INFLAMMATORY LANGUAGE
It is the purpose and policy of the NAAAP Perspective, and Camden's Commentary, to be poignantly insightful, and often provocative, without engaging in inflammatory language and negative rhetoric. Often enough, however, we push the envelope of restraint with our undisguised distaste for many of the trends of national and global economic and political policy. We are often disparaging of the New World Order. At the same time we acknowledge that there is abundant good intent in many of its architects and proponents. In fact, we agree that there ought to be a new world order where universal peace, prosperity, and stability would be assured. But we feel, as a nation, we have been on the wrong track since the idea made its most modern appearance around the turn of the century. Since then, and particularly since World War II, errors have been compounded by successive administrations and Congresses.
One key point that throws the prospects of a just and viable new order totally out of the window, among other things, is adoption of the idea that the nation-state system is dead. If it is to be our national policy to undermine the nation-state system globally, it naturally follows that our public policy must also be to undermine our own national sovereignty, and render our own government incapable of serving the best interests of the people it is supposed to serve.
This abandonment of sanity has become national policy. Of course, it will ultimately render this nation incapable of exerting a truly positive influence in the shaping of a better world, deferring that role to the United Nations. But the United Nations, (or any other inept global bureaucracy) is inherently incapable of anything constructive except serving as an international forum for sometimes constructive dialog between nations. That ought to be the sole and limited role of the United Nations. As a vehicle for global governance, the UN can only deliver international paralysis and global chaos. That chaos would already be here if it were not for the singular influence of this nation-state. Yet our representatives push doggedly on toward an impossible dream, committing national suicide and thus undermining our influence in the process. We still carry a big stick, but when we speak, we babble in tongues.
It is the sole purpose of those representatives to represent the American people and no others. It is our house we must get into order before pretending to reshape the world in our image. Our image is far too flawed at present to serve as a model for any new order. We can literally hear the guffaws and laughs of derision coming from around the world at the very idea — as we acquiesce to the UN and relinquish our national sovereignty.
One of the greatest failures of our government representation has been its failure to devise a just national monetary system, conductive of economic stability and broad-based prosperity for all people. One that would adequately serve the people as well as capital, without the burden of perpetual debt as a cost of doing business. The fact that we must effectively "pay rent" on our own money supply insures that our current economic system cannot be sustained. Only perpetual growth could possibly sustain such as system, and perpetual growth is obviously impossible in a finite world. Even a rocket scientist could figure that out — but apparently economists and politicians can't.
Because of these outrages, among others, we sometimes stoop to the use of inflammatory language. Perhaps one of the most inflammatory bits of rhetoric we frequently articulate is our repeated references to "our mis-representatives in Washington." But for the record, we'd like to qualify our position and apologize to our many senators, congressmen, and other public servants, who are not "mis-representatives." Those who are, and who knowingly pursue destructive national policy ends, certainly know if the shoe fits. We don't apologize to them, but nor do we take our criticisms to personal or individual levels. More to our purpose, we write in rather broad generalities which, unfortunately, tend to indict the entire Congress, and whole successive administrations, including the good, the bad, and the ugly, over a period of decades. We look at history and continuing trends and see the "net accumulated results" our representatives have delivered over the years. The picture certainly isn't very pretty.
To put just one aspect of mis-representation in a nutshell, and reduce it to a round dollar figure, it looks something like $5 trillion dollars worth of "admitted" and visible national debt — a debt presently to the tune of almost $20,000.00 per man, woman, and child in the nation! Who can argue that this federal indebtedness is the result of abysmally poor representation over a matter of decades? Congress apparently dozed off in 1913 and seems to have snoozed ever since in spite of innumerable urgent wake-up calls. So, though we acknowledge and appreciate the good work and efforts of the many true representatives of the people, we cannot help but persist, with all due regrets, in referring to Congress and government in aggregate as mis-representatives of the peoples' interests. This mis-representation has become "self-evident" in many other areas of national life, social, economic, and political. There is nothing we would like better than to change our view and perception of our government and the job it is doing. But this won't happen as long as Congress continues to measure national well-being in terms of GDP and corporate profits rather than the overall well-being of the people they are sworn to represent. Nor can it happen as long as successive administrations and congresses continue to whittle away at the Constitution and Bill of Rights, (always under the guise of "the greater public good") rendering them little more than ineffectual symbols of our founding fathers' good intentions.
