In Defense of Radicals

“Do not fear to be eccentric in opinion, for every opinion now accepted was once eccentric.”
― Bertrand Russell

On the surface and defined by a conditioned society, the word “radical” is pegged to those who hold an “extreme” opinion that falls outside the paradigm designed by the opinion makers. The opinion makers are the ruling elite who reside in government, media and academia. For brevity let’s call them the “establishment.”

Now their job is to design and peddle a narrative on how the world should be looked at by the collective. After the establishment has manufactured this so-called “public opinion” and the media sets the tone for the political debate, the masses then begin to have a conversation about the prescribed way of thinking. As the general census on the current issues sets in and meshes with the political landscape of society, the ruling elite’s mission is almost complete.

This is the time when the establishment induces minor conflicts within the narrative. As the linguistic philosopher, Noam Chomsky, pointed out, “The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”

The media, pushed by the establishment, instigates a little strife on some of the unimportant differences on the issues at hand. Political pundits, with haughty smiles on their faces, unleash their scripted tongues in front of the camera to fire up their base. The general public, abysmally ignorant of history, the constitution and economics, use these media voices as their only references to what’s going on. And for the most part, what people know of the world, are what they’re told by their favorite news channel.

For example, the political debate that get’s initiated might sound something like this:

Should we raise taxes on the rich? Should we be funding this program or that one? Should we tackle immigration reform? Should we use military action on Iran? Should we extend unemployment benefits? Increase the minimum wage? Healthcare Reform? Gay marriage? Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. Medicare is bankrupt, now what? And blah, blah, blah…

Now the people, unable to critically think things out, form and promote opinions based on what their party tells them. Republicans want to tackle a problem this way and the Democrats want to do it the other way. The left promotes more government theft and regulation in the economy. The right promotes a heavy police-state and a bloated defense budget to feed a harmful Foreign Policy. The constitution, either way, is never considered when promoting these policies or ideas.

This is when the masses tend to clash over trivial matters and the political discourse becomes ugly.  Both sides of the aisle dispute over the minor differences that these issue present, oblivious, of course, to the fact that nothing ever changes in the end. The problems remain the same and are just pawned off as the other party’s fault.

But the people still remain in the game.

The next step for the political class, now, is to remove self-reliance, thus creating dependence on the state or the collective. The establishment, very tactically, generates some type of motivation based on fear of scarcity. They induce a chaotic situation in which the people demand more security and more laws for the remedy. Frantically, they look to the ruling class for protection and are willing to let themselves be plundered–even more than they already are– in the name of more security.

And the sad thing is, most willingly give up a lot of their freedoms in exchange for a little bit of safety.

The people, as a whole, are usually oblivious to this happening. They don’t really care what’s going on or take the time to investigate some of the causes of society’s problems. They know nothing of the causes of 9/11 or the financial collapse of 2008. They don’t know why their tax dollars were spent on fighting a senseless war in Iraq, or Libya, or Yemen. They know little about the economic quagmire we’re in right now. As Chris Hedges wrote in his book, Empire of Illusion, “We accept the system handed to us and seek to find a comfortable place within it. We retreat into the narrow, confined ghettos created for us and shut our eyes to the deadly superstructure of the corporate state.”

When the typical person has a little time to themselves, reading and learning usually gets thrown to the back burner. It interferes with most people’s craving to be entertained. It’s cuts into TV time. Most Americans sit at computers, all day, mindlessly checking Facebook, Twitter, sports scores and emails. They work a lot because they’ve got a lot of debt to pay off. They have families to support. They are obedient and submissive to authority without a blink of afterthought. They have lives to live and cannot be bothered with the actualities of it. They just go with the flow.

These are the same folks who will show up in November at the polls and wear their little American flag sticker that says, “I Voted”, and will honestly think that they’ve done their part.

Control is now established.

The mission is complete.

But then what happens is a dissenting voice starts to rise. Independent and free-thinking individuals begin saying something that falls outside the established boundaries of approved opinions. Their views challenge the status quo. These individuals are usually those who step back for just a minute to look at what’s going on. Something isn’t right. They notice that the society they’re apart of is heading toward a cliff. The radical abruptly breaks from the ranks. But the people keep marching with pride.

