From: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com (roc-digest) To: roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: roc-digest V2 #276 Reply-To: roc-digest Sender: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-roc-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk roc-digest Tuesday, August 31 1999 Volume 02 : Number 276 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 28 Aug 99 20:32:40 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #149 (2/2) (fwd) On Aug 28, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] David Horowitz is quite correct. The left are cowards when aggressively confronted with the truth -- the rule of law, which is the Constitution as written. And, from our position, the study is easy. The Constitution and a book titled The Federalist Papers are all that is necessary to study. That knowledge, and a little healthy aggression, will ruin a socialist's day in any public debate. Keep them on the defensive, and don't let up. They'll bury themselves while trying to "explain." That's what they have been doing to us. It's time we turn the tables. ULTRA-LIBERAL DISSES UHUH.COM Sometimes one of the ultra-liberals does things that are on the one hand hateful but on the other hand just so positively ridiculous that you laugh so hard you think your chair will need a seat belt to keep you from hitting the floor. But, this time their idiocy got a bit personal and requires a little clarification lest good people start wondering. A while ago, Ohio State University gave a Ph.D. to a guy named Mark Pitcavage, also known on the Internet as "Sparky." Apparently, Sparky received his doctorate in American history with directed studies on the Civil War. Not a very useful degree. So, Sparky wandered a bit far afield of his studies and took it upon himself to surreptitiously keep records on the Militia and Patriot community. Later, his interest branched out to what he now calls the "patriot movement," which includes militias, common law courts, sovereign citizens, tax protesters and white supremacists. Now, comes the problem: Listed on his web page with these groups is the site uhuh.com, which is owned and operated by Forest Glen Durland. Copies of past "Heads Up" newsletters and supporting documents (laws, executive orders, etc.) are also posted on the uhuh.com site, so it is difficult to tell exactly which of us Sparky feels is the prime offender. Forest, as it happens, is a career teacher who still teaches at 71 years of age. He also happens to be an accomplished musician and an author. And, while Forest is not now nor ever has been a political activist of any sort, he does have an avid interest in money and the economy and has published books on the subject. So, we fail to see how either of us would fit as militias, common law courts, sovereign citizens, tax protesters or white supremacists. Sparky, on the other hand, apparently sees us as a threat to the ultra-liberalism and its inherent authoritarianism he so desires. Some could call us "Patriots" as we both served in the Army honorably and still respect our Constitution. One could not call us "Militia," however, because we are both a little too old in the legal sense of the word and certainly a bit over the hill for a "Citizens Militia" group. Nor are either of us tax protesters -- no more than anyone else on April 15, anyway. And, most certainly we are not "white supremacists" in any sense of the word. Therefore, as is very common with those on the far left who tend to take themselves way too seriously, young "Sparky," Mark Pitcavage, Ph.D., is exactly wrong. Worse yet, for someone educated, who presents himself to have a special expertise in this area, he should be able to define specific groups well enough to distinguish my (or Forest's) writing from that of his groups of interest. Apparently, though, Sparky has not yet perfected that ability and, Ph.D. notwithstanding, still needs a lot of coaching. Does Heads Up appeal to the average member of the Patriot and Militia community? I certainly hope so! But, so too does it appeal to many in the legislative community, the police community, the teaching community, the business community, the medical community, and the legal community. Even the media community and the union community show interest. After all, these "communities" are citizens, as we are. All have a say in the way this country is operated, as we do. And all want freedom for self, family, community, state and nation. If those on the far left want something else, perhaps they should make that public. Because, just calling names gets really boring very fast. And, some of the groups "Sparky" lumped in with skinheads and such are actually working for a type of freedom which will greatly benefit all Americans equally. We shall request that uhuh.com be deleted from the offending web page. Not necessarily because I really give a damn, but just because some unknowing reader might stumble on that web page and not completely understand that it is an ultra-liberal source. Meanwhile, for those wishing to explore and/or comment, the Militia Watchdog page can be found at: http://www.militia-watchdog.org/m1.htm#white See if anyone else you know is "dissed" by