Collective Tyranny

Posted in Politics on October 19th, 2014

It is easy to think of the evils of America’s domestic enemies, the Liberal, Progressives, and their minority tenants, to be solely or primarily assaults upon American citizens’ natural right to individual liberty. Yet, while they do repeatedly attack some our our Divinely ordained individual rights, mostly those that could be disruptive, e.g., those of defense and speech, these Leftist enemies far more often attack American communities and various and sundry collective endeavors. This is because our domestic enemies are devoutly loyal and faithful to their own collective, the State.

For this reason the Liberal and Progressives are not opposed to individual liberty because most individual liberties, far from being the effect of emancipation from the power of the State, are, in point of fact, a key precondition of the State’s power. In the twisted minds of the Left the State must be the penultimate, preferably only, collective agency. They seek a collective tyranny with the state operating in a tyrannical manner to quash any other collective associations.

They do not sek to wage war against the individual; they wage their war against those non-coercive, intermediate institutions which claim the individual’s allegiance: the family, the church, the school, business, and so on and so forth. The Liberals and Progressives demand that an individual be wedded exclusively to the State as an exclusive community, and offer him a certain limited range of freedom in exchange. It is not individual liberty that these would-be tyrannts oppose, but competitors to their authority that they find utterly unacceptable. They do not mind individual freedom; they only mind competitors to the allegiance they require of men. They are willing to give men a long leash, so as long as they and they alone are grasping the other end.

In other words, despite State not being a community, our domestic enemies demand that the State be the only community that is allowed. They know that when people’s lives, hopes, and aspirations are severed from family, church, and vocation, they are an easy prey for the State.

Related Reading:

Losing Our Way: An Intimate Portrait of a Troubled America
Freedom From the Lies You Tell Yourself (Ebook Shorts)
Tyranny: A New Interpretation
War Collectivism
Burgmuller: 25 Progressive Pieces, opus 100 (Book & CD) (Alfred Masterwork Edition: CD Edition)

Honest Feminists

Posted in 2014 Election, Politics on September 22nd, 2014

Tread Hard
Tread Hard Upon Liberty & Freedom!

Feminists aren’t particularly associated with honesty. Much like discernment, honesty has never been a core value of feminism. That being said, some small number of the Toxic Wave Feminists are forthright and completely honest.

Remember this in the swiftly approaching 2014 midterm elections. The harridans of Feminism, unable to move their agenda forward any other way, desire to trample and tread upon every single Americans’ individual freedoms and liberties so that they can benefit from State-enforce equality of results and their own personal freedom from any negative consequences of their own choices.

Related Reading:

Election: Dezinformatsiya and the Great Game
Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings
Liberty (A Redemption Novel)
Liberty!: How the Revolutionary War Began (Landmark Books)
Indian General Elections 2014: An Astrological Perspective

Ginsburg’s Dissension

Posted in Politics on July 1st, 2014

Ginsburg - Not a happy female at allThe US Supreme Court finally rendered its ruling upon Burwell v. Hobby Lobby yesterday, June 30, 2014. It was a 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby’s owners’ religious freedom.

Justice Ruth Ginsburg, one of the extreme Leftist judges in the SCOTUS penned the dissenting opinion which her three fellow leftist judges concurred with.

As this case dealt with the intersection of for-profit corporations, religious freedom, and management-labor power dynamics, it is neither surprising nor of material interest that the Liberal minority within the SCOTUS dissented from the majority opinion. That is to be expected as those four judges are antipathetic to corporations and religious freedom, at least when the religion in question is Christianity.

What is of interest is the nature and content of Ginsburg’s dissension. Ginsburg’s 35-page scathing screed contained little or no basis in law except in the singular part where she agreed with the Court, was more emotive, irrational fear-mongering than a logical exercise, and utterly ignored almost every salient point of the Court’s decision.

This is, and long has been, Ginsburg’s modus operandi and is why I loath her more than any other SCOTUS judge since Justice Warren. Whenever she pens the majority opinion she makes sure to cover it in the law and by legal precedence, but her dissenting opinions rarely stem from interpretative differences in America’s law. Instead they are emotive pleas and and angry hand-wringing over what the effects of the law might be.

Related Reading:

A Logic Of Facts Or, Every-day Reasoning
God vs. the Gavel: The Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty
Fields of Blood: Religion and the History of Violence
The Politics Book (Big Ideas Simply Explained)
The World's Religions (Plus)