CC
Is the NEW ORDER really Carved in Stone?
I have often wondered at, and commented on, the strange bed-fellows comprising the international movement toward an integrated world economy. I've also mentioned that cracks in the structure were evident, bound to widen, and that the whole edifice, as currently envisioned, is bound to come crumbling down in the tradition of the biblical Tower of Babel. (Which the New World Order closely resembles, in my humble opinion.) The biggest incongruity of the one world movement has been most evident in the unlikely coalition made up of academic leftists, environmentalists, and international capital. This seemed an unlikely mix, but not as unlikely as appearances might suggest, when the history and genesis of one worldism are more fully scrutinized and comprehended. However, things may be changing.
There was a time, not so long ago, when the modern NWO vision was a decidedly leftist one. In those days, as the left coalesced toward the goal of international cooperation, with a vision of a socialized global utopia, the threat of international communism was the primary focus of most conspiracy theorists. Communism was the hidden ideology behind the ideal of the one world government movement, and it grew domestically principally from within so-called "progressive" circles in our own nation's liberal and academic establishments as well as government itself. Only "conspiracy nuts" fully appreciated the threat of the "enemy within," while the government's official policy of containment of communism elsewhere in the world diverted public attention and concern toward distant "external" threats. But with the failure of international communism to even fulfill a modicum of its promise, the high priests of internationalism were forced to look toward capitalism as the primary engine to be used to bring about the one world vision.
International capital had been a hidden hand behind the limited successes enjoyed by the Soviet Union and international communism from its inception. But communism was so fatally flawed as to prove absolutely unworkable in spite of the decades of protection it enjoyed from the west. So, a shift in the means of internationalism took place during the early years of the Cold War. Many people, including many conspiracy theorists, failed to grasp this. The goals of internationalists didn't change, but the driving forces shifted from dependence on the international communist movement to the much more effective means of using international capital to fulfill the "long-held promise of a New World Order." Of course, some on the left considered this shift toward capitalism a blatant betrayal. We have one notable example of the disaffected left in the bizarre case of the Unabomber. His Manifesto was a scathing attack directed against "the left" for betraying its ideals. Most leftists, however, remained loyal to the changed face of the internationalist movement, and joined with neo-conservatives of the "right" in furtherance of their goals through the agencies of a globalized "free-market" system — something that, while deceptive, continues to have wide public appeal.
Of course, conspiracy theorists have always focused on international capital in the form of "the international bankers," as a primary force behind the one-world movement, whether communist or otherwise. But many of them missed the significance of what happened beneath their very noses, totally changing the nature of the game of global politics. The turning point came early in the Cold War when Soviet Russia, our late staunch friend and ally, became the arch-enemy of the United States, and "democracy." Even as home-grown communists won a resounding victory in driving senator Joseph McCarthy from his high horse, anti-Communist public opinion made it impossible for communism to make serious inroads into American society as an ideological model for the new international order. Yet the United States was, of necessity, pivotal in the role of bringing about any such an order. It is one of the great ironies of history that the Cold War against communism, (the erstwhile great hope of globalists) totally changed the complexion of New World Order politics. An unintended, or very clever, bait and switch maneuver had taken place. While socialist policies continued to issue from Washington in a steady stream, the external (to the United States) ground-rules of the world order underwent a fundamental revision. One major milestone came when our State Department and CIA discovered the utility and effectiveness of using American multi-national corporations as foreign policy tools by which to influence geopolitics on a global scale. The global communist conspiracy soon became the global capitalist conspiracy, with the idea of the global hegemony of capital through "free trade" and a global economy. (Call it an international conspiracy only if you would call a bird that walks and quacks like a duck, a duck, and don't mind being considered a wacko — otherwise call it an unplanned, continually unfolding chain of coincidence, random events brought on by the tooth fairy.)
