Who Will Face the Balrog?

If you have not read the Lord of the Rings trilogy - not just watched the movie (though excellent), but read the books, I encourage you to do so. I'm in no position to assign homework, but if I were, I believe this is a must read for the character development of every youth at an age-appropriate time in his/her development. If you were NOT given this assignment, or were not so much of a reader in your youth, please go back and enjoy a damn good story which is much more than just a story. Tolkien wrote this book over an extended period, much of which was in the prelude to; and the execution of, the Second World War. Those were dark times - as are these. The Ring of Power, the Dark Lord - the struggle of the simple hobbit whose only wish was to return to his beloved Shire and his garden - these are all obvious metaphors for the greater struggle of good and evil, of power over individual rights and liberties that the world faced in the middle of the past century, and which we face today.

So my question for this blogpost is "who will face the Balrog"? In the famous scene ending the first book of the trilogy, Gandalf the wizard. faces a Balrog who is attempting to prevent the "Fellowship of the Ring" from continuing on their quest to destroy the 'Ring of Power' in the fires of Mordor where it was forged - the only heatsource strong enough to destroy it. The danger of the ring - a metaphor for the 'absolute power which corrupts absolutely' is that it cannot be wielded without corrupting the wearer, a constant theme throughout the novel. Being blocked from the mountain paths, the fellowship is forced to go through the mines of Moria, which they find has been destroyed, the dwarves killed by armies of Orcs and finally a Balrog. Gandalf has explained to Frodo, the simple Hobbit from the Shire, that the dwarves who established their kingdom in Moria had "delved too deeply in their greed" for gold, and particularly mithril - a lightweight silver. Escaping from the army of orcs, the group must pass over a final bridge and the Balrog makes his appearance. Gandalf uses all his powers, telling the Balrog famously, "You Shall Not Pass", ultimately destroying the Balrog but sacrificing himself in the process.

We, in the "Shire" that was the American ideal of individual liberty - which never was and may never be, but is certainly an ideal worth striving for - are again (and possibly always have been) facing the Balrog which attempts to prevent us from continuing on our journey. I will not say the Balrog is liberalism (in the modern sense of the term, which is truth upside down - our founders established the principles of Liberalism, the idea that the individual has rights which supersede the power of the state), nor Democrats, nor even Progressivism. Most liberals/democrats/progressives simply want a more fair and just state - ideals we should all embrace. The danger - the Balrog, if you will - is totalitarian statism - ultimately, this is the absolute power which the Ring is a metaphor of, and which both parties of Mordor (Washington, D.C.) seek. Standing in the way of the Balrog is the Constitution which limits the power of the state. It does not grant or create rights in any way - it limits power. So, the Constitution itself is Gandalf, telling those who seek the absolute power of totalitarianism "You Shall Not Pass!".

But Gandalf is faltering. The Constitution gets its power from "We, the People" who ordained it. In our greed, we have delved too deeply and we face the Balrog. Our greed stems from the envy, the covetousness of wanting what others have. The greed of "the others" is also to blame, as they have used their wealth to buy representation from those who take an oath to defend the Constitution which they usurp and now represent "the others" and not their own constituents. WE must support Gandalf - the Constitution - as it faces the Balrog. The Balrog of the federal government has grown too strong and too corrupt to expect that any hobbits we send to Mordor can have much effect, though we must continue to seek to send them, in the hope that there will be some who will not succumb to the power of the Ring. But it is here - in our respective humble Shires - that the battle must be fought. We must elect and support state legislators and governors with the courage to face the Balrog; to stand up to the power of Mordor and reverse the tide. And we must support them with our 'lives, our property and our sacred honor'. The time is long past to meekly accept the unacceptable. The Shire is in danger. WE must stand in the breach and tell the Balrog, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS!"

Eric

While I Was Sleeping...

Good Lord! I logged into blogger today, as I do from time to time and saw that my pageviews had gone from sub-100 to nearly 1000...err...wth??? I suppose I should keep up with my blog more and I offer apologies to anyone expecting greater frequency of posts. I will try to rectify the situation although I can make no promises. I am not a "full time blogger", I am a full time homesteader, quite busy with cutting wood, raising organic meat and eggs and keeping up with all the other chores of the homestead.