Now the radical is involved, alert, and mentally fueled by the ignorance around them. They see a lie or a distortion and tell themselves, “The people must be warned.” So they do some research, look into some alternative sources and start to discover even more unsettling truths than what was initially seen.

This is when the radical starts informing people. They post articles on social media, talk to people and warn about the fabrications that most are just mindlessly excepting as status quo. They explain to people why they are being misled. Instead of dwelling on the symptoms of the crisis, like moderate Americans and the media does, the radical explains the causes of it. They explain who is involved and why. People start to listen.

But then the governing class catches wind of this small faction of truth-tellers. The ruling elite and high priests of society initiate a campaign of ridicule toward these individuals. They call them harsh names and warn the masses of their dangers. They divvy out empty phrases like “a threat to national security” and deem the radical a “traitor” to his country. Again as Chomsky observed, “That’s the whole point of good propaganda. You want to create a slogan that nobody’s going to be against, and everybody’s going to be for. Nobody knows what it means, because it doesn’t mean anything.” After the ruling elite gains support from the public, they work quickly to smash these dissenting voices.  And with the full force of cable news, newspapers and academia behind them, they are very efficient in doing this.

But who are these radicals and what do they believe?

The great philosopher of liberty, Murray Rothbard, explains in one of his greatest essays, that radicals are “Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.”

The radical, in truth, is one who recognizes that the state is a legal monopoly of force. The money they get is only abstracted by force on the workers and producers. They understand that the state is only in existence because of the public’s consent. And for the state to maintain this consent, they utilize deceitful and immoral methods to trick the public into trusting in its good intentions. The radical sees through all these shenanigans and promotes ideas of liberty, peace and sound monetary policies. The radical sees the state as a menace to humanity, and believes, with whole heart, that it must be abolished, and replaced with a decentralized form of localized governing.

This was the original intent of America’s founders.

Unlike typical Americans, radicals don’t push for reforms or moderate changes in policies. The radical calls for an all-out different way of thinking. They understand change will never come through politics because the game is rigged.  They understand that great ideas never require force. And so to live in a voluntary society the radical must appeal to the hearts and minds of the people. They must remind them that they hold all of the power.

The public in general looks at this “radical”, at least at first, with distaste and considers him or her a kook, a dangerous delinquent, an unpatriotic buffoon and a treacherous bastard. So the radical gets tossed aside for the time being. But he works cunningly and meticulously to get his ideas and warnings out to the people. Even with huge obstacles in his face.

But if we’re truthful to ourselves, we can’t deny the fact that its been the radical way of thinking that has been proven morally right over time.  Reasonable minds don’t have to look too far back in history to see this. It was the eccentric radical’s that have changed the world for the better. They were the brave ones who saw beyond the lies of their own place. As Plato once so keenly observed, “Those who are able to see beyond the shadows and lies of their culture will never be understood, let alone believed, by the masses.” They’re ideas never seem imperative in their own time, but in due course, will be celebrated. Time always lags behind revolutionary ideas, but it catches up and transforms the world we know.

Take Jesus Christ. Born into this world as a criminal and died to this world as a criminal. With the word criminal, meaning, how the “authorities” defined it.  As Jesus began teaching, the radicalism of his message intrigued everyone around him. He knocked down the notion of admiring men of power and prestige and taught that no man was above the law, not even government officials. He regarded tax collectors with those of sinners (Matthew 9:9-13) and saw the virtues of private property and free and voluntary trade. He taught people to avoid money hungry courts. He taught people how to raise their consciousness to see beyond this world of form. The irony of it all is that the same people he was trying to save killed him in the end for treason. I guess truth will always be treason in empires of lies.

Take William Lloyd Garrison. One of the lone fervent voices against slavery well before the Civil War. Nobody in politics wanted to associate with this radical who had the nerve to challenge the status quo of slavery. Upon being criticized for his fiery wit and polarizing language, Garrison retorted: “I have need to be all on fire, for I have mountains of ice about me to melt.”  He spent his whole life being called vile names, hazed, threatened to death, and scorned by a society he was trying to make right. As one Garrison biographer acknowledged, “he had the humanity to imagine a radically different society, the courage to insist upon its principles, and the faith to persist in agitation until his vision became manifest and the slaves went free.” He was a true radical in the cause of liberty.