Of course, the hopes of the internationalists have been very high ever since. The shadowy world movers and shakers were certain they now held a winning hand. Because it had been proven, beyond a shadow of a lingering doubt, that capitalism works, the capitalist formula for a New World Order seemed like a certain shoe-in for success. One-world goals could be brought about simply through the internationalization of big capital. Once corporate capital became globalized, everything else would naturally fall into place. Since the international "money powers" ultimately control corporate finances and credit, (to nations as well as corporations) real power would remain in the hands of the relative few.
Even many staunch old-line Republican conservatives were taken in. (Reagan & Co., for example — even Pat Buchanan once believed in the benefits of free trade and "deregulation" of capital.) Naturally big business jumped on the one-world bandwagon as soon as the profit potential became clear. The resulting "coalition" was not made up of evil men. Most had good intentions mixed with an understandable desire for profits. Even the worst of the plutocrats can only be faulted for greed and short-sightedness in the guise of concern for the long-range good of mankind. Many felt, of course, that the global village would raise everybody's prospects for a better life. The global village idea appealed to Democrats and Republicans, liberals, and even some conservatives. It was felt that the goal could be almost painlessly achieved, and that the long-held utopian dream of world government would lead, if not to paradise on earth, at least the salvation of mankind and civilization.
A shift in political and ideological alignments and terminology had also taken place. In spite of "good intentions" deceptive public policy was central to one-world planning, and deceit was necessary to further the grand scheme. An "Orwellization" of the language occurred, throwing many well-intended people off-guard and into confusion and disarray. Many former leftists, socialists, and communists were converted to free-market economics. Many became what we call "neo-conservatives" today. The modern liberal and neo-conservative became closet allies and accomplices in the quest for their globalist ends. They worked the political spectrum from opposite ends toward their single goal. So-called conservative think-tanks gained equal respectability with liberal think-tanks. The difference between liberal and conservative seemed to be reduced to mere window-dressings concerned with the direction of narrow domestic policies addressing social problems. But they were peas in a pod with regard to the new internationalism. Of course, much confusion continues to reign due to this peculiar coalition and skewing of terminology. For a long time, older conservatives and some populists failed to recognize the nature of neo-conservatives, who seemed to champion limited government, capitalism, and free-market concepts — concepts traditionally supported by the nationalist right — accepting them as newly converted friends. They worked together for free trade and freeing up international markets on behalf of capitalism and "free-enterprise." The distinctions between true free enterprise and capitalism were intentionally and progressively blurred, and the larger public, as usual, was kept in a state of ignorance and confusion. The "planners" have been patting themselves on the back for the better part of two decades or more — the decades when success appeared both eminent and assured.
The greater public is easily led astray. Much like sheep, they can be counted upon to go along with the flock, and led to slaughter. In the belief that the shepherds know best, entire nations of people can be led astray. Many nations can be led astray at once. Most Americans believe that the emerging new world order is not a serious threat because "America is its ideological leader." But who is leading America? Clinton? Congress? Or is an international plutocracy leading an entire globe of nations astray at once using the United States as its principle Judas goat?
Idealistic liberals for a long time failed to realize that they had effectively climbed into bed with the devil, (wholesale exploiters of labor) their erstwhile nemesis — big predatory capital. The revolutionary principle that "the end justifies the means" functioned as well under the agenda of corporate collectivism as it had when communist collectivism, (and democratic socialism) had been the favored ideological machinery of change.
