We Are a Conquered People

UNITED WE STAND. DIVIDED WE CRUMBLE.

The states of America which became united in one federation still exist in name and with regional eccentricities that each takes pride in. People in every state still entertain the delusion that they are separately-governed entities, voluntarily united into one country.

Most of us have accepted the reality that the states are, in fact, cemented like stones in a chimney. A geologist might think of a kind of rock called conglomerate, or another called porphyry.

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.”

Barry Goldwater

A rational person supports the Union of these states, as indeed I do. There are several things that half or more of us throughout the country have not accepted, however, even though we are individually powerless to resist:

  • that the three constitutional branches of the federal government and the fourth unconstitutional (unelected regulatory/bureaucratic) branch have, since at least 1912, conspired together to created a massive federal monster
  • that real money has been replaced, fifty years ago by promises to pay (federal reserve notes) and lately by digital “currency,” all of this to serve the banking “industry” and its shadowy controllers (not meaning comptrollers) as well as to serve the Internal Revenue Service’s oversight of virtually all transactions and savings
  • that insulting the political elite — “calling a spade a spade” or naming the white elephant in the room — results in public shaming, on-line surveillance, and punishment by the IRS
  • that it has become “subversive” to say or publish anything calling into question the motives of those who love and control our colossal, smothering, unsustainable federal government
  • that freedom, last experienced in this country in the 1960s, has become but a memory for those of us who experienced it and a dream for those who can only imagine it
  • that almost all electronic and “broadcast” media are political organs of the now-dominant political party, making them no more objective than Izvestia and Pravda in the old U.S.S.R.
  • that we who believe in and support the ideals that this country originally stood for are now branded as racists, extremists, and radicals by those who are the true racists, extremists, and radicals

I REMEMBER FREEDOM. I WAS AN ADULT IN THE 1960s.

There are those within the population, younger than I, who have been schooled in liberty as I was and who understand it more as an ideal than an experience. And there are many, both younger and older than I, who have given it little thought until recently, when the loss of freedom in one form or another has come around to affect them personally, and that more or less unexpectedly.

The mounting threats to personal possession of “weapons of war” is an example of that. By contrast with today’s hysteria over guns, my first firearm was a Marlin .22-caliber single shot rifle which I earned when I was ten years old by selling Christmas cards in Gomer, Ohio. I told my customers what I was working toward, and they supported my objective. I still have the Boys Life magazine with the ad for Junior Sales Club of America, which provided the Christmas cards and the gun. It was shipped to a local hardware store in my name, and my father had to go with me and sign for it to pick it up. I haven’t shot anyone with it yet.

The growth of government is in direct proportion to the erosion of our liberties.

State governments have necessarily become monsters in step with the fattening of the federal government.

Few Americans younger than I have a perspective on the growth of the federal behemoth or have any idea of the origins of each component of its growth. They don’t know the politics behind each growth spurt.

I remember the debates about “revenue sharing” during President Nixon’s first term. The federal government identified a problem that we didn’t know we had and enacted a fix that we didn’t need. Some states, poorly managed for many years and dominated by vocal, indignant politicians, complained that other states had more money per capita to spend — for whatever reason — perhaps, even, because they were better managed.

Someone put before Nixon (who was a student of Keynes, remember?) what he and Congress deemed was a great idea: Force all states to contribute to a special federal fund more or less in proportion to population, and the federal government would then return that revenue — all of it, they promised — by sharing it with those states where it was most needed for specific purposes.

Most states bought into the plan, because it was tailored to assure that those jurisdictions in need of seaport development, for instance, would receive special grants for that purpose while other states needing irrigation for agriculture would make out better than they would without federal “sharing.” From this came the common theme today that, whenever a bond issue is floated it describes the federal matching funds which — Hey, listen up! — is money we can’t turn down!

That is how state governments have been forced, financially, to mimic the growth of the federal monster and is but one example from my adult lifetime. As with the Social Security program and everything else, the promises made to get it past suspicious voters or suspicious representatives in Congress were honored for about the duration of one president’s administration and then abandoned as the program sank into the muck of government control.

With each such program, of course, come requirements unrelated to the purpose for which the money is distributed. Highway funds include mandates that apply to public schools, agricultural grants include mandates affecting medical care for the elderly, and so on.

Resistance is Futile.

For those who want to participate in a revolution against the burgeoning totalitarian regime, it would be wrong for the “foot soldiers” of the revolution to confront the government’s grunts — the local police, the National Guard, the professional military. For the most part, the police, the Guard, the standing army are us — our neighbors, our cousins, our children, our personal friends. Any rabble in arms, in a confrontation with such professional force, doesn’t stand a chance.

I think it has been folly for foot soldiers in any army in any country in any epoch to participate in a clash of front-line troops. The people at the top are your enemy. They will fight a war of attrition using the soldiers at their command. An army with any sense would try to storm the residences of the powerful, not the front lines of their protectors.

Don’t fight in the streets. The real enemy is at the top. But Washington, D.C., is off limits. Any attack there is too costly. Sun Tzu, in The Art of War, said that deception and trickery are the highest and most effective strategies against an opponent. Guess what; those tactics have already been employed against the United States from within. They have already won.

For the next generation or two, half the people across the 50 states will blame the country’s rot on all that came before 2021. The other half will blame it on all that happened since.

It’s My Fault.

I blame it on us. Since the 1970s we’ve accepted the lust for egalitarian results over the uncertainties attending equal opportunity. We’ve opted for indoctrination in the dream of fairness over education in reality. We haven’t understood what we have been voting for, what — not who — we have chosen in our elections. We have chosen unrealistic expectations of fluffy lives and guarantees of happiness. We have vilified the very idea of individual responsibility and pursued rights by group — rights to things and conditions that have a cost but not a cost that those in the group must pay.

