Communism vs. Christianity: Satan's Counterfeit

Steven Montgomery
Saturday, December 9, 2006

Freedom can sometimes be best understood by understanding its opposite. Well, you might ask, what is the opposite of freedom? A little over 25 years ago, former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson and Apostle of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, made a remarkable statement regarding freedoms opposite. Here are his remarks:

Whenever the God of Heaven reveals His gospel to mankind, Satan, the archenemy to Christ, introduces a counterfeit. . . Communism introduced into the world a substitute for true religion, It is a counterfeit of the gospel plan . . . Today, we are in the battle for the bodies and souls of man. It is a battle between two opposing systems: freedom and slavery, Christ and AntiChrist. . .

Then, Marion G. Romney, in the 1st Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in the September 1979 Church Magazine Ensign, wrote:

Communism is Satan's counterfeit for the gospel plan, and . . . it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. (Marion G. Romney as quoted by Ezra Taft Benson, CR, Oct. 1979; Ensign, Nov 1979, pgs. 43-47)

Why did Ezra Taft Benson and Marion G. Romney consider Communism as a "substitute for true religion" and the "counterfeit of the gospel plan?" What prophetic insight did they have which would move them to make such striking statements?

Hints at Communism's true character, not as merely being atheistic but as an actual AntiChrist power can be glimpsed by looking into the writings of its founder--Karl Marx. In several poems he wrote about his allegiance to Satan. In a poem entitled, "The Pale Maiden," Marx wrote:

Thus heaven I've forfeited, I know it full well. My soul, once true to God, Is chosen for hell.

In a poem entitled, "The Player," Marx wrote:

The hellish vapors rise and fill the brain, Till I go mad and my heart is utterly changed. See this sword? The prince of darkness sold it to me. For me he beats the time and gives the signs. Ever more boldly I play the dance of death.

In another poem, he titled, "Invocation of One in Despair," Marx declares a war of personal revenge on God:

So a god has snatched from me my all In the curse and rack of destiny. All his worlds are gone beyond recall Nothing but

revenge is left for me. I shall build my throne high overhead, Cold, tremendous shall its summit be. For its bulwark, superstitious dreads. For its marshal, blackest agony....Then I will be able to walk triumphantly, like a god,through the ruins of their kingdom. Every word of mine is fire and action. My breast is equal to that of the creator.

Finally, in the same poem Marx wrote:

I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above.

What a hellish beginning to a philosophy, a false religion, a perfect counterfeit to the "gospel plan" which some estimates indicate have killed upwards of three hundred million people (See for instance, The Black Book Of Communism or Harvest of Sorrow by Robert Conquest).

But what, you may ask, give Communism its character as a counterfeit religion? A philosophy that would be appealing enough so as to replace God in the minds of its believers?

Apocalyptic vision

Communism's philosophy of dialectical and historical materialism gives its believers an apocalyptic vision and a sense of "spiritual" sacrifice and commitment. As a primer on Marxist philosophy explained it:

Historical materialism has a very important role. In the early years of Christianity, the Christians lived with the feeling that at any moment Christ might return and the world may end. This apocalyptic feeling gave fervor to early Christianity. Communism also shares that kind of apocalyptic vision. Historical materialism teaches people that we are now in the last days of history; we are the the great turning point. The entire history up to this point is just pre-history, and we are going to begin history when we begin communism. Furthermore it argues that communism is a historical inevitability. You can try to stop it, you can destroy yourself trying to stop it, but you cannot stop communism. (Causa Institute, Introduction to the CAUSA Worldview, pg. 71)

This primer then explained why communism gives its believers such a feeling of "religious" fervor and commitment:

Why was it that the war [Vietnam] was lost? Mao Tse Tung once said, 'Weapons are important, but they are not the decisive factor. Man is the decisive factor.' During the war in Vietnam, the men of our nation lacked a purpose to fight. The lyrics of a popular song went, 'And it's one, two, three. What are we fighting for? Don't ask me, I don't give a damn. Next stop is Vietnam.' This attitude stands in stark contrast to that of the communists. When the Chinese Communists occupied Peking after years of battling the forces of Chiang Kai Shek, stories began to appear about the attitude of Mao's soldiers. One story concerned participants on the "long march" who had nothing to eat. Supposedly those soldiers went to Mao Tse Tung explaining their situation. Mao replied, "Cook the leather of your shoes and eat it." This is what they allegedly did. When those troops finally marched victoriously into Peking, Mao gathered them and said, "Do not think that your lives will now be easier. They will not. But I promise you one thing. The lives of your children will be easier." What inspired people to live at such a level of sacrifice and commitment? What gave them that kind of determination? It was the Marxist ideology. Marxist ideology gives a dream and the steps to realize that dream. Many people attribute the deaths and sufferings of communism to Stalinism, but Lenin in _State and Revolution_ used Marx's writings to prove that brutal "means" were ideologically necessary in order to achieve the "end." the "end" was the Marxist dream. The Marxist dream has a mystical, almost religious quality. It has the ability to captivate people and to fill them with ideals and hopes of an almost religious character. In 1935, French writer Andre Gide, speaking of his experience with Marxism, said, "My conversion is like a faith. All my being is directed to a single goal. In the deplorable state of the modern world, the plan of the Soviet Union seems to constitute the salvation of humanity. (The God That Failed, Richard Crossman, ed., New York, Harper and Row, 1949, p. 173.)

In his final letter to his parents before his death, Che Guevarra communicated that same kind of ideal:

My Marxism has taken root within me and been purified. I believe in armed struggle as the only solution to those who wish to liberate themselves, and I am faithful to my beliefs. (Che Guevarra Speaks, p. 142.)

Marxism and its promises have been able to ignite people throughout the world with the conviction that ultimately a good and ethical world will emerge if they are willing to fight and sacrifice today. In a world which is devoid of God and His Gospel is it any wonder why Communism attracts and holds so many followers? Is it any wonder, then, that Ezra Taft Benson called Communism a "counterfeit of the gospel plan" and a "substitute for true religion?"

Alienation

But this is barely the beginning. There is a lot more to the story.

In the Gospel view, because of the fall of Adam, Man is cutoff and separated from God, has become spiritually "dead" and is thus alienated from God and spiritual things. To liberate man from the fall, an At-One-Ment is needed, to bring us into unity with God and the ability to achieve total freedom. This At-One-Ment is provided for us by a Savior, Jesus Christ.

Marx, on the other hand, has it inverted. He claims that man is cutoff not from God but "reality." Man, according to Marx, invents God and religion as a substitute for relations with the real world (Causa, p. 53.). To Marx, religion was "the fantastic realization of the human being inasmuch as the human being possesses no true reality" (Causa, p. 54.). Furthermore, Marx claims that man, in this condition, "has lost himself; been alienated. . . [and] is not a real species being" ( Marx, "On The Jewish Question", Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol 3, p. 159).