It also took the major environmentalist groups a while to discover that they had been working for globalism hand in hand with the very ravishers of the planet — and that in the end all power would accrue not to environmental and liberal idealists, (nor poets, artists, or philosophers) but to global corporate exploiters. All who were not actively working for the "common goal," of course, were vigorously lambasted with political labels ranging from extreme to extreme on both the right and left, with "right" (in all contexts of the word) coming in for more than its rightful share of negative press. Now most political labels are confused and practically meaningless, and the edifice of internationalism, both at home and abroad, is beginning to show some unexpected effects of severe strain. The assured success of global corporatism, is no longer all that certain. It is being exposed for what it really is, a new form of global corporate fascism, to give it a really wicked sounding name.
On May 11th, with precious little mention in the media, an international conference was held under the banner of the International Forum on Globalization which surprised many observers of such gatherings of the past. This coalition of liberals, leftists, environmentalists, and consumer advocates dropped several bombshells in the laps of New World Order proponents. Apparently there has been an awakening on the left that threatens the viability and future of the global corporate state. Bedfellows are falling out, and important bedfellows at that. The major speakers at the conference represented such groups as the Friends of the Earth, Green Peace, the Center for Technology Assessment, the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy, the Sierra Club, Public Citizen, and the Polaris Institute, as well as several others.
Were they blasting away at Pat Buchanan, conspiracy theorists, populists, and the "radical right-wing" in general? No, they are apparently finally coming to some of the same conclusions as the traditional opponents of globalism — though from opposite ideological directions. They were leveling their heavy guns at such entities as the Trilateral Commission, the World Trade Organization, International Monetary Fund, the World Bank, and the U.S. Federal Reserve, as "amoral enforcers of the world's worst exploiters." How's that for a refreshing change in the direction of political winds?
All of a sudden there is irrefutable evidence of abundant common ground between what has traditionally been the mutually exclusive ideological "right" and "left." In the absence of communism, both are becoming brothers in populist, and true "centrist" thought, at least to a significant and heretofore unrecognized degree. The common ground is a real concern for "people" as well as the environment and diverse human cultures. As a result of this common ground on one hand, and parting of the ways on the other, Pat Buchanan has been attacked from the neo-conservative right, as being a closet leftist, and anti-free enterprise, (such as in the "conservative" The Weekly Standard) while many on the left, as manifested by commentary at the conference, are taking a fresh look at Buchanan-style populism. The newly awakening left is beginning to recognize Clinton, as well as Dole, as instruments of global plutocrats, Wall Street, and global exploitation of people, resources, and the environment. They finally recognize that such free trade agreements as NAFTA and the WTO are actually threats to the global environment as well as to the well-being of labor. Not only in advanced countries, but also the increasingly exploited labor of poor Third World nations being exploited for the profit of greed capital, (but allegedly for the benefit of relatively well-heeled consumers in the richer nations, who are actually being disenfranchised as producers by the same processes).
This awakening of the left represents a major breach of New World Order armor and its organizational cohesion. The left is finally realizing that a new international order under the thumb of predatory capital interests would be more dangerous to the earth and its peoples than the old order ever thought of being. Third World labor is being requisitioned from local economic systems to sweat-shop labor for First World markets. Local economies are being destroyed in the process, and entire human cultures placed in jeopardy. The old order transformed the world through warfare and conquest by nation-states, and the new order would continue and enlarge the conquests of the past through corporate and monetary coercion, literally making the rapine and plunder of the planet and its peoples complete and irrevocable in the process. The new order, under the current corporate model, promises to disrupt or destroy all of the earth's diverse and unique ecological systems, and local economies, as well as the remaining diversity of human cultures.