We have turned the original idea that every individual has affirmative rights — the right to do whatever one might decide to do without interference from others or the government (id est, those same others) so long as what I do doesn’t infringe on the rights of the next guy — into a body of negative rights — the right to be free from something rather than free to do something. In this body of negative rights, we would have the right to be free from illness, free from insult, free from hunger, cold, heat, inconvenience of any sort. I would have the right to be free from restrictions on my personal expression even when my personal expression forces you to stand aside or participate in it or pay for it.

Conquest In Various Forms

The American continents were simply overrun by outsiders in the latter half of the Second Millennium — overwhelmed by a population supplied with superior tools, weapons, and governmental imperative. In the novel, Cold Morning Shadow, the 20th-Centtury American Indian, Henry Clay Comosh, acknowledges that fact, echoing an earlier comment by a Japanese survivor of World War II: We are a conquered people.

There are various summations of the rules for destroying a country, available by searching the internet. Look up Saul Alinsky, Noam Chomsky, Mao Tse-Tung, and of course Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin. These demons in Satan’s service well understood how to transform a country from within by changing the people’s expectations and not so much with weapons of war, although a little of that is needed to set the populace on edge.

You Mean, Do Nothing?

While I think it is folly to attack the federal monster by shooting guns in the streets with the hope of changing things back to the way they were in , 1960, 1900, 1840, or 1780, I also think it is useless for an individual like me to try to topple the people at the top, even though that is the appropriate target and the way to reduce casualties. A few hundred years ago a ruler could surround himself with some protection, but he was necessarily far more exposed, while traveling, for instance, than today. Even though the ones at the top are the symbols of political power and that is who presumably must be removed and replaced (with whom…?), I think it is practically impossible now to do it.

I also think those in top political office do not, in fact, possess much power. They are manipulated by the ones literally in the shadows who run the political parties and who control the money. There is plenty of speculation out there, not to mention evidence, around who those people are; I don’t need to name anyone.

It is most sad that any “revolution” against the collectivist powers in the federal government, even should it succeed in supplanting the body of the monster, will be a devolution into a comparable monster. This is made plain in Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer, discussed in detail at this page. and at this Farnam Street site. A revolution based on good ideas needs to generate fervor in the masses. The masses need leaders. People interested in becoming revolutionary leaders have their own self-interest at heart more than the ideals that brought them to power.

Ave, Don Quixote!

The Washington, D.C., of tour books and picture post cards was built upon a swamp, we’re told, an exceedingly accurate representation of the government that has since formed within the slime and the goo. President Trump was elected to clean it out.

That swamp, though, is smeared across a bedrock of limestone hardness — a deep state which no swamp-cleaning can touch. Donald Trump wasn’t able to expose, much less scratch the veneer of that mantle. Its retribution for his presumption to hammer at its surface was so ferocious and so frightening to his close allies that he was left standing alone in tatters and bewilderment. Ave, Don Quixote, and God bless you. You’re the bravest man ever to hold public office in the United States of America.

R.I.P. U.S.A.

In the movie, “Catch-22,” after the Italian brothel has been destroyed, Captain Yossarian finds an old man sitting in the rubble. The gist of the old Italian’s comment to the American is that Italy has been conquered, so now he must direct his loyalty to the conquerors.

Unlike the old Italian in the movie, I am not going to feign loyalty to the powers that will rule the United States for the rest of my lifetime. But for my own peace I acknowledge that we are a conquered people. It happened just as the patron saints of collectivism said it would.

This isn’t surrender on my part. This isn’t capitulation. It’s marking time. Yes, some of us can rise up and resist. I pray that, for those who participate in any uprising, it will be a smart resistance and not some goofiness about masks and vaccines. I fear that much of the energy needed to rescue the United States from the conquerors has been dissipated in useless squabbles over the virus.

My own days of guerrilla fighting are over. I wore sergeant’s stripes in the Army during the Vietnam non-war and I’m now in my eighth decade. My mission henceforth is, as Albert Jay Nock argued: to document, edify, and exhort — to do exactly what you see here.

Restoring any semblance of the country I was born into will truly take a war of ideas. The opposing sides are individualism against collectivism, “Truth forever on the threshold, Wrong forever on the throne.”* The idea of freedom needs to take hold once more. That won’t occur in my lifetime. For the rest of my life, though, I’m keeping my guns, cleaned, loaded, and unregistered.

=David A. Woodbury= 18 January 2021

*James Russell Lowell in the poem “The Present Crisis” — 1845. The hymnal of the Episcopal church included a hymn based on Lowell’s poem, beginning with the line, “Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide…” The hymn was purged when an updated hymnal was published in 1982.

The Big Guy’s 1260 days

During the covid-19 pandemic we talked about herd immunity, a principle that we normally apply to other species.  Herd immunity is what permitted humans to overcome past plagues and other odious diseases before people understood disease transmission and control.  Population control of a species is good for the species as a whole but that overlooks — ignores, really — the fundamental difference between us and every other creature that lives and moves and has its being: the individual.

Respect for the individual person has reached its highest expression in the founding documents of the United States.  Those founding documents created a republic, precisely to assure that the individual is sovereign, that the rights guaranteed in the Constitution apply to each person individually and that no group of people (a democracy) can assert group rights that strip one of individual rights.

Grouping people according to arbitrary criteria in order to apply group solutions to group problems — identity politics, some now call it — is one way to keep us divided and angry, jealous and submissive.  It is assuredly one way to trample individual rights with group privileges.

People who are content to submit to group control, to act according to expectations of an arbitrarily-defined community, (the “international banking community” for instance, or the black “community”), are participating in herd behavior.