Furthermore, according to Marx, Labor takes the place of God. Frederich Engels, an associate of Marx, wrote that man is a highly developed animal which has evolved as a consequence of interaction with his material environment. This interaction has taken the form of labor. Through labor, man has developed the ability to communicate and the capacity to reason. The ape became man through labor, and it is labor which distinguishes man from ape. In Marxian theory then, labor replaces God as the creator of humankind, Engels writing that:

Labor . . . is the prime basic condition for all human existence, and this is to such an extent that, in a sense, we have to say that labor created man himself. (Marx and Engels, "The Holy Family", Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol 4, p. 36)

Getting back to the idea of alienation, Marx develops this theory even further. In his work, _Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844_, he described four types of alienation:

(I) Alienation of the laborer from the product of his labor. Whatever a man produces under the capitalist system is taken from him and becomes the property of the capitalist who hired him. The products of labor are taken then and become "an alien object from which the worker is estranged" (Causa p. 61).

(II) Alienation of the Laborer from his labor. When a worker works for someone else, "labor for the worker is not his own, but someone else's. (Marx, "Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844", Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol 3, p. 274.)

(III) Alienation of the human species. Under the capitalist system man is reduced to labor in order to merely survive and is thus cutoff from the basis of his humanity.

(IV) Alienation of man from man. According to Marx, Capitalism and the "division of labor" has denied man his humanity, he experiences no joy in a man to man relationship.

The solution to alienation, according to Marx, was to change the human condition by abolishing private property and establishing communal ownership--or communism. Only in this manner could man regain his dignity by overcoming this type of alienation and reestablishing his ties to the rest of humanity. Marx then, in an effort to overthrew God, made man the measure of all things.

Additionally, Marx held that is was economic alienation, in the form of private property, which gives rise to the notion of God and religious alienation. In order to truly "liberate" man, according to Marx, you must begin by cutting yourself off from your [to him] invented God which is preventing your from contact with reality and to accomplish this your must begin with the destruction of private property, since the ultimate basis of alienation was the underlying and unjust economic structure.

As a side note regarding the concept of "liberation" it is worthy of note to point out the many Marxist-Leninist "liberation" movements in the world. Such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and many others too numerous to mention.

By overthrowing God in this manner man is alienated not from God but from a vague "reality" that man has been harmed because the "products of labor" have been denied him. All of which harbors resentment and feelings of hatred.

Labor means everything to a communist. Labor replaces God in realizing the "ideal man" while it is the Gospel view that it is a belief in God and that man can progress towards becoming like God that matters.

Righteousness

The Communists believe in demanding and developing characters of "righteousness," that is, Marxist-Leninist righteousness. In the book, How To Be A Good Communist, Liu Shao-chi, past President of Communist China and brilliant Marxist theoretical writer says:

But if sacrifice has to made for the Party, for class and national liberation, that is, for the emancipation of mankind, for social evolution and for the interests of the greatest majority of mankind embracing countless millions of people, countless Communist Party members will face death with equanimity and make any sacrifice without the slightest hesitation. To the majority of Communist Party members, it will be accepted as a matter of course 'to lay down ones life for a noble cause' or 'to die for righteousness' if necessary. (Liu Shao-chi, How To Be A Good Communist, Peking: Foreign Language Press, pp. 55-56.)

But what is this righteousness for which they are ready to die? The type of conduct that will advance Communist world conquest.

It is interesting to compare and contrast other opposing concepts between the Christian Gospel and Communism as well. Such as the following.

Prometheus and the Humanist view

Marx view himself as the embodiment of Prometheus (in Greek mythology Prometheus stole fire from the gods and gave it to man). Many early Communist posters characterized Marx chained to a rock, as was Prometheus. By deifying humanity man became the measure of all things rather than God.

Law

Karl Marx is credited with "discovering" the dialectical laws governing class struggle and the war with capitalism. On the other hand according to the Christian Gospel there are two forms of law: discovered law (the so-called laws of nature) and revealed law (the word of God as revealed to his Prophets).

Morality

Communists believe in dialectical materialism, which at its root simply means there is struggle, conflict, and destruction until the perfect Communist Society is established and any action which helps to propel society towards that eventuality is moral. As the Marxist Afanasayev noted:

From the point of view of Communist morality, that which promotes the movement of society towards communism is moral (V. G. Afanasayev, Marxist Philosophy, USSR, Progress Publishers).

This Marxist idea of morality is certainly not the Christian morality--that of obedience to God and his laws.

Additionally, the Marxist founder of Planned Parenthood wrote in her book, The Pivot of Civilization, that the drama of history was played out as a struggle to free bodies and minds from self-imposed constraints of morality, the "cruel morality of self-denial and sin." Sexual liberation was touted by her as the way to find "inner peace and security and beauty" and the way to conquer societies faults was to "remove the constraints and prohibitions which no hinder the release of inner energies [sexual energy, according to Sanger]," for then "most of the larger evils of society will perish." Marxism's vendetta then, is to portray sexual liberation, in the words of Nancy Pearcy, a Christian and Marxist critic, as a "moral crusade, in which Christian morality is the enemy, and opposition to it is a heroic moral stance."

Struggle

As previously stated, to a Marxist there is a war going on. A struggle and conflict, and if necessary wars of liberation. In the Christian concept the struggle is between good and evil, against Satan and the flesh.

Creator

Physical matter, according to Marx is the great creator. Or, as Lenin put it:

We maybe regard the material and cosmic world as the supreme being, the cause of all causes, the creator of heaven and earth

Quite a contrast to the Christian view of creation.

Savior or Messiah

Under Marx's view of the world the Savior is the proletariat. Lenin modified this by making the dictatorship of the proletariat the savior of mankind. Of course, the gospel view is that Jesus Christ and him alone is the Savior of the world.

Peace

Peace will only be established, according to the Marxist worldview, when capitalism is overthrown and abolished, and the "paradisaical state," envisioned by Marx--the primitive communal society--is finally established and the world enjoys a classless society.

---

Other Comparisons:

Both Communism and the Gospel of Jesus Christ share a view of a Paradisical state:

1. Marx's primitive communal society, or when communism if finally established and the world enjoys a classless society.
2. The garden of Eden and the world in general enjoyed a paradisaical glory before the fall.

Both share a view of "reality":

1. Marx: Matter is real
2. Gospel: Reality is of a dual nature, both matter and spirit.

Both share a view of "evil":

1. Marx: Evil consists of the bourgeoisie and capitalist system.
2. Gospel: Evil is disobedience to God. Evil is the word "live" turned around, and those who commit evil kill themselves spiritually.