The corporate capitalist answer to world problems is more dangerous than the communist answer simply because capitalism does work. It works through the natural channels of human self-interest and the profit motive. However, if capital is allowed to have its head, greed becomes it's primary motivating force, and greed is a categorically destructive force. But capitalism, as a natural extension of the concept of free-enterprise, can be very constructive and beneficial, as it has been in the past. If the welfare of the people, (particularly labor) and environmental responsibility, is forced upon it by enlightened government policy, it can be very positive. There is a subtle yet profound distinction between self-interest and greed. Self-interest can be constructive, but greed, being an inherently evil human attribute, cannot. It is the duty of the people, through their respective representative governments, to see that capitalist energy is channeled into constructive channels for the mutual benefit of mankind, and preservation of all that is dear and necessary to planetary well-being and human happiness. This can best be done through the traditional nation-state system, through sensible regulation of corporate capital and foreign trade. With the additional spirit of enlightened international cooperation, the "world order" could be channeled to truly positive directions through American leadership. But America must lead in the right direction rather than the direction we have taken.
As the world's only remaining super-power, still the largest industrial producer and consumer market, only the United States can effectively set the required international tone and agenda. The first step is in getting its own house into order. The United States could once again become the world's leading positive role model. No matter what direction the world order may take, the United States is pivotal. But this will only be the case as long as we regain and retain our own unique political philosophy and economic position among nations. We are now in the self-destructive process of national moral deterioration, and are passing the baton of power to trans-national corporations, making Wall Street the de facto seat of political and economic power. But other nation-states, such as China, are poised to grab the reins of global political, military, and economic power when the time is right. Would China make a better world leader than America? It doesn't appears so to me, but the role of world leadership will most certainly pass from the United States if we continue down our current path. Cyber-war capabilities and other defense technologies will not be enough to preserve our global position, for true power always ultimately resides in the people. That power can only be effectively channeled on an individual, local, or national scale. It cannot be internationally imposed. Tyranny can harness it only on a temporary basis. Just government, and individual freedom, (in a morally well-founded society) can unleash it for the accomplishment of unending good. Just government on a global scale is still a fuzzy and distant pipe-dream, and will be for the foreseeable future. It is ludicrous for us to continue to expend our national energy and capital in a futile attempt to bring it about, most especially using greed capital as a battering ram.
What makes the United States so uniquely suitable to the role of world leadership is it's foundation in the principles of freedom, justice, and limited government, and the national success those principles made possible. At the present time, our government is abusing its role as a world leader by abandoning its founding principles and its role as protector of its own political and economic sovereignty and it's own peoples. In fact, our nation, while purporting to lead the world, is, to an unseemly degree, following the dictates of the intellectual descendants of the very international power elite from which our forefathers declared independence in 1776. American independence spawned the enlightened philosophies and principles of government, (drawn, of course, from the lessons of history, and the thoughts and teaching of Europe's and the ancient world's greatest thinkers) that has served as the ideal basis for the modern state. Those principles of just government still provide the blueprint for a truly enlightened new world order, if we would only return to them and stick to them. Only a truly great nation, loyal to the principles that set it apart, can provide leadership toward a better world, and the prospects for the fulfillment of the dreams and aspirations of all of mankind.
Camden
INDIVIDUAL SOVEREIGNTY FREEMEN, and UNABOMBERS
As I write, it appears that several of the Freemen of Montana are likely to be caged up for a while. They may remain free in mind and spirit, if they are strong enough, but not in body — at least if the government gets its way. Fortunately, the Freemen have at least been granted the prospects for continued life. It appeared for some time they were determined to force a Waco-style resolution to their bull-headed resolve to remain free while bucking the system and flaunting government authority. It can't be done in the way they were doing it. And in any case, in the real world, the only true freedom is freedom of the spirit. The Confederacy failed to establish its political and economic independence in the 1860s, and it was far better equipped to fight for its principles than "Justus Township." You would think the Freemen might have known better than to try. Yet, in a sense, we owe them, and groups like them, at least a small debt of gratitude. They have the guts to take on the big guns and take some heat, and in the process help educate the rest of us who are to a degree sympathetic. They may not be all right, but neither are they all wrong. They make some very good points. Their primary mistake appears to have been falling into the very traps they are trying to expose. Another apparent serious mistake was that somehow they apparently failed to be good neighbors.
