and worse yet:

What if some aspiring teachers resist this effort at thought control and object to parroting back an ideological line as a condition of future employment? The task group has Orwellian plans for such rebels: The U, it says, must “develop clear steps and procedures for working with non-performing students, including a remediation plan.”

This is what Mao referred to as “re-education”, and he built special “camps” to insure proper implementation of this program.

And what if students’ ideological purity is tainted once they begin to do practice teaching in the public schools? The task group frames the danger this way: “How can we be sure that teaching supervisors are themselves developed and equipped in cultural competence outcomes in order to supervise beginning teachers around issues of race, class, culture, and gender?”

Its answer? “Requir[e] training/workshop for all supervisors. Perhaps a training session disguised as a thank you/recognition ceremony/reception at the beginning of the year?”

When teacher training requires a “disguise,” you know something sinister is going on.

Hard to imagine Minnesota is only 20 miles away from the Chief’s outpost. And they can’t figure out why more people are interested in home-schooling.

DISCLOSURE: The Chief is a semi-retired teacher with over a quarte-century of teaching H.S. sciences, as well as social studies, including U.S. history.

Everyone in Britain could be given a personal ‘carbon allowance’

Everyone in Britain should have an annual carbon ration and be penalised if they use too much fuel, the head of the Environment Agency will say.

Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.

Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.

If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.

Let’s see…a word comes to mind:…oh…er…well…? ORWELL!

Ruth Lea, an economist from Arbuthnot Banking Group, told the Daily Mail: “This is all about control of the individual and you begin to wonder whether this is what the green agenda has always been about….

D’ya think?

It’s Orwellian. This will be an enormous tax on business.”

Hopefully, for their sake, the GlowBull Warming mania fad will have run its course before this goes into effect.

Big Brother is arriving in what used to be known as Britain…but which now might more appropriately be given Orwell’s designation from 1984: “Airstrip One”.

All telecoms companies and internet service providers will be required by law to keep a record of every customer’s personal communications, showing who they are contacting, when, where and which websites they are visiting.

Despite widespread opposition over Britain’s growing surveillance society, 653 public bodies will be given access to the confidential information, including police, local councils, the Financial Services Authority, the Ambulance Service, fire authorities and even prison governors.

They will not require the permission of a judge or a magistrate to access the information, but simply the authorisation of a senior police officer or the equivalent of a deputy head of department at a local authority.

From across the pond, here’s the commentary from Samizdata from the UK.  They are similarly unimpressed, maybe there’s still some hope for Britain NOT to morph into Airstrip One, at least just yet.

NOW do you get what the movie “V for Vengeance” was about?  (By the way, Guy Fawkes Day was last week on November 5th.)

What is this about?

It has received far less notice than it deserves, but last week the United States joined with Egypt in sponsoring a resolution appoved by the UN Human Rights Council that could blow a gaping hole in the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech and other civil liberties most of us take for granted.

The resolution encourages member nations to define as criminal “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” Who defines what constitutes “national, racial or religious hatred?” Why, the government, of course. Who decides whether any given statement “constitutes incitement?” You guessed it.

In other words, if you live in a country that adopts this approach to freedom of speech, be very careful what you say about any other nation, racial group or religious faith. And you better not make anybody in power mad because you would be amazed what can be construed by governments as “incitement” to “hatred.”

If you are an American with the notion that the First Amendment will protect your right to say whatever you want whenever you want about whomever you want, be advised that this resolution embodies exactly the conceptual assumptions about law and rights that lead directly to those speech codes that restrict civil liberties on hundreds of U.S. college campuses at this very moment….

In other words, bunky, if you think the First Amendment will protect you from Obama and the UN, you’re still living in the 18th Century when people believed individual rights were theirs simply by virtue of being born under the U.S. Constitution, not as a dispensation of those in power.

So, what’s it have to do with Longshanks?

The UN resolution is quite literally medieval.

I guess this will make the Islamic world feel right at home…back to the 13th Century!

Consider the provision of Westminster I in 1275 under King Edward I in England (If you saw “Braveheart,” you will recognize him as the hated Longshanks. Trust me, he was every bit as bad as Randall Wallace’s wonderful screenplay made him). Westminster I banned the telling of “tales whereby discord or occasion of discord or slander my grow between the King and his people, or the great men of the realm.” And who defined what tales tended to sow discord? Why, the King and great men of the realm, of course.