the far left. The e-mail addresses are: Bonnie Bergey asstsysop@militia-watchdog.org mark.pitcavage@worldnet.att.net sparky@militia-watchdog.org MAKING THINGS EASY FOR BIG BROTHER By: David Feustel dfeustel@mindspring.com Below is an agreement to Submit to Terms of Presidential Executive Orders and Waiver of All Constitutionally Protected and Common Law Rights: President Clinton has signed a number of Executive Orders which give sweeping (i.e. complete and unlimited) powers to FEMA during a declared state of national emergency. The U.S. Constitution, which explicitly defines the powers assigned to the Federal Government by the people of the United States, does not even mention, much less delegate these powers to any branch of Federal or State Government. Which means, the provisions of these FEMA-related Executive Orders are clearly unconstitutional in their nature and scope. Therefore, to legitimize the use of these powers during a declared national emergency, you are requested to fill out this form (initializing each statement to indicate your agreement with that statement) and return it to your Congressional Representative in order to explicitly give your assent to the application of those Executive Orders to you, your family and your property, as necessary, during a state of declared national emergency such as may occur during Y2k. - ----------------------------- Dear Representative __________________ I, _______________, have read the Presidential Executive Orders signed by Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush and Clinton relating to the emergency powers to be given to FEMA during a declared state of national emergency, and I agree to the following: I agree to being subject to the terms of a Master Search Warrant which permits FEMA agents to search my house and all my possessions and to confiscate without compensation any and all items I possess which are identified on the Master Search Warrant as items to be confiscated. I agree to being subject to arbitrary arrest and detention on the basis of a Master Arrest Warrant which has my name included in a list of names of people to be arrested and detained with absolutely no probable cause other than that the Attorney General, the President of the United States, or some other government official deems me to be a potential threat during a possible period of civil disorder. I agree that I may be transported by FEMA agents to a civilian concentration camp of FEMA's choice where I will be detained for an indefinite period at FEMA's discretion without recourse to any judicial relief. I agree that members of my family may also be arrested and sent to detention camps of FEMA's choosing, and not necessarily the same camp that I am sent to. I agree that FEMA may, with or without arresting me, confiscate my house, my car, truck or any other vehicles I own, and any or all of my personal property, and all food/ water/clothing/medical supplies/fuel stocks and or anything else I own or possess, to be used by FEMA as FEMA sees fit. I aggree that FEMA has the right to use me as slave labor at whatever task FEMA decides to have me perform at whatever location and for as long as FEMA deems necessary. I agree that FEMA has the right, at its discretion, to euthanize me and or any members of my family immediately or later or not at all in the event of a national emergency. Finally, I agree that I and or any surviving members of my family will have no legal recourse to any compensation for any damages or losses whatsoever that I and or my family may suffer as a result of actions taken by FEMA with respect to me, my family, my property, my life, or the lives of my family, during any declared state of national emergency. (Signed) _________________________ on ___________ 1999 _______________________ on ___________ 1999 ~ End ~ [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Aug 99 20:34:04 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Heads Up #149 (1/2) (fwd) On Aug 28, Doug Fiedor wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Heads Up A Weekly View from the Foothills of Appalachia August 29, 1999 #149 by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net - --------------------------------------------------------------------- Previous Editions at: http://www.uhuh.com/reports/headsup/list-hu.htm - --------------------------------------------------------------------- THE WAR IS A SCAM Many thousands of people were shot and killed in the first domestic war. And, as usual, many other people prospered from it. The big losers were the American people. The working folks. Now, years later, here's the federal government saying we are in yet another domestic war. Same kind of war. Same unworkable rules. And, again, thousands of American people are dying and the big losers are the uninvolved American people. Besides the deaths, both wars saw many thousands of Americans imprisoned. Both wars also saw the controlling elite of the country remain generally immune from arrest or prosecution. That is, during the war on alcohol, prohibition, most in Congress shared their drinks freely and it was well known that President Warren G. Harding poured freely in the White House for his poker friends. Things