This episode should prove a valuable lesson to all sheep-like subjects of the realm and free men and women alike. When you persist in waving a red flag before a bull, that bull is likely to paw the ground mercilessly, and eventually loose patience. Fortunately, the final charge and fatal goring were averted in this instance. Thankfully, government law enforcement people did learn something as the result of Ruby Ridge, Waco, and other similar cases, and public opinion leaned in their favor as the result. In this case, I join many others in commending the government's restraint. Yet I know full well that the Feds would have much rather felt free to obliterate "Justus Township" and its residents from the face of the earth.
Now I admit that I hold to many of the same beliefs that the Freemen espouse. I claim individual sovereignty as my most fundamental God-given right, and believe in the primacy of freedom with responsibility, of self-government, common law — all tempered with a liberal dose of horse sense. Even here in my own ballywhack, (my "Independent Square Forty") I don't go out and wave a red flag in front of my own bull, much less thumb my nose at the county sheriff, Springfield, or Washington.
I have a significant degree of freedom here on Square Forty, as long as I have enough sense to realize that I, and Square Forty, are vassals forever destined to pay tribute to the larger state that surrounds it. It also helps that I haven't published a Declaration of Independence and challenged the integrity and legitimacy of the Union. I'm a free-spirit and sovereign individual who carefully observes the protocols of the larger political and administrative entities that make my claim on Square Forty possible in the first place. I think our Federal Reserve system is fatally flawed and, along with our tax system, inherently unfair and counter to constitutional principles. But Federal Reserve Notes, (FRN's) are our only official "legal tender" and the IRS is a "legal authority" within the contexts of "government authority," as flawed, unfair, or even unconstitutional as they may in fact be.
I pay tribute to the county in the form of land taxes, and to the state in the form of innumerable other taxes. Naturally, I try to keep the federal dragon satisfied too, by paying my income taxes on time and as nearly in accordance with the labyrinthine tax codes as I am able to comprehend or decipher. In return, my claim on Square Forty is protected, and my right to reign here and occupy my castle unmolested, is relatively secure. I rule more or less supreme over several acres of pasture grasses, broom sege, and numerous trees. And I can lord it over a few head of livestock, as long as I don't commit certain taboos, or offend the local humane society in some way. On my own land, I can speak loudly and carry a big stick. I can even fish in my ponds without a license. It's a heady feeling, this individual sovereignty.
But that's as far as it goes. All of this "freedom" is only made possible because I "know my place," keep to it, and avoid conflict with dragons. Like most people, I learned early, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do." I'm required to have a license to hunt even on my own property. If I operate a business, I must have a license, and be forced to become a tax-collecting agent of the state if I engage in retail sales to the public. But by in large, I have considerable latitude on Square Forty. Once I step across my property-line, however, most of my freedom, along with my suit of individual sovereignty, simply evaporate. I must wear a disguise, carefully clothing myself in the trappings and appearance of servitude. Only then can I confidently hold my head high and travel about the country without fear of molestation. I must proceed unarmed, and speak softly if confronted by authority. If I drive, I must have my drivers' license in my wallet, my auto-registration must be valid and in the vehicle, my auto-insurance must be current, and I must have my seat-belt fastened. I can't have an open container of any adult beverage in the vehicle, no matter how sober I may be.
I am subject to being stopped at any time so the authorities can check for violations of the any of above rules. I can be required to do tricks in front of the authorities to prove that I am sober. I can be hauled in and "tested" if I refuse or falter. I can be forced to "subject myself" to all nature of indignity, such as alcohol counseling if it is found that I am "legally intoxicated," meaning, it would seem, "illegally intoxicated," no matter how sober I might otherwise be. My vehicle is subject to search and seizure. Even Square Forty, and my imperial palace, are subject to invasion, search and seizure, if I don't act right, or come under suspicion of violating some state or federal taboo. Living by the Golden Rule and refraining from doing injury to others is insufficient to escape such suspicion and prosecution. The free life, at best, is very tenuous. There are far too many laws for me to pretend to know all of them, and "ignorance of the law is no excuse" when it comes to being found in violation. One can always be found "in violation" of something. That is both the hammer and essence of tyranny.