The Big Guy

When his son was selling access to the former Vice President, Joe Biden was happy to be known as The Big Guy. This is what you voted for in November 2020 — in fact, a cadre of old geezers* slower and dumber than I am — to represent and govern you and invent problems that you don’t have that require solutions you don’t need.  Enough of you asked for it — maybe not enough to legitimately elect the regime of 2021, but enough that it took only a little cheating to tip the balance.  Now you will live with it.  You young people can go ahead and run the world now through your elected oldsters.

It won’t be Joseph Robinette Biden for long — I would say, optimistically for him — 42 months, (a time, two times, and half a time; 1260 days — let those who recognize these references understand what I’m saying).  Those who will control him during his tenure — for The Big Guy himself certainly will not be running the show — are aware of some quiet, efficient ways to remove him by a mysterious suicide or other “unattended” death, as those same people know who eliminated Jeffrey Epstein and Justice Scalia, to name two ready examples.

This “adjustment” in regency, the removal of Joe Biden at the crucial moment, will position newly-ascended President Harris nicely, around mid-year 2024, to breeze into two full terms beyond finishing Biden’s term as President.  During that interim half year she will appoint a VP approved by her financiers, whom she will carry forward into her first full term as the first female elected President.

This will carry her through the year 2032, when her second term as President will come to a close.  The divine implications of the Biden-Harris era remain to be revealed, but the year, 2032, coincides nicely with the 2000th anniversary of the Crucifixion.

=David A. Woodbury= 18 January 2021

*Biden-Pelosi-Shumer, combined age at inauguration: 222 years. I would rather sit and suffer through old movies of The Three Stooges than watch anything featuring those three. At least the Stooges knew that they were a joke.

Quality of Life

James Michener published a slim volume in 1970, The Quality of Life. He wrote, however, of matters that affected people in general, America specifically, and all of us according to groups or group identities, or as Eric Hoffer characterized us: the masses.

Michener is a splendid novelist and one of my all-time favorites. In The Quality of Life he was sounding the alarm, and much of what troubled him then has come to pass. It is now, in its way, a depressing book.

Significantly, we did not heed his alarm, or enough of us did not, anyway, that we could exert any effect on the future. (I was an adult when it was published, and I read it soon thereafter.)

We are all concerned in one way or another for the plight of others, the course of history, the fate of humans everywhere. But daily and locally we must be concerned not so much for the masses but for ourselves, individually. A generation ago we were exhorted to “think globally, act locally.”

If a person is not comfortable as an individual, fulfilled, content, and hopeful, then he is unlikely to have a positive effect on any larger group: his family, neighbors, community, nation, or the world. I have, perhaps selfishly, sought to assure that I, the individual, am indeed comfortable from day to day, fulfilled in my personal pursuits, content with my lot, and optimistic. And yet, were I not so selfishly occupied — were my personal needs not being met, my effect on those around me might have been very unpleasant for all.

I am not at all concerned that there’ll be a shortage of work. There will be plenty of things for people to do. The problem is, they may be things that we don’t want to pay much money for.”

David Siegel in Bloomberg

Bloomberg published an article 12 January 2021 reporting on interviews with three financial industry executives to learn their concerns for the future, meaning what worries them most.

Is it pestilence and pandemics? Asteroids? Global warming? Warfare and famine?

No. One focused on risks in cybersecurity and artificial intelligence. The other two discussed concerns for the future of the human condition. The comment that stood out to me is quoted above.

One almost can’t be quoted in Bloomberg without acknowledging the chasm between the rich and the poor. Two of the three acknowledged that perennial blot on humanity. One of the three was concerned about high unemployment or under-employment and wide-ranging social unrest. The third, quoted above, had a more esoteric concern that what will be left for humans to do, to support themselves, may be tedious and unstimulating.

This latter expert’s concern assumes performing menial labor in exchange for a minimum-but-perpetually-inadequate wage will be the norm.

In his own words: What we’re doing today is finding more and more ways to essentially reduce the need to have humans involved with work. So much of the investment in business in America is to essentially automate away human labor or, even more curiously, to devalue human labor. -David Siegel

The Human Condition

It strikes me that all three financial executives, the “experts,” barely acknowledge the rest of the world. Their careers are in America’s financial dominance of world affairs. I am aware that there are more than mere pockets of humanity but whole nations — and I have reached such places in my travels — where people live no differently than their ancestors did a thousand years ago, but for the addition of T-shirts bearing commercial slogans and the presence of corrugated galvanized sheet metal for roofing.

Humans have withstood some horrible conditions, by modern American standards, and perhaps half the people in the world still do. If the conditions arise that the three financial executives in Bloombergs interviews worry about, modern Americans will be ill-equipped, mentally and physically, to adapt. But their children will and, better still, their grandchildren will. Because they can, and once they know no better, they will.

We can be poor again.

I have pre-adolescent grandchildren. They are too young to announce career choices yet. Indeed, I hope they are steered away from the notion that they must choose specific careers but that they might, instead, choose a way of life.

In my youth I fell in with Albert Jay Nock’s notion that one attends an institution of higher learning for one’s own edification — for tutelage under the best people, the real experts, in their fields of science or the arts, for instance. I earned a college degree in a “subject” which fascinated me before I enrolled in the program and about which I previously knew nearly nothing. What I would do “for a living” afterward didn’t really concern me. I was more concerned with where I might make my home than what I would do for a living once I settled down. (My college advisor called me an anachronism.)

I plan to use my influence with my grandchildren to counsel them similarly. If one decides to become a medical professional, for instance, well, then, that profession can be pursued almost anywhere. (I suspect that, in the future, it won’t be such a lucrative calling, though.)