So, welcome...err...whoever you are...and I will try to do better than my monthly or so musings.

Eric

The Next American Revolution

The first American Revolution may have been an occurrence of history impossible to replicate. The history I was taught did a poor job describing the constant turmoil and revolutionary behavior of the colonists toward the European powers which attempted to keep them under control. We were essentially given the Readers Digest Condensed version – people were being persecuted for religious reasons, they came across on the Mayflower and nearly starved to death until the Indians fed them and taught them to grow maize. A bunch of other folk came looking for gold, mapping out in a haphazard way a new found continent and then they got sick of being overtaxed and had a revolution, which they won. Then it was time for Christmas break, you came back and found that a second revolution was happening, with the revolutionaries losing (the American Civil War). Then we fought the war to end all wars, had a depression and battled Hitler and Hirohito until it was time to go home for summer. In the fall you went back to school and repeated the cycle.

What I failed to fully comprehend was that the time between the formation of the first colonies and the revolution beginning in 1775 was roughly equivalent to the time between that revolution and the present and the friction between the colonists and parliament was ongoing the entire time. To be a British politician tasked with governing the Massachusetts colony was the kiss of death for one’s career as they were fiercely independent and essentially ungovernable. So long as Britain maintained a policy of benign neglect, all went fairly well – a condition that Washington DC would do well to emulate today vis-à-vis Flyover Country. But this independent streak spawned a generation of men and women who were well educated in the classics, moral and religious, and who truly cared about freedom. As in every revolution, it was initiated and led by the elites, but the elites did not seek to rule over their fellow revolutionaries – or, in the case of the ones who did, they were overruled by their more democratically minded brethren. Those salivating over the possibility of revolution today would do well to consider the uniqueness of this in light of subsequent revolutions; most, if not all of which, have ended with fratricide among the leaders of the revolution and simply replacing one despotic form of rule for another.

There is our conundrum. The elites are already firmly entrenched in power. Who will lead the revolution to remove them from power without seeking to replace them? Who will take the risks inherent in the endeavor to return the sovereignty of America to ‘the people’ and not seek to keep it for him/herself? This is assuming the American people will accept the responsibility that comes with sovereignty, which is a mighty large assumption when one considers the results of the 2012 elections. I know of no group seeking to return us to sovereignty that seems to be presenting a viable plan for doing so, possibly for the reasons outlined above. There is certainly no political party which would have my support. The RepubliCrats are securely controlled by the oligarchy and offer no hope at all. The Libertarians position on the issue of abortion disqualifies them for most who seek smaller government and a return to federalism as it is historically known. How can one claim the RIGHT to kill another – how can that possibly be a classical Liberal position? On the other hand, the Constitution party seems to be seeking a theocracy or something close. Most who call themselves conservatives seek to use government to force others to live by the moral standards they themselves hold. I may agree with their moral standards, but the purpose of government is not to legislate them. It is to protect the natural rights of individuals that they may live by the moral standards they choose, among other liberties. The Greens, the Progressives…well, they are not Liberal by any historical definition of the term. They seek (and have achieved) a Leviathan state with totalitarian powers controlling nearly every aspect of our lives. So I don’t know if there are enough Americans left who will actually consent to a Constitutional Republic which seeks an America as the founders envisioned. Identity politics has succeeded in producing a populace that seeks a government which uses its force to bend others to their will, whether through redistributionist policies, through legislating morality or for some other end.

What I am certain of is that, in the end, Americans will revolt against the police state in which we are either already living or which will be necessary to maintain the totalitarianism or near-totalitarianism emanating from our rulers in “that far-off country” of Washington DC. The spark may come from economic circumstances, such as the collapse of the counterfeit currency they force us to use with a gun to our heads. It may come from a political decision to disarm the populace – this I consider to be the Rubicon for too many Americans. Where it will come from, I don’t know, but I am sure it will come. The only means of preventing violent revolution (with the carnage and uncertain outcome that entails) is to have one which is non-violent - a political revolution vice an armed one. I don’t know if it is possible to wake Americans from their lethargic and apathetic slumber in time, but without offering them their ‘morning coffee’ in the form of a viable plan, they will continue to hit the snooze button. This was the outcome of both the Tea Party and Occupy movements. America said, “well, yeah – you’ve got a point – what’s the plan?” When each offered up the same-ol, same-ol of the RepubliCrats, America hit the snooze button.