aren't much different today in that respect. Many members of Congress have used illegal drugs. Some still do. So too have many in the White House used illegal drugs, and rumor has it that a lot of them still are. Al Gore used illegal drugs. And it wasn't too long ago that one of his children was tossed out of a private school after getting caught using illegal drugs. "He's got a nose like a Hoover," Roger Clinton said of his brother Bill. Everyone in Washington is still calling for that war, though. Because, the war on drugs is big business for government. It allows officials to search people nearly at will, and then steal whatever money or goods a government agency can use or sell for profit. It allows our personal transactions to be recorded by government without the need of a warrant, as required by the Fourth Amendment. All kinds of "population control" schemes have been concocted in the name of the war on drugs, and this unconstitutional oppression increases steadily with each session of Congress. Today, everyone is somehow affected. Even great-grandmothers who have never even seen an illegal drug in their life are closely scrutinized by government agents through banking, IRS and medical records laws. No one is immune except the controlling elite. Money laundering is illegal, but the really big drug kingpins, and groups like the Russian Mafia, run billions in illegal drug profits through our banks annually. We note, also, that the communist Chinese had no problem laundering a few million dollars for use in buying political favors in Washington. One prime money launderer, a Lt. Col. in the Chinese Army and the daughter of Red China's highest ranking general at the time, walked right into a fund raiser and talked with Bill Clinton. And, of course, the Democrats took her communist money. Now the White House hypocrites and their minions in Congress are going after Bush Junior. Thomas Daschle (D-SD), a prime obstructer of the Clinton Senate impeachment trial, told CNN that the drug questions about Bush were legitimate but that Bush need not be compelled to provide answers. "I do think that the American people ought to hear a lot more about his past and about his positions," Daschle said. "They haven't heard much yet." But, thanks to Daschle, we still have a lying, obstructing, sex offender who caters to the communists in the White House. Someone should ask the Daschles in Congress, and all Washington reporters, how often they use(d) illegal drugs, what they used and when the last time was. In fact, let's sit Cokie Roberts down with Al Gore (they know each other very well) and ask them both that question. Inquiring minds want to know how the Washington insiders get away with it. Gov. Frank Keating (R-OK), a strong Bush supporter, said, "I don't care what somebody did in college as long as he didn't kill somebody." What a hypocrite! Keating was a cop about the time Junior was doing lines. And, if Junior's name was not Bush, Keating would have busted him in a heartbeat. In fact, the police and prosecutors are rather hard on drug users in Texas, as well as in Oklahoma. That presents a significant problem with the Bush candidacy. Elitism personified, it's called. We are no fan of street drug usage on this end -- never touched them. But it's easy to see that this so called war on drugs is lost. Like prohibition, there was never a chance of the government winning. Most any teenager in the country can get just about any illegal drug they want much easier than they can get beer or even cigarettes. Which means, if there is a war, it is fought by incompetents. Either that, or so many American people want the stuff -- including government officials -- that it will never, ever be eradicated. Cocaine and heroin are smuggled into this country by the ton. And, as quality and quantity increased over the years, the price has dropped. Consequently illegal drugs are readily available in every city and town in the country. The war on drugs has been a total failure. For all of the above reasons, we agree with Gov. Gary Johnson (R-NM) that the drug war is "a miserable failure" and that currently illegal drugs should be de-criminalized or legalized. POLITICAL AGGRESSION WORKS We don't usually do book reviews here, but there are exceptions. For instance, when a text is available that is both directly applicable and helpful to Americans who wish to support and defend their Constitution, we think everyone should know about it. Such is the significance of "The Art of Political War: How Republicans Can Fight To Win," by David Horowitz. Part of the book can be found on the Internet at http://www.noleft.com/apw/art1.htm and is well worth reading. Immediately interesting were what Horowitz calls "The Six Principles of political Warfare" that he says the left understands but conservatives do not. Below are snippets from each of those six points. 1. Politics is war conducted by other means: In political warfare, you do not fight just to prevail in an argument, but to destroy the enemy's fighting ability. Republicans often seem to regard political combats as they would debates before the Oxford Political Union, as though winning depends on rational arguments and carefully articulated principles. But the audience of politics is not made up of Oxford dons, and the rules are entirely different. 