If I go to work elsewhere, I must submit to a drug test, and may require a special license. Everywhere I go, once I leave Square Forty, I am a suspect, subject to state and federal examination without cause. In short, once I step off of Square Forty, I'm an alien in alien territory, and must act accordingly. If I don't, my freedom, and Square Forty itself, are at risk. Thus I step across my property line just as seldom as is humanly possible. I am thankful, and feel very fortunate to have Square Forty as a buffer-zone of relative sovereignty around me. So long as I "act right" the "system" makes it possible.
The Freemen of Montana decided to exempt themselves from the requirements imposed by the political systems surrounding their ranch. They were apparently tripping out on the drug of freedom and they fell into the trap that awaits all of us, should we fail to "know our place" and pay proper tribute. They imagined that freedom was something that could be unilaterally declared, and that right is mightier than might. But the first lesson of politics, even in an ostensibly free country, is that might still spells right. The might of the system is in its laws, multi-layered regulations, court systems, and vast, varied, and well-armed police enforcement mechanisms — and in the fact that the vast majority of people live by and defend that system, (because they want it to work in spite of abuses and frequent annoyances and inconvenience.) Freemen don't have a chance against it. They can declare and perhaps defend their personal freedom only so long as they do not attach to it a square inch of real estate or savings denominated in FRN's.
Knowing common law doesn't quite get it for most people. Some people can perhaps "beat the system" for a while, but the system still requires them to jump through hoops and over hurdles to maintain their idea of "freedom." And jumping hoops and hurdles, whether to conform to the system or to thwart it, isn't freedom. The Freemen of Montana jumped hoops and hurdles to establish and maintain their freedom, and gave seminars to others on common law hoop and hurdle jumping. But in the end, the bull was attracted to their red-flag activities, and the Freemen are no longer as free as they would have been had they practiced jumping the hoops and hurdles of the establishment system.
Certain leaders of the Freemen of Montana had apparently played by the rules until they'd fallen into traps they should have been well aware of. They had apparently availed themselves of the easy credit made available to them by "the system," and fell into the debt trap that led to foreclosure of some land. Then they decided to play by their own rules, declaring those debts and FRNs null and void, and themselves a politically independent "township." They effectively declared the "system," and the federal government itself, illegal. What folly to expect "the system," (the one that has the deadliest fire-power, police power, unlimited resources, and largest nuclear arsenal on the planet) to roll over and play "null and void?"
The Unabomber had also declared a de facto war on the system from a different angle. His methods were much more vicious and deadly than those of the Freemen. He made himself into a one man terrorist movement protesting the perversity of technological progress threatening the planet. Yet, because the Unabomber approached society's problems from the left, (albeit attacking it) rather than from the right, and the ideals of national patriotism and constitutional common law of the Freemen, he has gained a rather more sympathetic response from the media and academia than the Freemen. Perhaps he will be termed a "mis-understood" progressive idealist. He used murder to gain notoriety and public attention for his cause.
The Freemen merely tried to declare and establish a free community. In so doing they raised the ire of the overwhelming power structure of the nation. They committed the unforgivable sin of challenging the money power and the federal system on constitutional and common law grounds. It will be interesting to observe how the two cases will be treated in the media as they progress through the court system.