Take Dietrich Bonhoeffer. As Wikipedia tells us about this great man, “Apart from his theological writings, Bonhoeffer became known for his staunch resistance to the Nazi dictatorship. He strongly opposed Hitler’s euthanasia program and genocidal persecution of the Jews… He was arrested in April 1943 by the Gestapo and executed by hanging in April 1945 while imprisoned at a Nazi concentration camp, just 23 days before the German surrender.”  In Germany, Hitler was democratically elected and the Nazi Party was applauded by most its citizens. It took men like Bonhoeffer, who believed as he once said, “Silence in the face of evil is itself evil. God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.”  While the majority sat by passively, Bonhoeffer decided, nope, I will not tolerate the evil upon us. In the end he paid the ultimate price for being morally just in an immoral world.

It was the radicals of America’s founding generation who agitated for the overthrow of their own coercive government. These radicals called for an all-out separation from their overlords of Great Britain, and with drastic measures, they finally threw off their monarchical allegiance for good. The founders, after the revolution, then formed a Republic based on individual liberty and peace, unlike today’s America of tyranny and empire. Thomas Jefferson, probably the most intense in his advocacy for liberty among the founders, believed the only true way to maintain freedom was to have a rebellion at least every 20 years. This is radical, but he was right, as long as the rebellion is peaceful.

There are a plethora of other examples we could look to, but, I believe you get the point.

As America is thrusting to the point of no return, morally and financially, now is when radicals are needed the most.

We have an out of control ruling class that are dumbing down our kids in the public school system. We let the huge pharmaceutical companies, backed by the FDA, conduct their own fabricated studies on the effectiveness and safety of their own products.  We’re overmedicated. We are passive. We are a society who remains silent as the President murders hundreds of innocent children by drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen. We let our military go all over the world to fight unnecessary conflicts without a declaration of war from congress. We let the President sign a bill that allows him to assassinate and jail any American he wants without due process. We have a media that reports whatever the government tells them to report and we believe them. We look to Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden as traitors for telling us what our government is really up to.

America has a huge epidemic of cognitive dissonance. We hold too many contradictory opinions. We brag about our freedom while despising those who show us that it just might be an illusion. There is a massive gap between what people believe is reality to what it in fact is.

As we salute our troops for “protecting our freedoms”, there is someone’s home in America getting raided, unconstitutionally, because it might be harboring a plant deemed a no-no.

It’s illegal to farm our own food and produce and sell our own milk.

The government’s “war on terror” creates more terrorists. The “war on drugs” creates more crime. The “war on poverty” makes us poorer.

The government racks up an unpayable 17 trillion dollar debt, and makes us believe it is our fault. “The rich aren’t paying their fair share” we cry out. It’s amazing.

Radicals are needed more than ever.

It’s time to return to a society based on individualism, brotherly love, voluntarism and peace. A place where the entrepreneurial spirit is applauded and war is always questioned. A country that the founders hoped we’d uphold.

Moderate American’s will never get the job done. They’ll just go on voting and remain quiet in living their ordinary lives.

Radicals are needed more than ever.

And the good news is…

They’re coming.

Thanks to social media, alternative media, brave journalists, Wikileaks, and whistle-blowers, normal everyday people are starting to hear the truth. The tide is turning on the old ways of the vertical, top-down structure of society. Peace and Liberty will one day be the pillars of our community again.

It must!

Advertisements

A Filibuster and the American Drone War

droned

It’s hard to get any kind of reaction out of American’s these days unless something affects them personally. Most walk around over medicated and under educated. They ignore politics until their little public pension is threatened. They vote for whomever their favorite pundit tells them to vote for. They have no knowledge of constitutional government but are heavily opinionated when it comes to a policy that doesn’t serve them. With all this selfishness that I’m talking about, you’d think we might get at least a little reaction from the public when they’re told that their own government now has the legal power to kill them without due process.

Nope. Nothing. Nil. Silence. Back to our reality show please. I didn’t hear about this on the nightly news so it can’t be true?!

On March 6th, Senator Rand Paul began to filibuster the Senate vote on confirming John Brennan as CIA director. The reason why is because he’s one of the only politicians breathing today with balls enough to challenge President Obama’s  authority to assassinate American citizens in the drone war. This is kind of a big deal. The filibuster went on for 10 plus hours and during this time, Rand Paul had the opportunity to educate the American people about the secret drone war going on. Here’s how Senator Paul started out the filibuster…

 I rise today to begin to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination for the CIA I will speak until I can no longer speak, I will speak as long as it takes, until the alarm is sounded from coast to coast that our Constitution is important, that your rights to trial by jury are precious, that no American should be killed by a drone on American soil without first being charged with a crime, without first being found to be guilty by a court.