So we’d better start brewing some coffee…and soon.

The Things We Dare Not Say

I have been frequently approached, especially in recent weeks since the Sandy Hook shooting, by folk talking about the relationship of the electorate to the government. One person has been considering the formation of a local militia for the purpose of having a ready force available to support the sheriff in the eventuality that it may be necessary - essentially a trained 'posse'. Of concern to him - and a legitimate concern which I share - is that this militia not morph into what he considers an 'anti-government' outfit. He referred to Constitutionalist militias as such. My question to him was if a militia (or person) is standing ready to fulfill the oath we have shared to protect and defend the Constitution, then how can it be anti-government? I would consider that a pro-government individual or outfit and any opposition to it would come from an entity that was not a legitimate government, but an illigitimate regime, as the 2nd Amendment clearly states that a well-regulated (properly functioning) militia is necessary for the defense of the republic and the freedom to exercise the natural rights of the citizenry the republic was formed to protect.

Last night a network ran a report on the Danish individual who was instrumental in the assasination of Anwar Al-Awlaki, one of several American citizens (including his sixteen-year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was specifically targeted and assasinated two weeks after his father) who have been assasinated by the Obama regime. This story prompted a 'spirited' discussion between K and I concerning the rights of the people to replace a "government" which is not performing its duty to protect the natural rights of the citizens, but rather is engaging in a state of war against its citizens.

These principles are detailed in our Declaration of Independence - "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.*" These principles are based on the natural rights argument, primarily from John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government, in which he discusses the circumstance in which a "government" embarks upon a 'state of war', with the people: "... whenever the Legislators endeavour to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence. ... [Power then] devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty, and, by the Establishment of a new Legislative (such as they shall think fit) provide for their own Safety and Security, which is the end for which they are in Society.**"

I will elaborate on these thoughts in subsequent blog posts - my question for today is multi-fold: 1)What is the legitimate response to government to "speech" which advocates putting into practice the right of defense which the citizenry inherently possesses, being a natural right from our Creator? Is the proper response to assasinate that citizen with a predator drone or a CIA kill team as was done to Imam Al-Awlaki (assuming the hypothetical that the extent of Al-Awlaki's offense was running a website in which he advocated for violent Jihad against the "Great Satan")?

2)Does the right of free speech and a free press extend to this discussion and is this blog post itself an "alternative press" (alternative to the main-stream media which is admittedly being used as a propaganda tool of the regime)?

3)By initiating this discussion should I expect to have my door kicked in some dark night by a CIA/DHS kill team or might a predator drone vaporize me as I am innocently brushhogging the north 40 some fine spring morning?

Please join me in considering these important issues as the regime is assasinating American citizens at will and discussing how best to limit our ability to exercise the "common refuge against force and violence" Locke describes as the appropriate response to the slavery inherent under a regime exercising arbitrary power...if you dare to do so...and if you don't dare to discuss this - is this an acknowledgement of fear of government to exercise the very natural rights I discuss here?

The Terrible Two's and Mass Murder

I spent the weekend with two-year-olds - my grandchildren, Emma and Ian. Wonderful children, mostly a joy to be around - until a 'terrible two' tantrum arrives. It's that age when they must deal with the fact that the world does not revolve around them. I remember when my oldest was that age - I had just returned from a tour in Okinawa and while I was gone she had transformed from a little baby who kept you up at night to a beautiful little girl intent on tyranny and still keeping me up all night. She and her mother had been living with grandparents while I was overseas and when I returned we got a little apartment, I got a job and started college. But she didn't have a whole lot of sympathy for my sleep schedule and would stay up till all hours, creating chaos about the house when I needed to sleep. So, after observing all this for a few nights, I told her mother I thought she needed to have a bedtime, possibly an hour or so before mine. Her mother laughed and said, "oh, she wont go to bed". I was in a state of disbelief - the child couldnt weigh 20 pounds and I topped 180 or so - I felt pretty sure I could keep her in bed until she went to sleep and I went to slay the 'terrible two dragon'. After a few hours of screaming, with me laying in bed with her, physically preventing her from getting up, she eventually wore down and went to sleep. Maybe that's not the way the child psychologists recommend, but it didnt take more than a few nights of this and she figured out that when Dad said it was bedtime, there was no negotiating the matter and she enjoyed getting a story read to her and going to bed more than screaming herself to sleep.