Both share a view of missionary work:

1. Marx: The Communist Party is the vanguard of salvation, and has a worldwide mission and vision.
2. Gospel: Missionary work is done by the Spirit through members of the Church and scriptures (the Book of Mormon) expressly designed for this purpose. Missionary work also has a worldwide mission and vision. The earth is to be flooded with the Book of Mormon.

Both use "sacred" writings:

1. Marx: The works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, etc., is where the true doctrine of Marxism is contained.
2. Gospel: The Bible, the Book of Mormon, and other ancient and modern works written under the influence of the Holy Ghost.

Both share "Prophetic" heros or types:

1. Marx: Marx is equal to Moses, Lenin to Christ. Lenin's corpse is equivalent to Catholic saint worship.
2. Gospel: All of the Prophets of the Bible and Book of Mormon are types of Christ. Every sanctified man will reflect Christ in his character.

Both share a view of "Class":

1. Marx: With the division of mankind into classes ensures that there will be a class struggle. The class struggle will eventually lead to everyone becoming equal.
2. Gospel: Salvation is offered freely to all. However, in the Father's House are many mansions.

Both share a view of Historical Inevitability:

1. Marx: Historical Materialism. History is inexorably working its way towards communism and nothing will stand in its way.
2. Gospel: God's plan of history is the working out of a divine chiastic structure, where the end is comparable to the beginning and the beginning to the end. Nothing will hinder the work in its progress.

Both share a view of Paradise on Earth:

1. Marx: Worker's paradise.
2. Gospel: Millenial peace and prosperity

Both share a view of the "perfected" man:

1. Marx: The Marxist ideal or perfect man.
2. Gospel: "Be ye therefore perfect. . ."

Why was George Bush, Sr., weeping?

Frankly, I have no way to verify the truth of this story, but if true, this is the most important story in several decades!

Sr. loses trillions in naked short meltdown

Christopher Story, author of the article, is located in the UK and has for years been a highly accurate intelligence and economic analyst of world affairs. I have no reason to suspect that his analysis is anything other than the truth.

Putin's Ph'd Dissertation: Plagiarism of the first degree

It seems that Martin Luther King is not the only one to have faked his Ph'd Dissertation:

Putin's Ph'd Dissertation

Litvenenko, Putin, and Russia

While researching the Alexander Litvenenko murder I came across a great blog on Russia. Here it is:

Russophobe

Here's the introductory statement:

A Not-for-Profit Russia blog recording the rise (and hopefully fall) of the Neo-Soviet Union.

The Iraqi Constitution by Steven Montgomery

I thought you might be interested in the following regarding the Iraqi
Constitution:

Iraqi Blueprint for Tyranny

US Blood is not buying a Free Iraq

Text of the Draft Iraqi Constitution

The last URL is the complete text of the proposed Iraqi Constitution
(as of Aug 28th 2005 at least). The first URL is a criticism of the
constitution, showing what the Bush administration's real intent is,
according to the New American magazine. The second compares the rights
contained in the Iraqi Constitution
with both the Bill of Rights and the 1977 Soviet Constitution.
--

Steven Montgomery
graymada@gmail.com

Explore Freedom: http://www.geocities.com/graymada

Moral Anarchy: Seedbed of Tyranny

Sometimes even poor movies offer great lessons. In the theatrical flop, "Wild Wild West," President Grant, played by Robert Conrad, humorously unloads a lesson germane to modern American culture. Upon being surprised that the arch-villain, Arliss Loveless, had been planning for and waging war against the United States he exclaimed, "I didn't know that we were at war. You have me at a great disadvantage."

At this moment a similar war is being waged against the United States of America. A war in which prevailing ignorance of its existence has put our country at a similar disadvantage. A war which has put the continued existence of our American way of life at great peril.

This is a war being waged against us by "religious" fanatics. A war being waged by believers in an ideology which because of its destruction could be termed the greatest anti-Christ or anti-God power in the world today. A war being waged by fanatic believers in the ideology of Marx and Lenin.

As Doctor Fred Schwarz wrote in his book, You Can Trust The Communists: To Be Communists:

The fundamental doctrine of Marxism, therefore, is that Russia and America are at war; that China and America are at war-- not that they could be at war; not that they might be at war; not that they will be at war; but that they are at war. This war is historically declared; it is universal; it encompasses every aspect of society; in it there can be no vestige of truce. The Communists did not choose it; they simply recognized it. Their duty is to prosecute the war to total and complete victory. (Chapter One, Trust The Communists?)

But, just as Voltaire and Weishaupt, two of the conspiratorial and ideological forerunners of Marxism noted, direct confrontation would be foolish. It would expose the world to their real designs and aims--which was to "crush the wretch,' or Christianity, and to overthrow civil and social institutions--but I'm getting ahead of myself and will leave this subject for a future article..

So, Schwarz continues, "The weapons of this warfare" were to be "not merely the classical weapons of guns, tanks, bombs, and aircraft." The weapons were to be universal. "Education is a weapon; language is a weapon; trade is a weapon; diplomacy is a weapon; religion is a weapon; cultural interchange is a weapon. The Communists view every act and judge every situation as part of the class war."

Today, knowing that a direct confrontation with the United States or the rest of the West would be foolish, and that the United States is still too strong at present, they must weaken it. As Marxist-Leninist ideologue Possony wrote, the "use of violence must be preceded, accompanied, and followed by techniques aiming at demoralization and at preventing the enemy from using violence."1

To "prevent" us from "using violence" Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and now Putin, have entered into arms reduction agreements (with no intention of keeping) with the U.S. while at the same time modernizing their weaponry. Aside from these agreements, a new dimension to weaken the West was to be added, "the new social movements"2 , or that of the ecology, peace, women's and gay liberation movements.

American society must not only be demoralized but turned into a moral wasteland. The enemy knows that their "perfect system of communism" can only be built upon the ashes of anarchy and chaos. They therefore make war against all the wisdom that has come to men through the ages of experience. They seek to overturn and destroy the very foundations upon which society, government and religion rest.