I hope that my grandchildren will choose a way of life over a profession, though. And in choosing a way of life, one now faces a fundamental dichotomy: urban versus rural. If they attend college for job training instead of for edification, I hope they choose to be trained in a job that fits with each one’s chosen way of life and chosen environment.

As for me, I have been lured by open space, drawn close to the earth, pulled farther from the conveniences of urban congestion and its attending surfeit of human proximity. Were it not for the life I have led, I could more readily have spent my days nurturing monocotyledonous crops than navigating the vagaries of corporate federal compliance or the challenges of serving customers’ inscrutable preferences in mid-morning snacks, e.g., in a metropolitan coffee shop.

Quality of life, to me — and perhaps to many others, should they think about it — has been determined not by career, social status, entertainment, or excitement, but by family, peaceful surroundings, and meaningful after-work occupations to balance the stress and boredom in the job that brings home a biweekly payroll deposit.

It behooves a person, too, to recognize as early in life as possible that one is not going to be famous, rich, influential, beautiful, or long remembered. Expecting any of that leads to disappointment, stress, heartache, and poverty in spirit if not also in possessions. Those who have understood this and written well about it include Helen and Scott Nearing, Eric Hoffer, and E.F. Schumacher.

Caring for oneself and demanding no more of the world than one contributes to it is a theme in my novel, Cold Morning Shadow. As for the children: They have a choice. We need to make them aware that they do.

=David A. Woodbury=

What I Learned in Alaska

Reprint: what a gay, Muslim, Pakistani-American immigrant learned traveling to rural Alaska the week before the 2016 election.

RIAZ PATEL, November 10, 2016

Dear 59,668,724 Disappointed Americans,

I know this is a devastating day. Considering the toxic levels of hatred and division unleashed over the past few years of campaigning, either outcome was going to be a bitter pill for HALF of our nation to swallow. Like all forms of mourning, it will take time to heal as we mourn the loss of our version of the next four years.

But notice I said OUR version. Because there is another one. And that one not only has a lot of supporters, but has legally and definitively asserted its right to be heard. It’s a perspective I didn’t know a lot about until recently.

A few months ago I sat down with Glenn Beck for an intense chat about hate in America. At some point he questioned why I lumped all “White Americans” together when expressing a particular point of view. I thought about that a lot.

RELATED: Riaz Patel: I Am Really Frustrated With Liberals Right Now

So, the next day I decided I needed to understand the election from a perspective other than my own. On my drive to work I found a Conservative radio station. The morning after, I found another. And ever since, thanks to the power of satellite radio, I’ve been crisscrossing the country, popping in to listen to local call-in shows.

Here’s what I learned by listening. Listening. Not waiting to speak. Not waiting to disagree or refute.

There exists a HUGE population in America who are desperately struggling to feed their families.

They feel their needs are not authentically represented within this huge government.

They feel their concerns are not being voiced by any major news outlet.

They are tired of being called “dumb,” “bigoted” and “racist.”

And, based on the shocked expressions of every anchor last night that all their polling data was off, apparently they aren’t even really counted.

I was feeling such a groundswell of their frustration and unhappiness – and even the strong possibility of a Trump victory – that I decided last-minute to travel with my husband and our six-month old daughter to Ketchikan, Alaska the weekend before the election.

Why? Because I wanted to meet these people. And I wanted them to meet me. Before we had a “Winner.” How else would we understand each other beyond the “black” and “white” which we BOTH have been painted, non-stop, in this vicious election cycle.

So, I went to breakfast at The Landing on Tongass Avenue and discussed the stakes of the election with third-generation fisherman and learned that their whole life’s work was at stake based on potential Clinton fishing regulations. I talked somewhat fervently about the cancer that is radical Islam with Nicole & Jim, who ran the Black Bear Inn and discussed how we all feel unsafe these days. And I chatted with Paula, the 30-year bar manager, who explained that almost all of Alaska is owned by the federal government so each vote in this community is REALLY about their ability to support their families.

Over the course of two days, I met lovely people. Some I agreed with and some I didn’t. Some of them had met a Muslim before and others hadn’t. But all asked me earnest questions about my background, and I asked about theirs. No question was offensive because the intention was non-judgmental.

On my flight back, I realized that for many of us supporting Hillary, this election was about incredibly important social issues. It was a moral election for us. To most of the people I met on my trip, it was about survival. Literally.

So when I read Facebook/Twitter posts this morning vilifying 50% of the country for being dumb or racist, I remember Nicole, Jim & Paula and I know that’s not true.

But how would I know that if I didn’t meet them and talk to them with an open mind? Only by pulling up a few chairs to PERSONIFY the people we think we hate, will we move beyond “black” and “white” to the way the world really is: grey. Grey is the only way.

As I walk around my office today, people are in shock. It’s no surprise people are surprised by the results when they refused to let an opposing viewpoint in. What did most of my Hillary supporting friends do when someone disagreed with their politics on Facebook? They “Unfriended” them. And when even Jake Tapper on CNN makes the mistake of saying “we” instead of “she” as he refers to winning Connecticut, we have to realize we are in one giant echo chamber that extends to almost everyone we speak to and almost every place we get information.

This morning, I am not surprised by the result. But I am slightly impressed by the notion that all the celebrity power and campaign money in the nation was not enough to continue to mute these Americans. They simply went to the polls and voted for what was best for their family. Just as we all do. And they won. Fairly.

Now, before the chat threads blow up below this article, I am not denying that some Trump supporters are racist. Of course. But some Muslims are terrorists.

The point is NOT ALL.