This is not an easy thing to do and I observed with the more "energetic" of my grandkids that this had not been established in their house. The one whose nickname is Adderall Annie obviously had Daddy's number. "Dammit, you're writing all over me with that marker!" (Daddy takes marker) Adderall Annie, "(insert deafening screams)"...Daddy, (gives back the marker). Hmm...not to compare children to dogs, but the training is not too much different, except that dogs actually want to please, while children wish to tyrannize. If that were my dog, I would be going through life barefoot, I think.

I think this is the primary issue with these mass shootings. While I hate to jump into the pop-psycho-babble fray, it just seems impossible not to consider these things a disease whose symptoms are brought on by a society in which the terrible two's are just never dealt with. Setting aside for the moment the plausible conspiracy theories that these shootings are not what they seem to be and taking what we have been told at face value (self imposed naivete, I know), we have in most cases with these shooters all-too-common profiles: white youths, teens or young adults, raised by single mothers, "addicted" to video games, etc., etc. At the risk of outing myself as a "kids these days" old codger, I see the same "terrible two's" behavior in the Occupy protests. "The system is screwing us" - check..."the oligarchs own the politicians who run the system which is screwing us" - check..."we have no voice in this system which is run by the oligarchs who own the politicians who design and implement a system which is screwing us"...check again (tell me something I don't know - welcome to life, I am thinking at this point)...then..."so we need government to have more power over society so we can stop getting screwed over"...wha-a-a-t??? Your solution to a problem caused by politicians screwing you over for the benefit of their true clients (the oligarchs who fund their campaigns and control the media brainwashing the people into thinking their "solutions" will solve their problems) is to give EVEN MORE power to the system??? What's THAT all about???

It seems to me this is the convoluted thinking of people who have never been cured of the terrible two's. "I am owed success (after all, I got trophies throughout my little league t-ball/soccer/whatever "career" although I never scored a goal and my team didnt win a championship - hell, we werent allowed to keep score!)". "When I threw a tantrum (likely seeking the attention my overwrought, overworked single mother could not provide) I was given a magical fix of ritalin/adderall/whatever instead of a good old fashioned ass-whooping". "I am addicted to video games, which provide instant gratification in the form of moving to that higher level, too often in the form of the same type of first-shooter game which the military uses to train killers". "I have been conditioned through a lifetime of watching death, murder and mayhem to observe people being killed in the most horrendous ways, then getting up and getting myself a snack".

Both Lanza and Holmes, I have read, wanted to join the Marines, but the mothers refused to allow it because they didnt think they could handle it. Now, this is likely the case, but as the child of a single mother who went to boot camp as a 17-year-old over my mothers objections, I think, "Lanza was a 20 year-old living in his mothers proverbial basement - mothers "objections" be damned, if you think joining the Marines will provide you the real life challenge you so obviously needed, what is preventing you from heading off to Parris Island, son???"

So, I know this is a terrible over-simplification of a terribly complex societal problem. I know that all children of single mothers who have grown up getting "participation trophies", having their sense of morality dulled by the viewing of endless murders and being conditioned to kill by the same video games we use to dull the senses and heighten the capabilities of soldiers being sent to kill are NOT going to wind up gunning down innocent theater-goers or mere babies in a kindergarten classroom.

But putting that child to bed at a reasonable time and ending the terrible two's at the age of two rather than seeing them act out a "terrible-two tantrum" with a gun in their hands and innocent children in their sights might be a start.

Or maybe I am just a "kids these days" old codger.