Anarchy has always been the seedbed of tyranny, so moral anarchy is the goal. A "psy-ops war" war then is being conducted against us where Infidelity, atheism, unchastity,intemperance, civil corruption, greed, avarice, ambition--personal, political, national--are glorified and promoted--all in an effort to weaken us and our will to resist. The casualties in this war include those who have been pulled and thrust into new fields of action--hence the "peaceniks" who have mutated into environmental and NAMBLA activists and new lines of thought--the moral relativists mutating into the worship of "self esteem", a belief in aliens, magic and "new age" psychology. Activists which then shake the faith, undermine the morals, pollute the lives of people who are then thrown so far off balance in their activities, economic, social, political and religious that liberty and freedom stand in danger of being replaced by the greatest, most widespread, and most complete tyranny that has ever oppressed man.3

Yet, this is a war in which the belligerents work under such perfect disguise that many do not recognize them or their methods. Subtlety is often used. Such as putting a picture of Mao, Lenin, Che Guevara, or a clenched fist salute in the background of a movie. Or portraying businessmen as greedy capitalist pigs or the apocalyptic scenarios where the decadent capitalist society has been laid waste so that a "new society" can be built upon its ashes.

Yuri Besimov described some other methods. A former KGB operative, he was trained as an "Active Measures" operative to demoralize and destabilize "target countries". In 1984 he listed ways the KGB would soften a society by:

    The Production, promotion and distribution of drugs.
    The production, promotion and distribution of pornography.
    Efforts to get a society interested in sex and then more sex.
    The promotion of various types of culturally destroying music and art.
    Infiltrate the media: Movies, T.V., Magazines, etc., in order to steer efforts to further weaken society morally4


Who among us can say we have been untouched by this Marxist inspired moral decay? Today--if we wish to avoid the consequences of this ongoing Cultural Revolution--we must awake and arouse ourselves to a sense of our awful situation. We must realize that we are at war and return the fire. But this war will not be won by tanks, planes, bombs or paratroopers, this is an ideological war and ideological bullets must be fired.

America's real arsenal of freedom was found in her liberty loving faith and beliefs. John Adams understood what protected, prospered and made America great. In a letter to a friend many years after the war,he explained what it was that really won the war of revolution:

"The Revolution was affected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people.... This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution.5"

Will America collectively remember what made her great? Perhaps it's still not too late?

End Notes

1. Possony, Stefan T. "A Century of Conflict: Communist Techniques of World Revolution". Chicago: Regnery. 1953. p. 87. See Also, Montgomery, Steven. "Glasnost-Perestroika: A Model Potemkin Village."

2. Timmerman, Heinz. "The Decline of the World Communist Movement". Boulder: Westview Press, 1987. pg. xvii.

3. Here I have paraphrased parts of a speech given by President David O. Mckay of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on October 3, 1942. Here is the original paragraph:

    These days through which we are now passing present many problems which are new to all of us but are particularly strange to the younger generation-those who have little background of experience and whose knowledge is limited and immature. Infidelity, atheism, unchastity, intemperance, civil corruption, greed, avarice, ambition-personal, political, national-are more powerful today than at any other time in the lives of us now living. They are pulling and thrusting us almost at will into new fields of action, new lines of thought. They are shaking the faith, undermining the morals, polluting the lives of the people. They have thrown many so far off balance in all of their activities, economic, social, political, and religious, that they stand in real danger of falling. Satan is making war against all the wisdom that has come to men through their ages of experience. He is seeking to overturn and destroy the very foundations upon which society, government, and religion rest. He aims to have men adopt theories and practices which he induced their forefathers, over the ages, to adopt and try, only to be discarded by them when found unsound, impractical, and ruinous. He plans to destroy liberty and freedom-economic, political, and religious, and to set up in place thereof the greatest, most widespread, and most complete tyranny that has ever oppressed men. He is working under such perfect disguise that many do not recognize either him or his methods. There is no crime he would not commit, no debauchery he would not set up, no plague he would not send, no heart he would not break, no life he would not take, no soul he would not destroy. He comes as a thief in the night; he is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Without their knowing it, the people are being urged down paths that lead only to destruction. Satan never before had so firm a grip on this generation as he has now.


4. Besimov, Yuri, Remarks of a talk given in Salt Lake City Utah, December 1984.

5. Adams, John (American president, 1735-1826).
Letter to Hezekiah Niles, 13. February 1818

As the Roman Republic was dying, as is the The Republic of the United
States, the great Roman Senator, Marcus Tullius Cicero, in the year 42 B.C.
discussed what is going on in the Halls of Congress, the White House and
the Supreme Court when he said:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot
survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for
he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among
those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the
galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. For the traitor
appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and
wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that
lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation—he works
secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city—he
infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is
less to be feared. The traitor is the carrier of the plague......." Cicero,
42 B.C.

Think about it!!!!

--
Steven Montgomery
graymada@accesswest.com

Disinformers Gambit: Tactics Of Disinformer

We live in an age of disinformation. Just ask anyone who truly understands the Constitution in the tradition of our Founding Fathers and has a knowledge of the vast worldwide combination of men which is seeking to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations and countries and is seeking to expose such. Consider the following (Thanks to John Perna):

I posted some information on The Tactics of Disinformers.
I was amazed to see how quickly the disinformers came out of the wood work to identify themselves. This response was actually an excellent demonstration of one of the tactics; that was explained:

THE GOLDEN RULE OF DISINFORMERS:

Always accuse your adversary of whatever is true about yourself.

Sometimes, if you simply post information on Disinformers; without naming anyone, the Disinformers will identify themselves, by taking offense, and popping in, to comment. Occasionally, even though you do not mention anyone's name, they will claim that what you have written is about them.

Nothing could be more precise, in identifying exactly WHO are the disinformers, than the disinformers own reaction to this post.

It is safe to conclude that if one were to throw a rock into a pen full of
pigs, and one of them squealed, that the one that squealed, would be the one that you had hit.

TRY POSTING THIS, ALL AROUND, and then watch what happens. See who it is that claims, that this "shoe fits". It is a good dog, who comes when he is called.

Here is the message that makes the pigs squeal:

The Disinformer's Gambit

The Tactics of Disinformers

In the game of chess there exists a term; which describes a maneuver, a stratagem, and a ploy; using different pieces working together, to accomplish a secret purpose. This is called a gambit.

Those who hope to build totalitarian control over freedom loving people,
also use many gambits. BUT, the chess player has the advantage of always knowing which pieces are on the other side.

Those who would defend liberty have no such luxury. The most treacherous player in the gambit is the false patriot. The false patriot will present himself as a defender of liberty, BUT he will spend most of his time attacking the defenders of liberty, under numerous pretenses. The false patriot will attempt to re-direct attention in every direction EXCEPT at those, who are building tyranny. The false patriot will attempt to re-direct attention to an entire race, a religion, a large group with a few problems, or even against patriots. This is essentially the very old military strategy of the creation a "decoy to draw enemy fire." The ultimate success of this deception is to cause defenders of liberty to "fire" on non-combatants, or even to "fire" on their own friends, and allies. In addition, the false patriot will neutralize the efforts of the defenders of liberty.