And according to John Glaser at Antiwar.com…

Paul warned he might block the vote on Brennan if he was still unsatisfied with the Obama administration’s response to his repeated inquiries on the question of killing US citizens in the drone war.

In a letter responding to Paul’s questions, the Obama administration’s Attorney General Eric Holder wrote that the President does have the authority to kill US citizens on US soil without any due process.

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States,” Holder wrote.

The back-and-forth began after the leaking of a Justice Department white paper on targeted killings of US citizens, which was written to retroactively justify the CIA’s assassination, on the orders of the President, of US-born Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen in 2011. Other Americans have also been killed in the drone war, including AbdulRahman Awlaki, Anwar’s 16-year old son.

uByC2President Obama believes that our land is a battleground where he can solely choose who gets a bullet to the head. This is dangerous power to give to any one person. In a world with common sense, you’d think that every American would oppose this at all costs. But politics takes precedence over lives, like it always has. It’s really sad to realize that killing American people is up for debate with little reaction from the people.

Charles Burris made a good point in his recent blog post…

Senator Rand Paul’s epic filibuster on the floor of the United States Senate yesterday was a heroic exercise in speaking truth to power. The central question he raised – does the President of the United States and the top echelon of the National Security State have the power to arbitrarily and capriciously order the assassination of an American citizen without due process of law? – strikes at the root of the state apparatus and our constitutional rule of law. It is particularly appropriate this historic filibuster occurred during the confirmation process of a new director of the Central Intelligence Agency, in lieu of the tragic world-changing event which happened fifty years ago this November 22 which forever changed the course of our nation.

The National Security State in America is out of control. Eisenhower tried to warn us in his last speech as President of the hidden powers on the verge of hijacking our Republic. President Truman, who helped create the CIA, started getting nervous shortly thereafter, about the dangerous powers it had acquired so rapidly. JFK wanted to obliterate the CIA into smithereens for the Bay of Pigs fiasco—and we all know how that ended up.

It’s blatantly obvious what the state is preparing for—civil unrest. The Department of Homeland Security has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets in the last year. They’ve also just purchased 2,717  ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ vehicles for service on the streets of the United States. And now, to top it off, they have the legal authority to kill our fellow countrymen on our own soil without due process. The government recognizes that some people are waking up to their lies and deceit. In a collapsing, bankrupt empire, where politicians can no longer come through with promises, they know unrest is inevitable. And they’re preparing accordingly by stripping us of our rights and freedom. The Bill of Rights is no more.

People that understand what’s going on right now are the biggest threat to the state, which unfortunately, is worshiped and adored by the people who don’t understand what’s going on. That’s the dilemma in America right now. Wisdom is the bullet that assassinates falsehoods; ignorance is the fertilizer that feeds it.

Stand with Rand!188802_480099702043618_1944515942_n

How I Became an Anarchist

535878_559296890762287_1831824195_n

  “Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.”~ Edward Abbey

First let me define what one of the most misinterpreted terms actually means. Most folks think disorder, chaos, lawlessness, violence and communist punks throwing Molotov cocktails in buildings when they hear the word Anarchist. Nothing can be further from the truth. An individualist anarchist believes in the idea of living in a stateless atmosphere absent of political force. Anarchism is the crazy notion that life should be conducted through voluntary interactions with other individuals within one’s own community. Anarchists despise living under any system that uses threats and coercion as a way of governing. Anarchism, in short, is peacefully participating in the complexity of living and being who you are unhindered from institutional threats of force.

Right before the financial collapse of 2008, I was, what is so commonly referred to as a Neocon. This is a modern-day conservative who believes that the government is great when Republicans are in office and horrible when Democrats are in. I believed that all wars were just even though I didn’t know why the wars were being fought or with who. It didn’t’ matter. I voted for George W. Bush because he said Jesus was his hero. I watched Fox News and thought I was being fed the truth. And as a former veteran, I believed that we should of been funding the military industrial-complex infinitely. I also believed that the “terrorists” hated Americans because of our freedoms. I fell for the limited government lies the GOP peddled out to their gullible electorate. I was that guy.