But Westminster I was no Longshankian exception to the rule in mediavel England. Roll forward several centuries and we find Henry VIII, he of the many wives. Nobody could print a book without Henry’s permission. A law passed in 1542 proclaimed that “nothing shall be taught or mainained contrary to the King’s instructions” concerning the Bible or other religious matters. Violate that law three times and you went to the stake to be burned to death.

A century later, a 1662 statute provided the death penalty for those selling “heretical, schimatical, blasphemous, seditious and trasonable books, pamphlets and papers.” Why? Because such publications allegedly were “endangering the peace of these kingdoms and raising a disaffection to his most excellent Majesty and his government.”

That is the essential legal background from England that helped spark the English Reformation and ultimately led to the adoption of the First Amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Why on earth would anybody want to go back to that barbaric world in which you could lose your head for saying the wrong thing?

If you are interested in learning more about the bloody history that came before the First Amendment, see former University of Texas journalism professor Marvin Olasky’s “Telling the Truth” and the chapter on “a great cloud of witnesses.”

At this rate might it take the 2nd Amendment to preserve the 1st Amendment?  One can only hope not.

The refusal by ABC and NBC to run a national ad critical of President Obama’s health care reform plan is raising questions from the group behind the spot — particularly in light of ABC’s health care special aired in prime time last June and hosted at the White House.

The 33-second ad by the League of American Voters, which features a neurosurgeon who warns that a government-run health care system will lead to the rationing of procedures and medicine, began airing two weeks ago on local affiliates of ABC, NBC, FOX and CBS. On a national level, however, ABC and NBC have refused to run the spot in its present form.

This speaks (or rather doesn’t speak) for itself.

Outspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she’s so worried that information from next year’s national census will be abused that she will refuse to fill out anything more than the number of people in her household.

In an interview Wednesday morning with The Washington Times “America’s Morning News,” Mrs. Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, said the questions have become “very intricate, very personal”

The Chief concurs fully!

Predictably enough, the Census wonks don’t agree:

Shelly Lowe, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau, said Mrs. Bachmann is “misreading” the law.

She sent a portion of the U.S. legal code that says anyone over 18 years of age who refuses to answer “any of the questions” on the census can be fined up to $5,000.

Nooooo Shelly, it’s not the LAW, it’s the implementation of an invasive census far exceeding the explicit census power in the Consititution that’s the issue here.  Less government intrusion instead of more is the ticket here.

Gov. Mike Rounds continues to push for preschool standards in South Dakota, but a Stanford educator says studies so far don’t support a “full-scale” program.

Erik Hanushek, a Stanford professor who is among expert witnesses for the state in a school-aid lawsuit, seems lukewarm about the value of preschool, which he admits is “complicated.” “There are some good but very small-scale studies showing positive effects of preschool,” Hanushek said in an e-mail exchange. “Most of the positive effects, however, are not educational improvements but reductions in crime and incarceration. These might well be good investments for society, but they do not solve the education problem.”

Rounds, in an address to school superintendents in Pierre on Tuesday, said, “Preschool is something that is very, very important.”

EuroSocialists, Lenin, Hitler, and Plato would all be in agreement with the Governor on this one. How so?

Mrs. Chief recently received some correspondence from Norwegian cousins who related that their first child was starting the (government mandated) kindergarten – at one-year of age!!

Plato’s Republic advocated that the training of children was too important to leave to the parents, and that to obtain good citizens of the polis, systematic removal from parents for training was the ideal to be implemented.

The above noted 20th-century devotees of the superior wisdom and knowledge of their respective states (of totalitarianism) also advocated, and implemented programs to reduce the influence of parents in the early childhood education of children, again, in the interest of getting more reliable citizens of their versions of a “new world order”.

While Governor Rounds obviously is NOT in the category of these stark practitioners of the superiority of the state in all that matters, his trend on this issue is clearly in the same direction: that the early education of children is too important to leave to parents…this proposition being a (possibly unintended) keystone in the development of more TOTALitarian (get it? TOTAL – as in state control of all aspects of life, including for example, child-rearing) relationships between the state and the people.

This path is NOT a good direction to start down.

Was the 14-day old baby on a terrorist watch list? Or is it just a case of bureaucratic incompetence and idiocy given free play once again?