Tactics include:

1. Deceiving the defenders of liberty into supporting hoaxes.
2. Dividing the defenders of liberty into fighting each other by creating strife among patriots.
3. Deceiving the defenders of liberty into creating class struggle by promoting ethnic hatred.
4. Attempting to waste the time of patriots, by forcing them to respond to personal attacks, or endless debate about trivia.
5. Using multiple aliases to create the appearance that there is someone, who believes them to be credible.
   
6. Defining large groups of innocent people as "enemies", because of the actions of a few . (Ex. ALL of the Mormons, ALL of the Catholics, ALL of the Jews, ALL of the Masons. etc.)
7. ABOVE ALL: Accusing the most effective patriots of being false opposition.

THE GOLDEN RULE OF DISINFORMERS:

Always accuse your adversary of whatever is true about yourself.

It is VERY simple. Those who spend their time fighting tyranny, are patriots.

Those who spend their time fighting patriots are working for the advancement of tyranny.

Why "politics makes for strange bed fellows" :

Criminals of all sorts will work together for mutual gain

This is mentioned only to show that often "strange bed fellows" are working together to oppose freedom activists)The false patriot will generally proclaim himself to be a religious zealot; such as a Christian conservative, but he will not adhere to the principles of his proclaimed religion, in his own actions. He might even; incomprehensibly, be an ally of another player in the gambit; who is an atheist, or a socialist, or a Satanist.

There is no implication here that an atheist cannot be in favor of freedom. In one group the false patriot might attempt to appear to be a Christian conservative. In another group he might present himself as a marxist, or as an Al Qaeda supporter. The false patriot; and those whom he deceives into promoting hoaxes, will reduce the credibility of all freedom activists. Those who have heard outlandishly ridiculous "conspiracy theories" will have a tendency to dismiss all "conspiracy theories" without serious examination. The false patriot will compose letters of praise, to himself, and post them as if they were anonymous correspondence supposedly received by himself.

The admitted atheist, or socialist will supply the most fervent, and obvious, opposition to the defenders of liberty. This player, in the gambit, will make a strong frontal attack on everything that the defenders of liberty do. The admitted atheist, or socialist will implement the same goals; that are listed above. The admitted atheist, or socialist will play on the existence of outlandishly ridiculous "conspiracy theories" to encourage people to dismiss all "conspiracy theories" without serious examination.

The admitted atheist, or socialist will infest patriotic, and religious, groups for no apparent reason. The main reasons are to disrupt, to get the group deleted, or to waste the time of patriots.

This comment is not a generalization, about all atheists, but is a description of a specific player in this gambit.

Even though DISINFORMERS make it a practice of accusing the most effective patriots of being false opposition, you will notice that there are certain admitted government apologists, who are never accused. This is because certain admitted government apologists are also players in the gambit. The admitted government apologist will attempt to portray the defenders of liberty as subversives, as unreliable, and as outlandishly mentally unstable.

The admitted government apologist will play on the existence of outlandishly ridiculous "conspiracy theories" to encourage people to dismiss all "conspiracy theories" without serious examination. The admitted government apologist will use documents from the FBI, or other government sources, as his authority.

Another player in the gambit, is the pretended neutral. The pretended neutral will take almost none of the above actions, but will work in the background, until a vital move is needed. The pretended neutral will occasionally "vouch" for the other players in the gambit. The pretended neutral may even be the moderator of a group. When the pretended neutral is the moderator of a group, he will take no action, as long as the other players in the gambit are "holding their own". If the other players in the gambit are NOT "holding their own", THEN he will intervene; perhaps even by banning the most effective defenders of liberty.

The most effective defenders of liberty will be caught between all of these different players in the gambit. One dead "give away" is the fact that these different players in the gambit frequently are unable to conceal their support for one another; in spite of their alleged differences. The alleged religious zealot/patriot might be great friends with the admitted atheist/socialist. The false patriot, who is always accusing the most effective patriots of being false opposition, might be great friends with the admitted government apologist, whom he never accuses. The false patriot will even join the egroup that is run by the admitted government apologist, and will participate and support the admitted government apologist, in his own group.

The disinformer who tries to be everything at once:

You might find one single individual; who is the moderator of a marxist group, the moderator of a Nazi group, a member of the Al Qaeda group, and a member of the John Birch Society group. Can he believe in all of these agendas at once? Or is he there on behalf of another agenda all together? What about the agenda of the New World Order: to control everything?

Amazingly all of these different types will be great friends.

If you will study the tactics used by the FBI COINTELPRO program. THEN you will recognize FBI COINTELPRO immediately.

Visit:

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/environment/vail/ifanagentknocks.html

Take note of the following paragraph:

"The FBI COINTELPRO program was initiated in 1956. Its purpose, as described later by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, was "to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize activities" of those individuals and organizations whose ideas or goals he opposed. Tactics included: falsely labeling individuals as informants; infiltrating groups with persons instructed to disrupt the group; sending anonymous or forged letters designed to promote strife between groups; initiating politically motivated IRS investigations; carrying out burglaries of offices and unlawful wiretaps; and disseminating to other government agencies and to
the media unlawfully obtained derogatory information on individuals and groups."

If you understand the meaning of the tactic "to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize activities," you will understand that the person who is most likely of being a Fed, is the one who involves patriots in activities that have no effect on those who are building tyranny, and activities that will destroy the credibility of the patriots.

Those who are building tyranny would love to convince people that we are all a bunch of paranoid nuts, so that we will we unable to warn people about the building of tyranny.

Those who are building tyranny would be more capable of convincing people that we are paranoid nuts, if they could convince a segment of the patriots to run around telling people that the clouds, and the street signs, are out to get us, or that we should ban water.

If you understand the meaning of the tactic "infiltrating groups with persons instructed to disrupt the group; sending anonymous or forged letters designed to promote strife between groups."

OR OF:

"disseminating to other government agencies and to
the media unlawfully obtained derogatory information on individuals and
groups."

THEN you will know that a campaign of personal attacks on the real patriots is a part of the FBI COINTELPRO program.

If you understand the meaning of the tactic of falsely labeling individuals as informants THEN you will know that the person; who is most likely to be a fed,
is the one who calls the real patriot a fed.

It is a common tactic of FBI COINTELPRO to try to be THE FIRST ONE MAKE THE ACCUSATION.

THE GOLDEN RULE OF DISINFORMERS:

Always accuse your adversary of whatever is true about yourself.

Property Must Be Secure

Poetic justice? It seems that after the Supreme Court Decision, Kelo vs.
City of New London, a private developer is seeking the home of Supreme
Court Justice David Souter, so that he can make a hotel on the site:

http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45029

Whatever happened to property rights anyway? And why does government no
longer perform its proper function, part of which is to protect property?
Have we forgotten that the proper role of government is to protect freedom?
And that freedom, to our Founding Fathers, consisted of the power or
ability to enjoy one's life, liberty and property?