I’ve seen the clips of bigoted slurs being thrown out at Trump rallies. But, as a TV producer, when I watch the footage aired, there aren’t a tons of incidents. It’s a couple each time, played many, many times over. But if a group of twenty idiotic Trump supporters yell ethnic slurs, is the entire stadium “racist” by association? No. If a Black Lives Matters supporter says it’s “open season on whites” is that a true representation of the movement? No. Should I be viewed with suspicion because I am a Muslim and some are terrorists? No.

The worst outcome of the election is that we have each been reduced to a series of broad labels that no longer reflect who we are. Mexican. White. Republican. Immigrant. Muslim. We may try to look at people as “labels” but we’ll never truly see them because THEY do not look at their own lives & families as labels. If, in the misery of this morning’s election hangover, we choose to continue to refer to Trump supporters as one collective “Them” I think that is as offensive as anything else I’ve heard in this election cycle and as ungracious as anything we feared from Trump supporters in the defeat we assumed would be theirs.

I think a key part of beginning to heal is realizing Trump is not his supporters. Who he is and how he campaigned are truly distasteful to me. But his supporters are not him. They voted for a variety of reasons that are important and personal to them. And when I was with them this past weekend, everyone I came across showed me kindness & humanity. I hope, for their sake, the quality of their life improves. And that they are able to continue to work and provide their families with a safe and loving home.

A home into which I hope to be invited.

SOURCE: https://www.glennbeck.com/contributor/what-a-gay-muslim-pakistani-american-immigrant-learned-traveling-to-rural-alaska-the-week-before-the-election


It is not the intention of the Nockian Society to promote or support either of the dominant political parties in the United States. Both parties are agents for the collectivist degradation of the country. This article, though, and another article on this page, written by ardent Democrats, both provide some explanation for the “shocking” upset in the 2016 election for President. The winner, Donald Trump, was an amateur in government, and that was much of his appeal. He was Don Quixote, and he was in a financial position to win. Upon winning, his voters could see him doing what they would do if they had the money to become President.

Why Trump Won (2016)

Sorry, uncovering America’s racist underbelly wasn’t why Trump won

Jake Novak | @jakejakeny 

Published 1:38 PM ET Wed, 9 Nov 2016 Updated 8:00 AM ET Thu, 10 Nov 2016 

Millions of Americans, especially those in the Washington establishment, woke up on Wednesday feeling shocked and hurt by the surprise election of Donald Trump to the White House. But like every failure or painful turn in life, it will mean nothing and lead to nothing but hurt feelings unless these wounded Americans learn a real lesson today and become tomorrow’s wise. To do that, they must accept and learn the real reason Trump won. 

First, they need to ignore the prevailing angry explanations that are all off the mark. The first incorrect reason many of us began hearing well before Election Day was that Trump was being bolstered by overt racists and more nuanced “alt-right” haters who were acting like a springboard after eight years of an African-American in the Oval Office. That theory went further to insist that Trump’s hard-line stance against illegal Mexican immigrants invigorated a nascent nativist hatred movement. 

But the facts simply didn’t bear that out throughout the election and now we know that even more based on the fact that Trump did five points better than Mitt Romney among black voters and two points better among Latinos. Trump’s victory is simply not the result of some kind of burgeoning race war. 

The second reason many people have been using as a crutch against the real reason for Trump’s victory is sexism. Many of us are being led to believe that, in the end, too many American voters just wouldn’t vote for Hillary Clinton because she’s a woman. There’s probably no way to prove this is false via statistics. But based on what most of us saw and heard on social media and elsewhere throughout the election, it sure seems like more people voted for Clinton because she’s a woman rather than the other way around. Moreover, if the morose Left would just try to find a silver lining in all of this today it might realize that Clinton’s gender never really played much of a role at all in this election for the overwhelming majority of Americans. A glass ceiling has indeed been broken when it comes to the way voters think. That should not be forgotten or missed. 

The last wrong explanation for Clinton’s loss is one people both on the Left and the Right are making: The Clinton email scandal. Of course, the continuing cloud of the on again/off again FBI investigation into Clinton’s illegal private email server didn’t help her campaign. But it always served as one of those fake reasons people give for not voting for someone they just never were going to support anyway. That is not to say the use of the server wasn’t reckless and serious, but Clinton’s fate was sealed long before most Americans had ever really learned of the scandal or knew the name “James Comey.”

Nope, the real reasons Trump won have been real in America for at least the last 40 or so years. They are all the same reasons I finally recognized five-plus months ago when I first realized he was headed to victory. It’s simple: The largest single economic group in our country has been sold out and ignored by the leaders of both parties for more than a generation. They are the hourly wage-earning Americans who have been bounced around from good manufacturing jobs, to service jobs, to seasonal work without the rest of us noticing that much. And that’s even though there are a lot more of them than the college-educated white collar office workers out there. You know the financial uncertainty you felt last night when you saw the Dow futures crash down by 750 points? That’s the kind of emotion millions of your fellow Americans have been feeling every night for years even though they’re not “poor” or even necessarily unemployed. 

These are the people who have been the acceptable sacrifices for our trade and wage-deflating immigration policies that do boost our economy overall … just not for them. These are the people who have been scoffed at for not choosing to go to college, even though doing so has become an exercise in playing a game of “economic chicken” with student loans and irrelevant skills.

And it goes beyond economics. This is a divide that truly began in America during the Vietnam War, which was protested and defended by the rich and upper middle class while the lower middle class and poor actually did the fighting in country. That divide and the wounds from it have never really healed. I doubt we’ll ever see an exit poll this specific, but I’d be willing to bet that Trump won 60 percent plus of the Vietnam veterans’ vote because he spoke to their past and current pain in a way actual Vietnam vets like John Kerry and John McCain — guys who actually served in the war — never could. 

Since Trump can’t affect positive changes for this group of long-ignored Americans without help, it’s imperative that Democrats and Republicans get acquainted, really acquainted, with the people who elected him. 