As I said, I subscribe to the notion of individual sovereignty. Each individual is born free and sovereign. But he cannot exercise his freedom until he has passed his childhood under the tutelage of his parents or other guardians, and indoctrinated via the state educational system. By then, he has learned that there are many constraints to freedom. (In fact, he has been prepared, not for sovereign citizenship, but "subject" status.) But whether subject or sovereign, as he grows and interacts with the system into which he has been born, and later chooses to live, he voluntarily, and often involuntarily, loses his freedoms as he makes the choices of life, and assumes responsibility. He subverts his freedom in favor of various social contracts that constrain his latitude of movement, whether in commitment to family, employer, or state and federal social programs. These are unavoidable facts of life within any system, no matter how free or unfree it may be.
There is no true freedom for anybody except in spirit and knowledge, for we must always live within certain parameters of constraint — whether ethical, moral, religious, legal, or illegal. But this does not invalidate the concept of individual sovereignty. The individual sovereign makes choices and rationalizes those choices within the contexts of his life and the social and political realities that surround him. If he is willing to forgo the benefits of certain social contracts, he can opt out of them. Nothing can stop him. Like the multi-national corporation, he can even "move offshore." But he must be willing to accept the consequences. If he would opt out of the Social Security system, he can. But in doing so, he opts out of state sponsored old age security to the degree it is provided by the system. He can opt out of the "right" to drive on state and federal highways by refusing to possess a drivers' license. He still has the undisputed right to travel on those public roadways, but not necessarily to operate a motor vehicle on them. If he still insists on the right to drive on them, he is subject to penalties and costs that hardly make the exercise in freedom worth the trouble. In so doing, he is more free only if he is not caught, assuming he is able to enjoy peace of mind. If he is caught, he is less free. The Unabomber was free to live his solitary life in peace the way he saw fit, and even commit murder until he was caught. The Freemen were free to live as they saw fit, and espouse their beliefs. And they were free to thumb their noses at local and state authority, and wave the red flag in the face of the bull, until the bull became impatient. In their case, the bull only became impatient when the Freemen's assumed rights and freedom began to impinge upon the rights and freedoms of others through the use of common law liens against the property of others. They were caught in the net of debt, incurred by their own ill-advised voluntary actions, and which they ultimately refused to acknowledge and honor. Perhaps their grievances were valid, but the actions by which they chose to address them were counter-productive. The system is in many ways unfair, and yes, unconstitutional, in many instances, but the means of redress are through the system rather than by declaring the system null and void. The system is too big to stand for being declared null and void. It has the power to destroy absolutely when challenged.
The ground-swell of public awakening can eventually lead to the reform the system towards a greater degree of perfection, through a return to constitutional republicanism — but only if total chaos, social breakdown, and wholesale violence can be avoided in the process. The patriot, militia, and Freemen movements serve an invaluable purpose. For all their apparent threat to peace, tranquillity, and stability, they are principally made up of courageous men and women who provide a valuable and necessary reminder to both the establishment, (and the lethargic, apathetic, but slowly awakening masses) that real political power continues to ultimately reside in the people — and, importantly, that to a significant degree "this people retains the right of resistance to tyranny." In light of this, it is for cool heads to prevail, and reforms made through the established machinery of government. Yet it must be remembered that our government is still given its only legitimacy through the consent of the governed under the principles and provisions of the Declaration of Independence of 1776, constrained and limited by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
In spite of all, we still live in the greatest, if not freest, country on earth, and certainly the nation with the most potential for accomplishing good in the world. It is for "We the People" to influence our representatives in positive ways and to mend the mistakes of the past. The day of blind public faith in government is now long over. During the past fifty years and more, government was given license by a trusting, self-satisfied public. That public is no longer so self-satisfied or secure in its faith. Now our government must once again become responsive to the valid concerns of the people. Not the "whiners and crybabies" who would be the willing and dependent subjects of an alien, Big-Brother regime, (but who would never make a sacrifice, or shed blood, for a just cause) but the advocates of freedom and justice who can stand up as sovereign and responsible individuals.
CC
Return to NAAAP Perspective Home Page
Published in U.S.A. by, William R.
Carr, Editor and publisher
Copyright © 1997 by William R. Carr. REPRINT RIGHTS HEREBY GRANTED