Property rights, for a short time at least, occupied a paramount status in
the law and customs of America. Indeed, property rights were the kingpin or
foundation stone upon which all other elements of freedom rest. The
importance of property rights are reflected in the words and writings of
the framers and other great men before, during, and after the founding era.
Consider the words of three such great men:

The great and chief end therefore, of men's unity into commonwealths,
and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their
property (John Locke, The True End of Civil Government, 1690)

The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as
sacred as the laws of God, and that there is no force of law and public
justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. Property must be
secured or liberty cannot exist (John Adams, Works)

The three great rights are so bound together as to be essentially one
right. To give a man his life but deny him his liberty, is to take from him
all that makes his life living. To give him his liberty but take form him
the property which is the fruit and badge of his liberty, is to still leave
him a slave (Justice George Sutherland of the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1921)

Property and its importance in western culture as a positive force is also
reflected in our language, expressions, and in words and their meaning. For
instance, compare the following words pairs and their meaning, proper to
property, good to goods or weal to wealth. Or how about the English play on
words, "he is a good man who is a man of goods," or the saying that to be
born "of goodly parents" meant that the family was wealthy enough to hire
tutors for "learning."

Since it is governments primary responsibility to protect property, it
should not seem strange that our Founding Fathers would have planned and
designed certain checks and balances into the very form or structure of
government and the way it operates as a system.

One such device the founders utilized to protect property was restricting
the voting franchise so that only "freeholders" (those who owned land, free
and clear) could vote. For instance in the early years of our Republic
every one of the States had different property requirements, either in land
or some other monetary or private property equivalent--but they all
attempted, in one way or the other, to protect private property by property
restrictions on the vote.

Arguments the Founders used for restricting the voting franchise to
property owners included:

* Since voters were also property owners they would have a great
vested interest in how government was run and operated and in keeping
government fiscally restrained and responsible
* Potential voters had a built-in incentive to acquire property
* Property owners were generally seen as those who had worked hard and
industriously, had exercised self-control and thrift, and acquired other
virtuous character traits seen as necessary for the well-being of society.

Arguments against restricting the vote to property owners soon began to
appear however. Most of the arguments centered around the idea of fairness
and equality. On the surface, it does seems unfair to restrict the right to
vote to property owners--especially those affected by the legislation being
considered. For instance, one reader writes in:

. . . all classes of men must have their right to vote. . . Once you
set the property requirement, will it not be manipulated by those who have
the most property and the most influence? What about companies and
railroads and farmers and ranchers who bought up huge tracks of land and
leased it and rented it and so on? Shall all these be disenfranchised? Did
any of the workers own their own land, for example, in the silver mines,
coal mines, copper mines of Utah? It was bad enough, in some cases a real
slavery. Should we have added to it, and kept it eternal by
disenfranchising them? . . . How about when older folks, even prosperous
folks often scale down and move into apartments and nursing homes and
retirement rental communities in their old age? Are they no longer worthy
citizens?

However, fairness was and is a moot point, a non-issue, since all people
were equal before the law. The only thing separating a voter from a
non-voter was the necessary property ownership--something that could be
acquired and overcome. Moreover, it needs to be remembered that even today,
with our greatly broadened voting franchise, not all people affected by
legislation get the right to vote, for instance:

* Minors, or underage children don't have the vote
* Those under guardianship, whether old or young but mentally
incapable don't have the vote
* Non-citizens, such as Immigrants, whether legal or illegal, don't
have the vote
* Convicted felons don't have the vote

As we can see, voting is not as much a right as it is a privilege. A
careful analysis of the issue will clearly yield where voting is restricted
in other areas as well. Because we are a republic and not a pure democracy
not everyone votes on everything--it would be impractical and undesirable.
Inequality was actually built into the system. Our vote on issues, instead
of being a direct one on one vote is indirect. Our vote on candidates, in
many cases are also indirect. For instance, it is the electoral college who
elects the president not the direct vote. Which is why Presidents of the
United States can get elected without a majority of the popular vote.
Neither do we vote directly on treaties, ambassadorships or the like--these
are done for us indirectly through representatives.

Alexander Hamilton empathized with those wishing to broaden the voting
suffrage by allowing non-property owners the vote but realized the folly
inherent with allowing such. Further, in regards to fairness and equality,
he understood that voters who were also property owners would be on an
equal footing with all other such voters. As he wrote:

If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and
without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine
principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should
have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent
fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all
popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications,
whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded
from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed
independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other. (Alexander
Hamilton, "The Farmer Refuted")

John Tyler summarized other dangers of giving non-property owners the vote:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from
the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with
the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal
responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. (Alexander Tyler, in his
1770 book, Cycle of Democracy)

Fast forward to the present--How far has our Constitutional Federated
Republic degenerated since we've disengaged property requirements from the
voting franchise? Certainly it cannot be argued that property rights are
more secure now than then. Some politically astute individuals even predict
that we are in danger of a economic, if not political crisis in the not too
far future. If we are to be wise stewards of property perhaps its time to
reestablish property restrictions on the vote. States certainly have the
constitutional ability to do so. The Founders wisely left this ability up
to the States. Do they have the will?

Juries: A Double Edged Sword

The Jury Trial of William Penn

A while back someone asked me if I couldn't "document the tradition in America of
juries deciding the law as well as the fact. This would help legislators
and show what traditions we have under a government set-up by God."
Some years ago I wrote a study which outlined this tradition. Going
strictly off memory and without notes (I have the original paper filed
somewhere in a stack of boxes ) I'll attempt to recreate my outline,
fragmented though it may be, of this tradition. If anyone can correct or add
"flesh" to this outline--go ahead.

It seems that in England there was quite a long struggle over Jury Trials
and their independence. Kings naturally favored Star Chambers or other
systems which hampered Jury trials, while the people preferred Jury trials
and the right to decide whether the law should apply to a particular case
(the right to decide upon matters of law). William Penn, for example,
probably owes his life to the courage (they were sequestered by the King
and ordered to bring back a verdict of guilty) of the Jury when they,
against orders of the Court, refused to render a guilty verdict.

Fast Foward to the John Peter Zenger case. In 1735 Zenger was arrested and
put on trial for Libel--publishing information critical of the Governor of
New York. Libel, at the time was interpreted to mean anything, whether true
or not, critical of the King. Andrew Hamilton took the case for the
defense. Hamilton argued that the Jury could decide upon the merits of the
law and it took them all of about 15 minutes to acquit. The Zenger case is
much ballyhooed by the media for establishing once and for all the Freedom
of the Press. What is forgotten and ignored by the media is the role of the
Jury in this case and their right to decide matters of law as well as
fact. Aside from Freedom of the Press, why doesn't the Media also trumpet
the right of Juries to decide matters of law as well as fact?--after all
they owe their freedom of the Press to it.