Hillary Clinton and the 16 Republicans who lost to Trump in the primaries failed because they really have thought of this group of people as “deplorables.” Clinton was just the unlucky one who got caught saying so. 

The good news is that this is not a segment of the population that relies on welfare or needs new government handouts. In fact, just knowing that someone in Washington is finally listening to them and not writing them off as racists or Neanderthals will be an amazing start. And the politicians and other establishment types who do the most and best listening over the next four years will be the ones who move this country the most forward and reap the most rewards.

Commentary by Jake Novak, CNBC.com senior columnist.

SOURCE: https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/09/sorry-uncovering-americas-racist-underbelly-wasnt-why-trump-won-commentary.html


It is not the intention of the Nockian Society to promote or support either of the dominant political parties in the United States. Both parties are agents for the collectivist degradation of the country. This article, though, and another article on this page, written by ardent Democrats, both provide some explanation for the “shocking” upset in the 2016 election for President. The winner, Donald Trump, was an amateur in government, and that was much of his appeal. He was Don Quixote, and he was in a financial position to win. Upon winning, his voters could see him doing what they would do if they had the money to become President.

How to Eviscerate the Second Amendment

The lockdowns of businesses have, as the year 2020 comes to a close, sparked calls for resistance, for example this article in The Federalist from December 8, 2020. (My words which follow do not comprise an endorsement of every call for resistance. I approve civil disobedience in response to every unconstitutional edict of a government. I do not approve violence except in immediate self-defense.)

I’m concerned only that rebellion against covid lockdowns will dissipate the energy needed for resistance once the severe outlawing of liberty begins in 2021.  You don’t see licenses to publish in newspaper offices, because of the First Amendment.  But the license to publish is coming.  Before that happens, the already-eroded Second Amendment will undergo a full-frontal attack. (See another article at this site, A Well-regulated Militia.)

Ersatz-President Biden’s handlers will provide him with the text for many executive orders, on the premise that these orders will serve to implement existing law, or to restore practices, desirable to totalitarians, that were suspended by President Trump — the Iran Nuclear Agreement, the Paris Climate Accord, and such.  The latter category will be nothing different than was seen under President Soetoro/Obama.  But several executive orders will constitute new edicts with the force of law.

Early in his term, though, he will address his party’s issues with the Second Amendment.  Without presuming either the timing, wording, or sequence (except the first) of these orders, here is what this series of edicts will accomplish.

Executive Orders

Beginning with a certain ill-defined (in fact undefinable) class of rifles, and encompassing all handguns as well, owners of these firearms will be required to register them.  States will implement firearm registration under penalty of loss of federal funds to certain state agencies of government for failure to do so.

Citizens will refuse to register their weapons en masse at first.  The rule will be amended to provide mandatory penalties, of course, which by themselves will not motivate compliance.  

“Buy-back” programs will be tried, (never mind that the government can’t buy back something that the government didn’t buy and provide in the first place), and rewards will be offered for information leading to the discovery and “recovery” of “illegal” firearms.

Eventually the rule will provide that anyone found hunting with an unregistered firearm or who, when registering a big game kill, refuses to declare the weapon used or who falsely identifies the weapon used, will face crushing penalties.  In similar fashion, anyone who uses a firearm in defense of home or property, who might otherwise face no criminal charges for such self-defense, will face severe penalties for doing so with an unregistered firearm.

Defendants charged under these rules will enjoy some initial victories in court (while sitting in jail pending trial and while losing fortunes to their attorneys), but once the rule is signed and the battles begin, the Second Amendment will be under its death sentence.

A further serious blow will be an executive provision that no one may inherit, carry, display, buy, or sell a firearm of any kind that has not been registered.  Therefore, as old gun owners die and their collections, small or large, are handed down, cowering heirs will scramble to register them so they can sell them off quickly.  A prohibition may be added which prevents registration of inherited guns but requires their destruction instead.

The coup de grâce in this will be an executive order requiring, not merely suggesting, that victims of crimes and those shot by home defenders sue firearms manufacturers, ammunition manufacturers, and retail gun sales outlets for injuries.  Gun manufacturers and sellers will be unable to afford the insurance needed to remain in business.  The Second Amendment will remain on the books, since revising or revoking it will be politically impossible, but there will be no armaments left for a citizen, uninfringed, to keep and bear.

You read it here first.  I’m not quoting anyone else on this.  The writing on the wall is more plain than it was at Belshazzar’s feast.

=David A. Woodbury= 20 December 2020

Four Little Words

February 24, 2018

This article was originally published by the Foundation for Economic Education on FEE.org. Use this link to see the original article. It is pertinent as we cross over into 2021 because the new administration in the White House will have much to say about guns.

In the wake of yet another mass shooting in a public school, a host of familiar recommendations have resurfaced about how to “prevent this from ever happening again.” Predictably, both conservatives and liberals are looking to the government for a solution. Americans have somehow arrived at a point where they cannot conceive of human action that is not either prohibited, mandated, or, at the very least, centrally planned.

The first problem is the goal. It is absurdly unrealistic to believe any set of rules is going to prevent anything from “ever happening again.” If you doubt that, I invite you to examine the war on drugs. Many decades ago, politicians decided American citizens taking heroin was never going to happen again. They banned that drug completely. You aren’t allowed to possess or sell it under any circumstances. Not after a background check. Not with a doctor’s prescription. Not at all.

Today, that drug is at the center of what the same government calls an opioid “epidemic.” Epidemic. So much for heroin overdoses “never happening again.”

Yet, despite this evidence, liberals still suggest what they’ve always suggested: further restrictions on gun ownership. A good portion of them believes that only government employees charged with national defense or public safety should be allowed to carry guns. Ban them completely for the civilian population, they say, and mass shooters won’t be able to obtain them.