2. Politics is a war of position: In war, there are two sides: friends and enemies. Your task is to define yourself as the friend of as large a constituency compatible with your principles as possible, while defining your opponent as their enemy wherever and whenever you can. The act of defining combatants is analogous to the military concept of choosing the terrain of battle. Choose the ground that makes the fight as rigged in your favor as possible. 3. In political warfare, the aggressor usually prevails: Republicans often pursue a conservative strategy of waiting for the other side to attack. In football, this is known as a "prevent defense." In politics, it is the strategy of losers. 4. Position is defined by fear and hope: The twin emotions of politics are fear and hope. Those who provide people with hope become their friends; those who inspire fear become enemies. Of the two, hope is the better choice. By offering people hope and yourself as its provider, you show your better side and maximize your potential support. 5. The weapons of political war are symbols that evoke hope and fear: The most important symbol is the candidate himself (or herself). Does the candidate in his (or her) own person inspire fear or hope? Voters want to know: Is the candidate someone who cares about people like me? Do I feel good about them, or do they put me on guard? Would I want to sit next to them at dinner? 6. Victory lies on the side of the people: This is the bottom line for each of the principles, and for all of the principles. You must define yourself in ways that the people understand. You must give people hope in your victory, and make them fear the victory of your opponent. You can accomplish both by identifying yourself and your issues with the underdog and the victim, with minorities and the disadvantaged, with the ordinary Joes and Janes. Much of this puts us in the "spin" business, of course. But, if we are to justify our Constitutional position publicly, and the position of the candidates we plan to support, it is time that we become at least as aggressive as the far left socialists. In fact, it is very necessary that we become aggressive in the delivery of our message. After all, we are fighting for the freedom of our children and grandchildren and those liberals on the left and ultra-far- left include nearly 90% of the Washington media. Therefore, aggression in support of freedom is appropriate. My opening statement in a debate with any socialist is simple: "If you do not honor our Constitutional form of government as it was intended by the Founding Fathers, why in the world do you stay here?" After they babble on for a while trying to repair the damage insinuated by that and dig themselves into a deeper hole by repeating the left's mantra about a "living Constitution," they get hit again. "The Constitution is a contract between the people, the States and the federal government. May I enter into such a living contract with you where I later get to unilaterally make changes to suit myself?" Or, as Professor Walter Williams likes to say, "How would you like to play poker with living rules?" [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Aug 99 21:15:25 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Mind-Altering Psychiatric Drug Control, NOT gun control! (fwd) On Aug 28, boyd@seanet.com wrote: >Any more I just assume these are originated by scientologists (sue me). I dont' know, are you rich enough to be worth suing? :-) - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 1999 12:10:43 -0400 From: "Chad Leigh, Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC" Subject: Re: Mind-Altering Psychiatric Drug Control, NOT gun control! (fwd) I agree with Boyd about personal responsibility. But we must remember that not all people who take psychiatric drugs choose to mix them with alcohol etc., Some are prescribed these things and honestly take them thinking they are doing what the doctor ordered for their on good and they have adverse effects from them, including being prone to violence. That is a different matter. Taking cocaine or alcoholo or somthing you know can be bad and then acting out under the influence is an example of personal responsibility for your actions even under the influence. Taking a doctor prescribed drug think that it will help you and then doing something bad under the influence -- the doctor is at fault more than the person. The person did not have any informationon what,why, etc was bad and was following the "experts" advice. More needs to be done to research these effects etc. Chad Pengar Enterprises, Inc. and Shire.Net LLC Web and Macintosh Consulting -- full service web hosting Chad Leigh chad@pengar.com chad@shire.net - - ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Aug 99 21:16:39 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: The 1st Attrocity Monger? Well, well, according to Drudge, the Waco paper trail may lead right through Hillary Clinton's Office. So much for those evil, Anti-Feminist, Children Haters.....:-/ - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 10:56:47 -0400 (EDT) From: John Curtis Subject: Re: Mind-Altering Psychiatric Drug Control, NOT gun control! (fwd) > >Taking away your firearms and taking psychiatric drugs BOTH accomplish the >same thing. They both render a person less able to cause, less dangerous to >the environment (AND less dangerous to un-ethical politicians and corrupt >governments), and more susceptible to the "social control" the political >elitist so dearly loves. The motivation of those who advocate gun control >and getting people on psychiatric drugs is the same, namely, fear. Fear >that they will be found out. And for what? For crimes perhaps, but >certainly found out for less than ethical actions they committed and >justified in achieving their coveted position. > This is a very shallow take on a complex question. I believe that the proper response to this by RKBA activists is to point out that lack of personal control and mental illness are the salient points and mental health professionals perscribing these drugs need to exercise more oversight and caution. The vast majority of people receiving these drugs do not commit violent acts of mass murder, and are, in fact, helped by them. I know people who have been helped through very rough patches of their lives by the new serotonin uptake inhibitors. Rolling the clock back on pharmacology is not going to help RKBA. I think that pointing out the use of these medications by some of the mass murderers is useful in that it focuses attention on the perpetrators and away from the objects. ciao, jcurtis - - ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 30 Aug 99 22:18:34 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: Re: Mind-Altering Psychiatric Drug Control, NOT gun control! (fwd) On Aug 30, John Curtis wrote: >>Taking away your firearms and taking psychiatric drugs BOTH accomplish the >>same thing. They both render a person less able to cause, less dangerous to >>the environment (AND less dangerous to un-ethical politicians and corrupt >>governments), and more susceptible to the "social control" the political >>elitist so dearly loves. The motivation of those who advocate gun control >>and getting people on psychiatric drugs is the same, namely, fear. Fear >>that they will be found out. And for what? For crimes perhaps, but >>certainly found out for less than ethical actions they committed and >>justified in achieving their coveted position. >> > > This is a very shallow take on a complex question. > > I believe that the proper response to this by RKBA activists > is to point out that lack of personal control and mental > illness are the salient points and mental health professionals > perscribing these drugs need to exercise more oversight and > caution. > > The vast majority of people receiving these drugs do not > commit violent acts of mass murder, and are, in fact, helped > by them. > > I know people who have been helped through very rough patches of > their lives by the new serotonin uptake inhibitors. Rolling > the clock back on pharmacology is not going to help RKBA. > > I think that pointing out the use of these medications by some > of the mass murderers is useful in that it focuses attention on > the perpetrators and away from the objects. > > ciao, > > jcurtis True enough, though part of the problem is a Government and a Pharmceutical Industry that have no compunctions about experimenting on the populace, or the Military. - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 31 Aug 99 12:21:43 PST From: roc@xpresso.seaslug.org (Bill Vance) Subject: FWD: Toward the Total State (fwd) On Aug 30, Don Cline wrote: [-------------------- text of forwarded message follows --------------------] Goodyear, Arizona (near Phoenix) Forwarded from another list: And it _is_ topical, as will be seen. >Sunday, August 29, 1999 > >Vol. 15, No. 14 >July 5, 1999 > > >Toward the Total State >by William Norman Grigg > >Has the left won America's culture war? Some observers, including political >organizer Paul Weyrich (who coined the term "moral majority"), appear to >think so. For many Americans who cherish our nation's traditions of >individual freedom, limited government, and personal moral responsibility, >the Clinton impeachment melodrama abounded in evidence that America has >undergone a dramatic transformation. > >If one were to credit the ubiquitous opinion polls and the outpourings of >the "mainstream" media, the American people were nearly unanimous in their >support for President Clinton, despite his ongoing personal depravity and >his willingness to abuse both the powers of his office and the institutions >of our judicial system in order to retain his position as the nation's >chief executive. The only holdouts were to be found among the "religious >right," >which, according to the custodians of "respectable" opinion, is a >marginalized group unworthy of political influence. > >While the outcome of impeachment was largely a product of the gangland >tactics (including blackmail and character assassination) employed by the >Clinton Administration against its opponents, as well as the institutional >cowardice of the Senate, there is no doubt that America's culture has >undergone a dramatic transformation =97 a