Legal Theory. Man's law which violated natural law or God's law was null
and void. According to the Founders, two twin pillars upon which Freedom
in a well-ordered, civilized society, rested was that of law inherent in
the nature of things or Natural Law and law as given by God, Divine or
Revealed law. The purpose of law (whether Natural or Divine) is, as so
aptly stated by John Locke, to "preserve and enlarge freedom" because
"where there is no law there is no freedom." To the Founders, it was pretty
easy to determine the source of Divine law-that of God as revealed to his
Prophets, but somewhat more difficult to determine the source of Natural
Law. However, God so structured the world, that in the absence of Divine
Law, man was not left alone to determine how law should apply to protect
freedom. God provided man the ability to reason intellectually, and feel
intuitively the proper course to guide one's actions and in the enacting of
laws. To the Founders, Man in a state of nature, would by Natural Law which
was "discovered" by both reason and conscience, be justified in using force
for "defense against physical harm, against theft of the fruits of his
labor, and against enslavement by another." Likewise man is perfectly free
to acquire the world's bounty of resources to preserve and enhance his life
and is perfectly free to roam about at his will and pleasure in exercising
his right of liberty.

This concept of Natural Law and its derivative, Natural Rights, was
transmitted to the Founders through several sources: Classical Greek and
Roman political thinkers, philosophers and statesmen; English law and
tradition; Enlightenment Rationalism; and the Christian or Biblical
tradition. In utilizing these sources the Founders were everywhere
referring to Natural Law, and Natural Rights in their pamphlets,
newspapers, sermons, speeches,etc.

Because of man's propensity to sin,error, or ignorance man's ability to
reason what is right and wrong intellectually, morally and intuitively
becomes clouded. To prevent such clouding or obfuscation God reveals to his
Prophets commandments or laws to govern conduct. Revealed law, just as
Natural law, was given to man by God to enhance, protect and promote
freedom. Two examples where Divine law clearly promotes freedom are the
commandments, "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not steal" plainly in
protection of Life and Property respectfully. God expects man to govern his
conduct by using these two standards of law, the Divine and the Natural.
Under these standards it is easy to see why the Founders could express
their attitude toward government as such: "The sole object and only
legitimate end of government is to protect the citizen in the enjoyment of
life, liberty and property, and when government assumes other functions it
is usurpation and oppression."

It was only natural for the Colonists therefore to proclaim the power
through the independence of juries, to decide whether man's laws were
founded upon God's laws. If they were not they could be considered null and
void. If a man made law conflicted with God's laws then God's laws was
considered supreme. Furthermore they realized that many times extenuating
circumstances could create a situation where conflicting laws could both
apply. For instance, one often hears the argument that if one's life (or
the life of a spouse, family member or neighbor) is in the balance man-made
laws take a second seat to the higher law--that of preserving life. If my
wife's life is in danger I'm certainly not going to pull off a freeway exit
and stop at a red light--especially at three in the morning--when there is
no traffic anyway. Hopefully there will be a jury who understands their
power that will be able to acquit me .

Continue onward to struggles between the Colonists and England just before
the Revolution. Under the period of "benign neglect," the colonists
developed their own legal systems and were used to trading, unfettered and
untaxed, with many other countries. So they would naturally bristle against
the imposition by England of any tax, (impost, tariff or other?) which
would hinder their trade intercourse, independence or profits. England
passed several Acts which imposed taxes of one sort or the other upon this
"free trade." When England attempted to enforce the law by arresting ship
captains for "smuggling" many times the colonial courts, with their jury
trials, would acquit--the colonists knowing full well that they had the
power to determine whether the law should be applied in a particular case
or not. England was becoming embarrassed because colonial courts were
acquitting more often than not. As a reaction, England started passing what
became known as the Admiralty Acts, which among other things, outlawed
Trial by Jury (and of course, the juries right to decide matters of law).
It has to considered that one of the key factors propelling the Colonists
to confrontation with England revolved around Juries and their right to
decide upon matters of law as well as fact.

The literature of the time is replete with statements from founding fathers
and others upon the subject of trial by Jury and Jury Rights. For instance,
John Adams stated in 1771 that "It is not only...[the juror's] right, but
his duty... to find the verdict according to his own best understanding,
judgment, and conscience, though in direct opposition to the direction of
the court." Many Juries of the day exercised the power, as well they
ought, to question both parties or their witnesses upon matters of both law
and fact.

After 1787--Checks and Balances. That great Constitutionalist J. Reuben
Clark had great insight when he said of the "separation of powers" and
"checks and balances" system of the Constitution, that it was a both a
"miracle" and a product of "genius" and that it was here "that the divine
inspiration came." Referring to this checks and balances system of the
Constitution, Thomas Jefferson remarked that the independence power of the
trial by jury was one of the checks built into the Constitution. He
further remarked in a letter written in 1789 that the trial by Jury is an
"anchor. . . by which a government can be held to the principles of its
constitution." In fact he referred to it as the "peoples greatest
privilege" by which the common ordinary people could hold in check a
corrupt government.

The Early Supreme Court. In the Supreme Court case, Georgia vs. Brailsford,
in 1794 remarked that the Jury "has the right to judge both the law as well
as the fact in controversy". Many other Court cases reaffirmed this power.
Grand Juries exercised independence (the independent power to investigate
or indict anyone or anything) early on in America's history. However the
Powers that be today do not recognize this power. In the early 1980's a
Grand Jury here in Utah brought an indictment against the Federal Reserve
System--for illegally manipulating the monetary system. The U.S. Attorney
quashed the indictment (as well as several other shady manipulations). The
Grand Jury knowing of their independent power attempted to bypass the U.S.
Attorney--all to no avail. The Foreman of that Grand Jury was Hans
Anderson--son of H. Verlan Anderson and author of several books, including
_Many Are Called But Few Are Chosen_ and _The Great and Abominable Church
of the Devil_.