Ice, dead batteries and the racism of progressives

Had our first big ice/snow event so I am making the changeover from my summer truck (2wd Silverado) to my winter truck (4wd Dodge Ram). Neither of the batteries are too hot so I am charging this battery and jumping that battery and realized I am the stereotypical redneck whose most important pieces of essential gear are jumper cables and a battery charger. Which led me to consider the inherent racism in the fact that it is okay to mock hillbilly redneck "red staters" clinging to their guns, their Bible, and of course, to their jumper cables and battery chargers. All the stereotypes have to do with the fact that we are poor, essentially. We have multiple cars in our driveways/yards because we can never seem to find the extra couple hundred bucks to replace that starter/alternator/master cylinder. If we did, we would probably be driving with no plates or insurance for the same reason. Now if I were black or Mexican I would have the same issues for the same reasons - lack of funds. But if you comment on the guy in the ghetto or the barrio who carries jumper cables for his own vehicle you are a racist - but not the trailer trash guy. Why is this? I maintain that it is because if you are white and you have these issues, it is your own fault...but if you are black or latino, it is not your fault...consider the racism here... One of our own race is an embarrassment, but a minority needs affirmative action and income redistribution, etc. So...why are the progressives so racist, I wonder???

Considering the Amish “Communitarians”

Anyone who knows me knows I am fascinated by the Amish. Not their religion, particularly, although the authoritarian form of their religion may be a necessity for the success of their economic system, which is what really interests me. They have a system of private ownership of property, in which one's hard work will result in a benefit for your own prosperity and to pass on to future generations. But they also work in a cooperative fashion in order to gain the benefits of scale, yet eliminating the siphoning off of their labor in payroll and income taxes. They pay their taxes on the profits of their labor, but in addition to foregoing income and the resultant tax by helping their neighbor they forego (after fighting for the right to the Supreme Court on religious grounds) the government social welfare system and neither pay into nor receive social security and medicare taxes/benefits. I have read studies on this "share labor system" of the Amish and it is considered their primary economic benefit over the "English" way, as we are known to the "Simple Folk".

In addition to these advantages, there is considerable peer pressure to trade within the Amish community and to always produce a surplus, individually and as a community, both by their hard work, but in their frugal, sustainable, self-reliant ways. They cooperate voluntarily to solve issues seemingly insolvable in 'English' society, such as medical care costs. Pretty much all the Amish wish for is to be left alone. Which makes me a fellow traveler with the Amish.

I wonder if their principles are transferable to rural 'English' communities which are, as my friend Greg Maize recently described it, "living amidst the ruins of a dead civilization", which is an apt description. But I wonder if that is a necessary situation and I look to the Amish as inspiration. If a community, such as any small town in this part of Missouri, or any of an untold number of similar communities around the country, were to form a cooperative – a corporation of some sort, in which to create a market for their own goods and services. They have the cash flow, in the form of the government payments that are now the lifeblood of economic activity in our rural communities, which is a sad state of affairs. So, if the building of wealth is a matter of producing more than one (or a community) consumes, then obviously a poor community has a production problem, as they are likely not consuming that much in the first place. Poverty seems to have a way of limiting over-consumption, funnily enough.

Your issue then is likely a lack of capital and a lack of a large enough market within your community, which makes either bringing money into the community or exporting from the community to the larger market a necessity. I don't think these are insurmountable issues, but the solution will be a bit different for each community, given that communities particular assets. For instance, the community I live in might focus on producing natural, organic food for export to communities in St Louis which focus on processing and shipping our products to the larger market of grocery chains. Both communities have the tools for the job, the market exists and I see no reason a community could not exploit their natural advantages in a way to be communities which produce more than we consume, meaning thriving communities building wealth rather than communities living on the fragile life support system of printing counterfeit currencies living amidst the ruins of a failed civilization.

This is the conversation I wish to have as my part of the 'national conversation' and what I wish to discuss here on this blog and in a forthcoming website which is under development. I think that my community has the tools to lead the way out of the national morass allowing the nation's "elites" to drive the ship has brought us to. I think a philosophy of 'Communitarianism' can unite a divided country and build a sustainable economic system. I also don't think it will be embraced by (and possibly not tolerated by) the status quo, but I do think that if people will work together at the grassroots, community level, we can slowly change the national landscape. And by thinking "my community can lead the way", that does not mean I believe my community is unique in that quality. I believe that any community that could follow very simple principles of consumption and production can eventually find a new way that will insulate it from the failure of the greater system, but can evolve into a new system of interconnected, thriving communities which define a thriving nation. I don't have all the answers for a nation, but I believe I can work in my community to make it a better place and if that is happening around the nation – we'll pull through this situation the "elites" have put us in.