Then the 2008 financial collapse happened. How come CNBC didn’t warn us about this housing collapse? How come nobody in the media had a clue this was about to happen? Aren’t they suppose to be our watchdogs? Why did the so-called conservative president state that “I’ve abandoned freemarket principles to save the freemarket system”? Wasn’t this collapse caused by government meddling in the free-market in the first place? Why is the Fed artificially pushing the interest rates down? Doesn’t this hurt savings? Why did the same financial gods that helped cause this mess get a bailout? Isn’t this fascism? This wasn’t capitalism.

Damn it all to hell. I finally came to the conclusion that it’s all a scam. Politics is bullshit. Thanks to Lewrockwell.com for opening my eyes.

But what I finally discovered was that there were a few people out there trying to warn everyone about this bust. They were the great Anarcho-Capitalists like Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Jim Rogers and Marc Faber. Peter Schiff was warning about the collapse a few years before it happened only to get laughed at by a bunch of jackass talking heads. You can watch it here. I came to the realization that truthtellers were not welcomed on mainstream media outlets or in political office. Voters are so used to being told lies that any truths that they do hear are immediately ridiculed or ignored. It’s easier to be content in lies than it is to accept reality. When someone does tell some kind of uncomfortable truth, like Ron Paul did in the 2008 Republican debate, you can expect them to get either booed, censored or chastised. (Watch it here)

527339_366723706749026_261244590_nThe 2008 collapse alone, along with actions taken immediately following, put the final stamp on my skepticism of “government of the people, for the people and by the people.” So after a lot of reading and watching speeches from Ron Paul, I came to believe what the Irish philosopher, Gerald Casey, acknowledged in his wonderful little book called, Libertarian Anarchy: Against the State, that…

States are criminal organizations. All states, not just the obviously totalitarian or repressive ones…. I intend this statement to be understood literally and not as some form of rhetorical exaggeration. The argument is simple. Theft, robbery, kidnapping and murder are all crimes. Those who engage in such activities, whether on their own behalf or on behalf of others are, by definition, criminals. In taxing the people of a country, the state engages in an activity that is morally equivalent to theft or robbery; in putting some people in prison, especially those who are convicted of so-called victimless crimes or when it drafts people into the armed services, the state is guilty of kidnapping or false imprisonment; in engaging in wars that are other than purely defensive, or, even if defensive, when the means of defence employed are disproportionate and indiscriminate, the state is guilty of manslaughter or murder.

This sums up the essence of governments. We’ve been conditioned through government schools to believe that the State is good and we should obey its commands like good little citizens and never question their madness. People whose viewpoint falls outside the political parameter set by the Republican and Democrat vision are looked at with scornful eyes from the deluded masses. They look at Anarchism, Libertarianism and Voluntarism as a wicked and dangerous form of belief. And in an age of limited thinking and authoritarian worship,  it’s no wonder most put their full trust in the brutal entity of the state instead of the peaceful interactions among their fellow people. But as Butler Shaffer points out, we can’t…

ignore the history of the state in visiting upon humanity the very death and destruction that its defenders insist upon as a rationale for political power. Those who condemn anarchy should engage in some quantitative analysis. In the twentieth century alone, governments managed to kill — through wars, genocides, and other deadly practices — some 200,000,000 men, women, and children. How many people were killed by anarchists during this period? Governments, not anarchists, have been the deadly “bomb-throwers” of human history!

Another venture that took me down to my philosophical conclusion was reading Murray Rothbard. This man was a giant in the liberty movement and wrote many books and essays on about everything under the sun, including: History, Economics, Political Theory, Utilitarianism, Anarchism and Sociology. The book that transformed my world outlook was For a New Liberty. In this one book, Rothbard laid out the greatest, logical explanation for living in a stateless society. He also wrote hundreds of essays in which you can read here.

What we do when it comes to political power, is we compartmentalize our morality. We don’t hold a group of people, like the State, to the same moral standards as we do an individual person. If a certain person took a machine gun and wiped out a group of people, we’d call that mass murder. But if the State does this, we call it war. And we justify it through mentally convincing ourselves that the innocent people over there are just “collateral damage” to our noble cause.