transformation engineered by the >radical left. Writing in the Winter 1996 issue of the Marxist journal >Dissent, Michael Walzer enumerated some of the cultural victories won by >the left since the 1960s: > > "The visible impact of feminism." > > "The effects of affirmative action." > > "The emergence of gay rights politics, and =85 the attention paid to it > in the media." > > "The acceptance of cultural pluralism." > > "The transformation of family life," including "rising divorce rates, > changing sexual mores, new household arrangements =97 and, again, the > portrayal of all this in the media." > > "The progress of secularization; the fading of religion in general and > Christianity in particular from the public sphere classrooms, textbooks, > legal codes, holidays, and so on." > > "The virtual abolition of capital punishment." > > "The legalization of abortion." > > "The first successes in the effort to regulate and limit the private > ownership of guns." > >Significantly, Walzer admitted that these victories were imposed upon our >society by "liberal elites," rather than being driven "by the pressure of a >mass movement or a majoritarian party." These changes "reflect the leftism >or liberalism of lawyers, judges, federal bureaucrats, professors, school >teachers, social workers, journalists, television and screen writers not >the population at large," noted Walzer. Rather than building "stable or >lasting movements or creat[ing] coherent constituencies," the left focused >on "winning the Gramscian war of position." > >While most Americans would be mystified by Walzer's reference to Italian >Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci, those who wish to understand the >ongoing culture war must first have some understanding of the Gramscian >concept of the "long march through the institutions." The process described >by Walzer, in which the cultural and bureaucratic organs of our society >have fallen under the influence of "progressive" forces devoted to >transforming our nation, is derived directly from Gramsci's blueprint for >Marxist subversion. Gramsci's distinctive insight, as we will shortly see, >was that the construction of the total state requires the seizure of the >"mediating institutions" that insulate the individual from the power of the >government =97 the family, organized religion, and so forth =97 and a >systematic redefinition of the culture in order to sustain the new >political order. > >That process is well underway in our nation =97 and if it is consummated, >Americans will learn that the culture war is a deadly serious effort to >destroy the institutions and traditions that have protected Americans from >the horrors of the total state. > > >"The scientific concept of dictatorship," wrote Soviet dictator Vladimir >Lenin, "means nothing else but this: power without limit, resting directly >upon force, restrained by no laws, absolutely unrestricted by rules." >Benito Mussolini's totalitarian formula was even more concise: "Everything >within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." >Whatever its specific configuration or ideological pretext, the total >state always requires that all human activities be made subject to its >power. But to exercise that power, the total state relies, to a remarkable >extent, on the cooperation of its victims. > >No matter how vast the instrumentality of coercion or how vicious the >intentions of the ruling elite, the masters of the total state are always >dramatically outnumbered by their victims. No army of occupation is large >enough to exercise total control over a tyrannized population; no secret >police is capable of exercising incessant and all-encompassing >surveillance. The triumph of the total state is made possible by the >conquest of the human mind. "We are not content with negative obedience, >nor even with the most abject submission," explained O'Brien, an agent of >Big Brother's "Ministry of Love" in George Orwell's 1984. "When finally >you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy >the heretic because he resists us.... We convert him, we capture his inner >mind, we reshape him." > >"Death by Government" > >Of course, wholesale murder is very much a part of the totalitarian >experience, as a way to dispose of those who prove unsuitable for >"conversion." Lenin's "scientific concept of dictatorship," when put into >practice by criminals in positions of political power, has led to >unimaginable horror. In the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia, >Vietnam, and elsewhere, the unchecked power of the state "has been truly a >cold-blooded mass murderer, a global plague of man's own making," writes >Professor R.J. Rummel in his study Death by Government. > >During the first nine decades of the 20th century, writes Rummel, "almost >170 million men, women, and children" have been destroyed through the >"myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens >and foreigners. The dead could conceivably be nearly 360 million people." >In a particularly sobering observation, Rummel points out that while >"library stacks have been written on the possible nature and consequences >of nuclear war and how it might be avoided, in the life of some