You know, just like drugs.

The conservative answer to liberal prohibition (oxymoron?) is to “arm and train the teachers.” While no one has come out and suggested mandating teachers carry firearms or be trained in using them, every suggestion seems to suggest “we” (i.e., the government) need to do the arming and training.

Here’s a little newsflash for both sides: the teachers are already armed.

No, not every teacher carries firearms and perhaps not as high a percentage of teachers do so as the percentage of the general population that carries. But there are over three million teachers in public schools and some percentage of them have concealed carry permits. It would be unlikely that there aren’t at least some members of every faculty in America that have a concealed carry permit.

It’s not a matter of arming teachers, but rather to cease disarming them when they report to work.

To the extent conservatives acknowledge this option at all, they seem trapped in the same box as liberals in feeling the need to point out there are teachers who are also retired military, in the reserves, or former law enforcement officers. That’s probably true. But there are also tens of millions of Americans, and likely tens of thousands of teachers, who both own firearms and never served in the military or police.

An armed civilian population constitutes that “well-regulated militia” the 2nd Amendment refers to. What makes a militia a militia is the members not being part of the regular army.

I’ve often said the greatest danger to liberty is not a foreign army, terrorists, or even a homegrown tyrant. It is four little words. And they aren’t, “Up against the wall!” That comes later.

They are, “Something must be done.”

Instead of the government “doing something” about mass shootings, it should stop doing something. It should stop prohibiting teachers from carrying into school the same firearms they are licensed and trusted to carry in most other places. It is the path of least resistance to providing realistic protection for schoolchildren. It requires no one to do anything they aren’t already doing.

No, this will not ensure that mass shootings “never happen again.” Nothing will. And not every teacher with a firearm, confronted with the pressure of an active shooter situation, will calmly dispatch the shooter. But as we saw in Parkland, FL, neither will every trained police officer.

Broward County Sheriff’s deputy Scot Peterson was assigned to the school as a resource officer and was on the school grounds during the entire incident. He heard the shooting inside the school, but videos show he remained outside for four minutes during the six-minute mass shooting, which claimed seventeen lives.

Peterson wasn’t alone. Three other armed law enforcement officers were on the scene and failed to enter the school before backup arrived.

This wasn’t the only government failure in this case. Local police had been called to Nikolas Cruz’s home thirty-nine times over the past seven years, according to documents obtained by CNN. Members of the family he lived with after his mother’s death report he routinely introduced himself as “a school shooter.”

It wasn’t just local police who dropped the ball on Cruz. The FBI was warned multiple times about Cruz, including by “an unidentified woman close to Cruz” who called the FBI a month before the incident, warning of her fears he would “get into a school and just shoot the place up.” The FBI was also called in September 2017 by a video blogger who said a user named “nikolas cruz” had posted a comment on one of his videos, saying, “I”m going to be a professional school shooter.”

Hopefully, this will inspire more than mere outrage at government incompetence. Americans should take a long, hard look at how much of what should be personal and private they have allowed government to become involved in and how badly it has failed them. And if government can’t run education or health care, it certainly shouldn’t be trusted with something as important as the defense of one’s own life.

Thomas Paine began his pamphlet, Common Sense, widely credited with convincing a critical mass of colonists to support American independence, by making a crucial distinction:

“SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.” He went on to say, “Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

It’s time Americans remembered the miracles possible within that blessing called society and the limitations of an institution based on nothing more than consolidated brute force. Mass shootings are horrible situations under any circumstances, but they may be rendered less horrible if the victims have options other than to call the government and wait.

States that haven’t already should repeal any laws necessary to give the right and the responsibility for self-defense back to teachers and other school employees. Allowing them the option to carry firearms will both act as a deterrent to future shooters and give teachers a reasonable chance to defend their students and themselves the next time the need arises.

The government has had its chance. It has failed. It’s time to try a little freedom.

Tom Mullen
Tom Mullen

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom’s writing, visit www.tommullen.net.

Your Day in Court

“If it weren’t for lawyers, dear boy, we wouldn’t need lawyers.”

possibly from the movie “A Murder of Crows” (1998)

Many Americans with ordinary legal disputes never get the trial they thought they were guaranteed by the Constitution. I’m just going to put this link here and let you read the excellent article that it points to.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/11/24/why-you-wont-get-your-day-in-court/

NOTE: The article’s no-frills TEXT IS PROVIDED at this page IN THE EVENT THE ARTICLE LINKED TO above HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM ITS ORIGINAL SITE BY THE NEW YOrk REVIEW OR OTHERWISE CANNOT BE ACCESSED.


=David A. Woodbury=

It’s My Fault

If you are discouraged by the apparent choices in the general election this November — Donald Trump versus an equally unappealing Joe Biden, Senator Necktie versus some vitriolic challenger who can’t find Peru or Poland on a map, or if a House of Representatives (not to mention a state legislature) full of posturing lawyers horrifies you — then look to yourself as the reason for your dismay.

I did, and I accepted the blame.

Most voters are still registered as Democrats or Republicans.  Most don’t realize that a political party is a private club, not an arm of government. Anyone can start a new party. Even the two big ones need members like you in order to survive.

Most people don’t realize that each house of Congress follows rules that it has constructed for itself, designed to inflate the power of the temporarily-dominant party and magnify the influence of someone from a district other than your own.  (I recently sent a note to my congressman reminding him that the Speaker of the House is his equal in that body, not his boss.  The Speaker is his boss only within the private club that is their party, I wrote.  It was a waste of words, but I felt better after mailing it to him.)

As a voter, it is you who must take charge of the miserable choices you have in an election.  Term limits is an excellent idea, but forget it.  It will never be made law in any legislative body to which it would apply.