Double Edged Sword. The Independence the Jury has (or could be) been
used for both good and evil. Many left wing radical groups, libertarians,
and even marxist-leninist terrorist organizations lobby for the power of
juries to decide upon matters of law as well as fact. It is well known (at
least among certain conservatives ) that many of these groups
attempt to use civil disobedience and jury independence as a tool of
"change." The "Civil Disobedience" of the Sixties, for example had much
less to do with Civil Rights than with enlarging and empowering the Federal
Government over the power and laws of individual States. For these reasons
many are leery with empowering Juries with the independence to decide
matters of law as well as fact. What it really boils down to however is the
moral fiber of society. A society which is fundamentally good and upholds
God's laws will be one blessed with freedom, peace and security. A Society,
on the other hand which, in the words of Rousas J. Rushdooney, is one of
"Moral Anarchy" will eventually result in the loss of freedom, peace and
security. In other words, moral anarchy really is "the seedbed of tyranny." The trial by jury then can be used for either good or ill. How it is used really depends on the moral fabric of society.

Adams, Jefferson and Conspiracy Theory

I've been reading or re-reading several books (especially _Proofs of a Conspiracy_, _Memoirs Illustrating The History of Jacobinism_, _Fire in the Minds of Men_), articles (such as Yale University President, Timothy Dwight's excellent sermon entitled, "The Duty of Americans at the Present Crisis" and various historical articles or essays) and conducting research along related lines of thought (such as study Adam Weishaupt, the Illuminati, the Jacobin Clubs, of the "Citizen Genet" affair, the Whiskey Rebellion, the Alien and Sedition Acts, and of the similarity or differences of the stances taken by John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson). While I have yet to pull it all together in a intelligent and comprehensible manner, I have, in my research, concluded, among other things, that while Thomas Jefferson was not an "Illuminist" as charged by some, he may have been somewhat naive, indeed gullible, when it came to understanding the existence of and the threat posed by a conspiracy designed to "overthrow all civil and religious institutions" and its influence upon early America. This would, in large measure explain the difference between Jefferson and the so-called Federalists.

For instance Jefferson wrote to a friend regarding Barruel's work:

"Barruel's own parts of the book are perfectly the ravings of a Bedlamite" and "As Weishaupt lived under the tyranny of a despot and priests, he knew that caution was necessary even in spreading information, and the principles of pure morality. This has given an air of mystery to his views, was the foundation of his banishment.... If Weishaupt had written here, where no secrecy is necessary in our endeavors to render men wise and virtuous, he would not have thought of any secret machinery for that purpose."

While Washington wrote that the Jacobin clubs introduced by Citizen Genet would, "...would shake the government to its foundations."

John Quincy Adams also said, in referring to these "democratic" clubs that they were "so perfectly affiliated with the Parisian Jacobins that their origin from a common parent cannot possibly be mistaken."

John Adams wrote Jefferson years later and remarked, in a letter dated June 30, 1813, "You certainly never felt the terrorism excited by Genet, in 1793 ... when ten thousand people in the streets of Philadelphia, day after day threatened to drag Washington out of his house, and effect a revolution ... nothing but (a miracle) ... could have saved the United States from a fatal revolution of government."

Anyhow--if I can get it all together (distractions, so many distractions!) I'll post what I promise will be, in my opinion at least, a good article (or perhaps series of articles) on the subject.

The Perfect Law of Liberty

The Perfect Law of Liberty

Test post

What is Freedom?

What is Freedom?

What is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world . . .¹

Freedom is a major theme in the scriptures. James said that the Gospel is the "perfect law of liberty". ² Paul told the Corinthian Saints that "where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty" ³ and admonished Galatian Saints to continue to "stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free." ⁴ Christ himself told his believers that if they continued in his word they would know the truth and the truth would set them free. ⁵ Numerous other scriptures could be cited that portray the idea that the purpose of the Gospel is to free man from captivity, liberate him, and with the proper exercise of free agency, exalt him. ⁶

Freedom, as understood by probably most Americans of the Eighteenth Century, consisted of the ability to exercise what they termed inherent and inalienable rights. ⁷ These "rights" when consolidated into their basic forms consist of at least three basic rights, basic elements of freedom: Life, Liberty and Property. Truth or Knowledge, although not mentioned by our Founding Fathers as such, can be considered another essential element of freedom. After all, was it not Christ who said that knowing the truth can set you free? ⁸

To exercise Freedom you must possess:

1. Some degree of physical or mental health and strength--the attribute of LIFE
2. Personal freedom of mobility to change one's location, situation, occupation or habitation according to will--the attribute of LIBERTY
3. Ownership and control of property consisting of the free use, enjoyment and disposal of one's acquisitions--the attribute of PROPERTY
4. The requisite knowledge to achieve your desired results--the attribute of KNOWLEDGE or TRUTH

It follows as a logical matter of course that freedom can be increased or diminished by adding to or taking from the amount or quality of these four essential elements.
-----

Notes

1. Frederick Bastiat,The Law, pg. 51.

2. James 1:25.

3. 2 Corinthians 3:17. (see also Alma 61:15)

4. Galations 5:1.

5. John 8:31-32.

6. See for example, Isaiah 58: 6; Exodus 21: 2; Luke 4: 18.

7. See the Declaration of Independence.

8. Also consider these comments by Ezra Taft Benson concerning the attribute of Truth: "Ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall make you free (John 8:31-32). In these words the master pointed out that the fundamental characteristic of Truth is freedom. Every fundamental principle of Truth, properly applied, will free man from doubts, from fears, suspicions, prejudices and those qualities which make for misunderstanding, pride, lust and selfishness. Every principle of truth in its own domain can free man to achieve the greatest good, the most majestic nobility of which he is capable. Each new truth challenges man to greater achievement and service. Using this simple standard you may examine each issue with confidence. It matters not whether the inquiry at hand be a consideration of politics, science, ethics, or religion. If it is a true principle it will stimulate man to greater achievement of the kind which builds true character and lasting inward security. (Ezra Taft Benson, Church News, Jun 13, 1953)

Perfect Law of Liberty

"But whoso looketh into the Perfect law of Liberty, and continueth therein. . . shall be blessed in his deed" ¹

True principles, once understood and rightly comprehended, often have a quality of clear pure simplicity. Yet, sometimes, the more you comprehend, the more depth you perceive the doctrine to hold. Like gazing into a deep pool of crystal clear water you may be excited and astounded to learn that the doctrine is many, many times deeper than-at first-perceived. While looking into this pool of Freedom you may discover depths "never attained to previously nor ever before had thought of." ² Such is the doctrine of freedom.

To fully perceive the width and depth that this pool of freedom holds, we must have the "eyes of our understanding opened" ³ and our minds "enlightened" ⁴ by the Spirit of the Lord. Because "where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty." ⁵

This blogspot is an attempt to explain Freedom's relationship to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. More specifically, it shows how God's law, both revealed and natural, operates to develop, promote, and protect freedom.

1. James 1:25.

2. Joseph Smith, Joseph Smith History 1:74.

3. Doctrine and Covenants 138:11.

4. D&C 6:13.

5. 2 Corinthians 3:17.