still >living we have already experienced in the toll from democide (and related >destruction and misery among the survivors) the equivalent of a nuclear >war, especially atthe high near-360 million end of the estimates." > >America has been spared such horrors because it is uniquely blessed among >all nations with a tradition of ordered liberty and limited government. >Our nation's founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the >Constitution, embrace a concept of government diametrically opposed to the >Leninist "scientific concept of dictatorship": the rule of law, >administered by a government that is itself subject to the law, deriving >"its just powers from the consent of the governed," and created for the >exclusive purpose of protecting the lives, rights, and property of the >law-abiding. > >But these institutional safeguards of liberty and the rule of law are >dependent on a culture conducive to freedom. In a self-governing society, >public morality and private morality cannot be compartmentalized; people >who have abandoned what George Washington referred to as the "eternal >rules of order and right" will be incapable of exercising the >self-discipline necessary to maintain a free government. In his Farewell >Address, Washington advised that there is "no truth more thoroughly >established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an >indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and >advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy >and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity." When such habits >of virtue are cultivated and preserved, society can enjoy the blessings of >limited government one that will, in Jefferson's words, "restrain men from >injuring one another, [and which] shall leave them otherwise free to >regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not >take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." > >Quiet Revolution > >In principle, and to a limited extent in practice, Bill Clinton and his >Administration have embraced Lenin's "scientific concept of dictatorship." >Consider, for example, the fact that Mr. Clinton has brazenly and >repeatedly ignored Congress' constitutional authority to declare war most >notably in the undeclared Kosovo War, which Mr. Clinton has conducted in >defiance of apointed refusal on the part of the House of Representatives >to declare war against Yugoslavia. In domestic affairs, Mr. Clinton has >made good on his stated intention to bypass Congress entirely, ruling >instead by executive decree. Former Clinton Administration lackey Paul >Begala memorably summarized Mr. Clinton's ruling doctrine in these terms: >"Stroke of the pen, law of the land, kinda cool." > >Just as disturbing is the fact that much of the Senate, and a significant >portion of the House of Representatives, have embraced a complementary >concept taught by Adolf Hitler: fuhrerprinzip, or the "leader principle." >Under that doctrine, an autocratic executive claims access to the >"collective will of the people," exercises power that is "independent, >all-inclusive, and unlimited," and considers himself responsible "only to >his conscience." Thus, the legislature exists merely to rubber-stamp the >decisions of the imperial leader. > >Obviously, America was not conquered by the Soviet Union or by National >Socialist (Nazi) Germany. The institutions of our federal system of >government still exist, albeit in a somewhat distorted form. Elections >still occur at regular intervals, and citizens can still exercise their >right to petition their elected representatives and express their >political opinions in the public square. Nonetheless, the chief tenets of >the most murderous dictatorships in history are now the operative >principles of our national government. How did this dire situation come >about? How can it be reversed? > >America has undergone what historian Garet Garrett described as a >"revolution within the form." Although the "forms of republican government >survive," wrote Garrett, "the character of the state has changed." To >illustrate how this was accomplished, Garrett quoted this observation from >Aristotle's Politics: "People do not easily change, but love their own >ancient customs; and it is by small degrees only that one thing takes the >place of another; so that the ancient laws will remain, while the power >will be in the hands of those who have brought about a revolution in the >state." >(Emphasis added.) > >Communist theoretician Antonio Gramsci urged those who sought to bring >about a "revolution in the state" to pursue the course described (although >not endorsed) by Aristotle: The steady, incremental subversion of free >societies by conducting a "long march through the institutions" that >define such societies. In some ways the Gramscian approach is kindred to >that pursued by Britain's Fabian socialists, who chose "patient >gradualism," rather than violent insurrection, as the most effective means >to collectivize society. > >Gramsci's distinctive insight was to urge Marxists to escape from the >shackles of economic theory and focus instead on society's cultural organs >the press and other media, education, entertainment, religion, and