Anarchists understand that wars are fought to expand the power of the State. History informs us that the first casualty of war is the truth. We also recognize that the State only exists through the consent of the governed. To keep the support of the people, the State deploys a massive propaganda campaign to make sure the masses believe that their overlords are representing them. So they put gasoline on the patriotic fire by creating enemies that we must go in and conquer. This gets the Flag-wavers, unable to critically analyze events, to blindly chant “USA, USA, USA” , while the government ravages their freedoms, bank accounts and future prosperity. The State also rally’s up some tedious difference that causes debate within the two parties as to blind eyes to the bigger picture. This always works, just turn on the boob tube and see for yourself.

Today’s world is filled with empty people walking along life’s journey stripped of a soul and of their own mind. We need to recapture what makes us human again. Institutions like the State, work in ways to dehumanize all of us and they reduce us to nothing more than robotic machines. We’re told from birth to act a certain way, think a certain way, believe in this, vote for that, support this, abide by that…etc. We have to stop this madness if we have any hope for the integrity of the sovereign individual. Anarchism holds the individual as a sacred being that should be fully free to peacefully interact with others. Anarchism is the only moral idea that holds true to the principles of non-aggression, private property, free and voluntary exchange, and self-responsibility. And again, Shaffer explains…

‘Anarchy’ is an expression of social behavior that reflects the individualized nature of life. Only as living beings are free to pursue their imagesparticular interests in the unique circumstances in which they find themselves, can conditions for the well-being of all be attained. Anarchy presumes decentralized and cooperative systems that serve the mutual interests of the individuals comprising them, without the systems ever becoming their own reasons for being. It is this thinking, and the practices that result therefrom, that is alone responsible for whatever peace and order exists in society.”

Governments have failed miserably in the past century. War, genocide, slavery, political corruption, backroom deals, inflating our hard-earned currency, taxation without representation, and I could go on and on. All these immoral actions are conducted while at the same time mortgaging our future. Do you honestly think that we’d be worse off without a government? All governments are the enemy to the individual and nothing short of a stateless society would let people thrive to their full potential. This is when we’d finally capture the true essence of who we were meant to be. And ending with the words of Emma Goldman, “People have only as much liberty as they have the intelligence to want and the courage to take.”

To get a better grasp and a more in-depth analysis on how living in a stateless society is possible, read this article here by the greatest Anarchist philosopher of all time, Murray Rothbard. He answers the common questions like–Who would teach our kids?  Who would build the roads? What would we do about criminals? Etc.

Here is a great reading list that every freedom loving person should devour. (Click Here)

My Debate with A Christian Warmonger

Recently, one of my family members shared a post I had on my Facebook page called “I’m Not Voting”. You can read it here. A great philosopher of freedom, David Gordon, brings forth just a quick, ethical reason on why he’s not voting in the presidential race in a few days. He hits on some moral issues on why I too, am not voting in this race. Well, this didn’t go over to good with, what I like to call, a Disciple of Democracy. This is the debate that followed between myself and a woman whose name I’ve changed.

DOROTHY: If you don’t vote you have no right to complain.

ME: If you do vote you have no right to complain. The non-voters have used Reason to consciously decide not to choose between puppet A and puppet B which are both evil. If you love liberty, the constitution, the free-market and peace, I don’t know how anyone can endorse any of these two so-called candidates, who represent everything opposite of what our Founding Fathers tried to establish.

DOROTHY: Not to vote is to vote. It’s a vote for the current socialist administration.

ME: I agree with you 100 percent Dorothy, about this horrible administration. But my disdain for Obama doesn’t fuel my enthusiasm for the socialist Romney either (who promises not to cut anything and won’t balance the budget until 2030). Anyway, our government is the most powerful, corrupt, imperial entity on the planet, they’re not going to let “elections” get in the way on their agenda. That’s why our choices are between these two fascist clowns. The only option is to withdrawal our consent to be governed by those who’ve exceeded their constitutional allotted power. Change is not going to happen via the political process; like the American Revolution, it has to come from the hearts and minds of the people.

DOROTHY: Totally disagree with you and think you have your facts wrong on Romney but you won’t change my mind and I won’t change yours. I know I will answer to God for what I did with the freedom He gave me to vote so not to vote is not an option for me.