You have a couple of choices and, some think, only a short period in which to take charge; a short time remaining before this country is irredeemably demolished.

Here are your choices:

OPTION 1.

Become seriously active in the private club that counts you as a member.  Enlist others and overwhelm your state’s convention.  Insist that term limits start there.  It’s comforting, within the party, to make sure that every good old incumbent senator and representative gets re-nominated term after term.  After all, incumbents are virtual shoo-ins for re-election.  It’s up to the party members to assure that they don’t become permanent fixtures in a stagnant Congress.

Make the effort to overwhelm the entrenched powers in your state party if you believe that your party is worth sustaining and if you have faith that it deserves your effort.  Unless you become an activist within the party that you support and unless you work with others to take charge of the party’s rules that always favor the good-old-boys system, things will not change.  You will have the same disgusting choices in every election.

I, for one, cannot vote for the challenger in an election just for the sake of opposing the incumbent.  If the challenger’s party promotes policies that I deem abhorrent, then I find myself voting to re-elect the one who should have been replaced in the party’s own convention after two or three terms.  I, just as you, am stuck with the lesser of two evils.

OPTION 2.

Don’t have the time or the energy to work within the party?  Remove yourself from the party’s membership rolls instead.  This is what I did.  Widespread disengagement would be devastating to a party, (although not as effective as loss of its revenue streams, of which I was not one).  Become either unenrolled or enroll yourself in a third party.

I did this a few years ago.  I left one of the dominant parties and enrolled as a Libertarian.  Within a year, the state legislature de-certified the Libertarian Party since, apparently, it was becoming a threat to the Democrats and Republicans, and they paused for some bipartisan cooperation to squelch it.

The Libertarian Party, suppressed for now by the dominant parties, still exists in this state, sacrificing its resources in desperate court proceedings to challenge the legislature’s action.

Where that leaves us

I’ve fallen for it in the past. I wish the voters in some other district would throw out their rep in Congress, who is such a useless piece of shat, an idiot, a crony of mega-corporations, but I kind of like our own rep — after all, I met him once — and so I vote mine back in. And that’s exactly what happens in every other district in the country whose rep I wish was kicked out of Congress.

If we’re going to clean it up, we need to set aside our ardor for our own rep and vote him out too. Our only hope there is that a popular uprising to clean house — meaning the House of Representatives (and the Senate) — would sweep the country.

I don’t see that happening.

#Dexit and #Rexit

If you take your name off a party’s rolls, that doesn’t make you an “independent.”  That term belongs to those candidates who, like Senators Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont, are wealthy enough to be independent of party support in order to become elected.  They do not evince independent thinking, though; their politics are consistently aligned with the party each would have joined if he needed money.  As a voter with no party affiliation you are merely unenrolled.

Those are your options, apart from remaining a silent member — a silent number — in one of the two decrepit, undeserving dominant parties.  Those are your options, that is, unless you are committed to becoming violent and contributing to the anarchy that would destroy the country without a care for what might arise in the ensuing vacuum.

Undermining the dominant parties for the purpose either of reforming or replacing them is a process.  Wrenching power from those who will not relinquish it gracefully, and restoring a citizen legislature, takes finesse, not fire.  It needs many voices and many hands.  I am only one.  I could be more effective, I suppose, as a destructive rioter.  But I want a say in the outcome.  I can be more helpful as a peaceful individual rights activist.  (This message is a part of my activism.)

The two dominant parties are controlled by abstruse forces that confidently decide whose names you will see on the ballot.  Their objective is not to present competent candidates for election but to assure that party loyalists are rewarded with nominations.  That’s why we had the Bush dynasty and nearly had the Clinton dynasty.  That’s why what seem like the worst possible candidates rise to the top.  That’s why the Republicans almost had (I shudder to think it) Mitt Romney on the ballot in 2016, until the party controllers’ choice was steamrolled by Donald Trump.  That’s why, to oppose Trump, the Democrats have a candidate who needs to be propped up like wax museum mannequin, but at least, unlike Trump, he can be manipulated by the puppeteers within the Party.

I am convinced that we, who have the power to do it, need to abolish the two big parties, and doing so is as easy as exercising our influence under Option 1 or Option 2. We have no other peaceful way to relieve the them of their stranglehold on our elections. Unenrolling en masse and depriving them of members — compliant peons — is the one productive way I can think of to do it. #Dexit and #Rexit — that’s my proposal.

=David A. Woodbury=

Henry George

An email message from Poland, received February 4, spurred some research on my part. My correspondent, Dr. Olgierd Górecki, a faculty member at the University of Łódź, Departament of Law and Administration, had discovered this site dedicated to A. J. Nock and was writing to ask for help in locating a copy of Nock’s book-length essay, Henry George.

Dr. Górecki wrote that in 2013 he had published a book about Herbert Spencer’s political thought and now he is writing his next book dedicated to Albert Jay Nock.

I don’t own a copy of Henry George, and it took me a few days to begin digging. (I was just completing the publication of my own most recent book, Cold Morning Shadow.) Today I began searching the internet in earnest for Dr. Górecki, and I was able to locate:

  • two original copies of the 1939 book on Amazon for $135 each
  • an intriguing site, which I will explore more fully, which includes, among other things, the complete text of Nock’s short book, Henry George
  • a site with a the complete text of Henry George by Albert Jay Nock in PDF

Naturally, I refer readers of this site to either the second or third options above.

I replied to Dr. Górecki’s email with all three of these leads and a copy of the PDF files containing the complete text. I was pleased with this encounter because it is refreshing to know that someone, somewhere (Poland!) is still examining and reporting on the work of Nock.

=David A. Woodbury=