the >family. In order for revolutionaries to establish "political leadership or >hegemony," advised Gramsci, they "must not count solely on the power and >material force of government"; they must change the culture upon which that >government was built. > >Cultural commentator Richard Grenier recalls that during Gramsci's >incarceration in one of Mussolini's prisons, he "formulated in his Prison >Notebooks the doctrine that those who want to change society must change >man's consciousness, and that in order to accomplish this they must first >control the institutions by which that consciousness is formed: schools, >universities, churches, and, perhaps above all, art and the communications >industry. It is these institutions that shape and articulate public >opinion,' the limits of which few politicians can violate with impunity. >Culture, Gramsci felt, is not simply the superstructure of an economic >base, the role assigned to it in orthodox Marxism, but is central to >a society. His famous battle cry is: capture the culture." > >Gramsci recognized that the chief "fortresses and earthworks" impeding the >triumph of Marxism were precisely those institutions, customs, and habits >identified by Washington and the other Founding Fathers as indispensable to >ordered liberty =97 such as the family, private initiative, self-restraint, >and principled individualism. But Gramsci focused particularly on what >Washington described as the "indispensable supports" of free society >religion and morality. In order to bring about a revolution, Gramsci wrote, >"The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of >transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism." > >Layers of Strength > >At this juncture, a question naturally arises: If the conspiracy to >undermine our culture and constitutional system has enjoyed such success, >why aren't Americans living in abject, undisguised tyranny? If Lenin's >"scientific concept of dictatorship" and Hitler's fuhrerprinzip have been >accepted as ruling tenets by our apostate political elite, where are the >gulags and gas chambers? > >The answer to this question is quite simple: The institutions referred to >by Gramsci as "fortresses and earthworks" have not yet been completely >overcome by the forces of revolution. Yes, the American family is under >siege, but its resilience has proven to be formidable. Parents still seek >to instill habits of self-discipline, honesty, and genuine public service >in their children. Millions of Americans from all religious denominations >and traditions remain committed to living honorable lives defined by God's >law, and insist that their elected representatives, for the most part, pay >at least nominal homage to that standard as well. The American tradition of >individualism remains a vivid part of our national heritage. And despite >decades of mass indoctrination regarding the supposed glories of >collectivism, most Americans still cherish their individual rights and are >provoked to militancy when those rights are threatened. > >These admirable traits, the "fortresses and earthworks" Gramsci sought to >overcome, were celebrated by Robert Welch =97 a devoted champion of freedom >as "layers of strength" that should be fortified by conscientious >Americans. The reason the enemies of freedom must pursue Gramsci's >long-term subversive strategy rather than more overt measures is because >most Americans will not meekly submit to the will of their would-be >masters. > >Yes, our situation is grave. No, America does not enjoy any privileged >immunity to the horrors that have descended upon many other countries >during this century of rampant democide. In order to preserve our existing >freedoms, and to restore those that have been stolen from us, it is >necessary for Americans to understand the tactics, strategies, and >objectives of the Gramscian conspirators who are waging a culture war >against us. > > > > Copyright 1999 American Opinion Publishing Incorporated >http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/07-05-99/vo15no14_total.htm - -- Don Cline Homepage: http://www.mindspring.com/~frdmftr - --------------------------------------------- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms brought about The Parliamentary Revolution The Magna Carta The American Revolution The world's first and only nation of liberty. Without it you are naught but a feudal serf. EXERCISE your Right to Keep and Bear Arms or KNEEL BEFORE YOUR MASTER. - --------------------------------------------- RKBA! [------------------------- end of forwarded message ------------------------] - -- - ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- RKBA! ***** Blessings On Thee, Oh Israel! ***** RKBA! - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- An _EFFECTIVE_ | Insured | All matter is vibration. | Let he who hath no weapon in every | by COLT; | -- Max Plank | weapon sell his hand = Freedom | DIAL | In the beginning was the | garment and buy a on every side! | 1911-A1. | word. -- The Bible | sword.--Jesus Christ - ----------------+----------+--------------------------+--------------------- - - ------------------------------ End of roc-digest V2 #276 *************************