ME: I don’t mean to go back and forth, but I like these conversations! Do you honestly think Jesus Christ, the Man of Peace, would really want you to vote for someone who utilizes force for desired purposes? Don’t you think a lot of Christians these days have replace their faith in God with that of American democracy? A few months ago, an American Drone strike killed innocent civilians during their wedding. Kids were killed. This happens all the time, but you don’t hear about it. Can we morally justify these murders just because it’s our “side” that has done it? I believe Jesus wants his followers to evade evil, not participate in it. I think the government is beyond repair and it’s up to the people to use the great Christian principles of Peace, Honesty and Love to transform our own little communities.

DOROTHY: God ordained government. And I’m not sure where you get Jesus is the man of peace. That’s no where in scripture. Read Revelation. He’s coming back as a lion to destroy the earth. He is the Son of God and if you read the OT you will see God commanded war of his people. Until Christ returns we all have to do what our consciences tell us to do knowing we will stand before God in the end. I’m not a one issue person. To me the war to be concerned about is the war against unborn innocent babies. The war against our freedom of speech. The war against marriage between a man and a woman. The war against our economy. The war against small businesses and the class warfare being waged. These are the many issues we face as a country and these are the issues God is going to hold us accountable for.

ME: “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6).

DOROTHY: Is Jesus really a man of peace? Wait till he comes back! –he fights the Anti-christ and conquers the whole world. Also, he wasn’t so peaceful when he cleared the Temple that one day. Nevertheless, it is true when he was on the earth that he taught his disciples to ‘turn the cheek’. He never lead an army or even resisted his own arrest–but went willingly to his death.
But he also said in Luke 22:36
“But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag, and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Ecclesiastes tells us there is a time for war and a time for peace. You have chosen to be a one issue voter and that is your decision. I think that is extremely short sided but that is why our freedom is so important. We can have different opinions. But that freedom could be taken away because of your short sidedness.

ME: Oh Dorothy, your perverted view of the scripture is why Christianity is in such decline. Your comments are very disturbing, illogical and almost sounds Jihadi like. “Flipping the table over” is not mass murder. It seems like your hatred for anyone who thinks outside of what you’ve been conditioned to think overpowers your ability to decipher between good and evil. Am I really a “one-sided” voter. I have about as many reasons for not voting for the lesser of two evils as you have for voting for it. I think you went off the rails a little bit with these comments and I truly believe these unsound thoughts that you and some people harbor is why America is in such massive decay.

DOROTHY: Wow. Superior you.

ME: Not superior, just awake.

Now, you can see that some of her arguments are very elementary. Unable to have a thought of her own, she’s forced to the regurgitation of talking points from Glenn Beck or Fox News.  You can tell she is set in her ways and no amount of evidence, facts or ideas will ever change her worldview. She has completed her intellectual growth process and will block out all other logical explanations that doesn’t mesh with her set outlook. And she will be smug and self-satisfied with this lack of knowledge for the rest of her life.

One of the most startling things in America today is some of the distorted ideas that are peddled by some Christians. This woman embodies the self-righteous nationalism that fuels the divisiveness in our country. Unable to have peace in her soul, this woman snags a few verses from scripture to substantiate her appetite for bloodshed on anyone who is not like her or thinks like her. She is a hypocrite in the worse way. She claims she cares about “the war on babies” here in this country, but doesn’t have a care in the world for them in another. For some reason I don’t think Jesus views the world with geographical boundaries. But unfortunately, humans do, especially Americans.

Anthony Gregory eloquently points out in a great article that “attempting to reach people on the merits of peace and the perils of war is not always easy, particularly when they hold tightly to what they believe are teachings of their religious faith that validate or even endorse war. With millions of Christian Americans drawing their attitudes toward war from the bloodthirsty lessons of pro-war clergymen, it is not too surprising, but nevertheless disappointing, to see so many replace faith in God with faith in the state, and respect for the teachings of the Prince of Peace with the calls for blood coming from the god of war.”

If Christians are to save the country, they’d be wise to start emulating their Savior instead of acting like the Roman soldiers who crucified him.

For further reading on Christianity and war, I highly recommend a book by Laurence Vance called Christianity and War; And Other Essays against the Warfare State. (Click here for it)

Also, I highly recommend a phenomenal essay about Christianity and war which you can read here.