The Spiral of Amnesia

Today in the news:

• Netflix  creates super-PAC to support SOPA laws
• The Internet Association just formed by Google, Amazon, and Facebook to lobby Congress for a free Internet
• President Obama threatens the Senate with a Cybersecurity executive order
• Predator drones start overflight in North Dakota
• Janet Napolitano claims drones will improve public safety
• Drones being sought by DHS, police, and television stations for public observation
• TrapWire secret affiliations revealed
• Minnesota about to become 30th state to pass Constitutional marriage amendment

And so forth. Doesn't anyone see a trend here? A trend that has escalated like the dollar devaluation against gold in the last half century? One group of people after another are attempting to impose control over another. The divisiveness taking hold of this country threatens to rip the foundation of liberty in our society to shreds.

 Take the issue of marriage. Pastors are on opposing sides of this issue. Archbishop Nienstedt asserts no harm is intended by passage of the amendment defining marriage. Apparently the archbishop did not learn anything in his Catholic education. Something about the road to hell...?

This last month I have been reading in the three volume set, A History of Matrimonial Institutions by Dr George Elliot Howard, published in 1904. Dr. Howard recounts in volume one the history of various marital arrangements around the world as reported by several researchers of varying credibility back to pre-Roman Empire times. Volume two covers the changes that took place in England and America beginning just prior to the Colonial era. Volume three completes a detailed account of marriage and divorce proceedings in the United States up to the date of publication. I started reading this set because I wanted to understand what truly is "traditional marriage" that the religious force in our nation has based their crusade against homosexuals upon.

So far what I discovered is, there isn't one. There are hundreds, if not thousands. Virtually every kind of marital arrangement conceivable to man has been practiced on this planet. And this includes divorce. Before I finished volume one the message came on very strong and clear: the Catholic Church in its attempt to regulate and "sanctify" marriage created a terrible morass of religious and civil legislation that follows us today. Where once marriage was a private contract between husband and wife, and consummated by the family of the bride (usually her father), it is now completely out of private hands and dominated by the State at every level. And what is pushing this domination? Religion. Never mind the morass of problems created by St. Augustine, or Luther, or King James, or the Stuarts of England as they produced by their meddling some of the worst abuses of marriage and divorce the world has ever seen. Religious piety is still in there slugging away in the Congress and the Courts, striving to impose moral rectitude in the name of God.

Before the Roman Empire, marriage had nothing to do with religion or God, or morality. It was a bond between two people, merging their resources and talents in creating another family, which had always been the basis upon which governmental power was derived. Marriage was largely considered a private act, sanctioned by the community not legally, but festively. In some instances there were some moral taboos or tribal edicts with regard to the separation of a married couple. But these almost always were centered around the disposition of property, the disposition of underage children, and debasing of the marriage relation where more than one spouse or infidelity was concerned. Marriage and divorce was largely a voluntary contract made and broken by those who entered into it, and no one had much control of it.

Since the Catholic Church invaded the Teutonic Empire problems with marriage and divorce have escalated to the unmanageable levels we have today. One does not need to investigate Christian history very far to discover it is composed of some of the worst hypocrites the world has produced. If one considers Jesus' words concerning marriage it is clear it belongs to this world alone. (Mark 12) It is well known among scholars of ancient religious texts that Paul was considered an heretic by the leaders of the Church in Jerusalem. This is why he was sent away from Jerusalem. He attempted to teach a different code of conduct than what had been given to Peter and James. The Christianity we have today is a derivative of the self-persecuting Saul of Tarsus, who continued going about dictating to all who would give ear, what was moral, and what was the mind of Jesus, even though he never sought tutelage at Jesus' feet as did His fervent disciples. It is in Paul's disquisitions we see the departure from the teachings of Jesus on the matter of marriage. And it is aberrations of the Church at the peak of the Roman Empire we see building upon the doctrines of Paul, the ex-persecutor. But Christians today do not perceive any hypocrisy in what they are attempting to impose on their fellow Americans against the backdrop of an ancient Hebrew custom. They insist the entire world must conform to their modern interpretation of this ancient and little nation's marriage customs!

It is little consolation to be reminded Thomas Jefferson foresaw this trend. Few people today know anything about what Jefferson wrote or his concerns for the survival of what they so laboriously sought to create. Listen to America's real "prophet":

 "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself ....  The way to silence religious disputes, is to take no notice of them. Let us too give this experiment fair play, and get rid, while we may, of those tyrannical laws. It is true, we are yet secured against them by the spirit of the times. I doubt whether the people of this country would suffer an execution of heresy, or three years' imprisonment for not comprehending the mysteries of the Trinity. But is that spirit of the people an infallible, a permanent reliance? Is it government? Besides, the spirit of the times may alter, will alter. Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless ....  From the conclusion of this war we shall be going down hill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights."
 Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on the State of Virginia" (1781)
 
The danger in this constitutional amendment is not so much the damage done to marriage traditions. It is the further widening of the door of State intervention. Intervention that will ultimately and inevitably backfire upon the religious institutions of this country, just as it did upon our ancestors of Western Europe over 400 hundred years ago. Friends and countrymen, you haven't seen anything yet with regard to the demise of the family and the solidarity of children with parents. The State already has total and unequivocal control over our children (or haven't you been in juvenile court lately?), and they will soon with this foolish legislation fueled by well-meaning but spiritually impotent priests find the State dictating who may marry whom, when, the duration, and the obligations. Or did you not pay attention to Michael Straczynski's portrayal of the Telepath Corps in Babylon 5: They are mother. They are father.

This is where we are headed. We are the ones who have created Orwell's 1984 society. The Fahrenheit 451 government. The tyranny of a One World Order. It's what you want, because you haven't learned the first lesson of a patriot of Jeffersonian government:

Mind Your Own Business and leave your neighbor's practices and beliefs alone.

SethSmee

Indulging Stupidity

There is considerable lament in the apocalyptic arena of American society concerning the dumbing down of our citizens in the public schools. Indeed, I have my own despair when I repeatedly see writing composed of improper words, words that could be considered homophones through sloppy speech.

Your/You’re
Seen/Scene
Affect/Effect
Weather/Whether

Ad nauseum. Sorry kids if you weren’t introduced to Latin. Actually I wasn’t formally, but not only did I read a lot and make frequent reference to the most ancient of dictionaries available, I endeavored to learn three foreign languages in my youth, and again, referred to the dictionary a lot. To do such a thing by the time of public school graduation was quite rare in those days. But I shortly found out three languages were required throughout Europe, in addition to their native tongue. I started with Russian for nearly three years, moved into Spanish for four, and then Norwegian for a couple of years, living within the culture of my ancestors. Since then I have explored German and French to a small degree since they are connected to Spanish and Norwegian. Learning another language not only improves one’s native language skill, but broadens the perspective. Thinking in a foreign language immerses one in the culture that spawned it, presenting a view of the world’s customs unobtainable in any other way.

I lament the formal education I received. For one, there was no emphasis on public speaking. That was an elective removed from high school curriculum by the time I attended. Public speaking skill is the kind exhibited by such people as Christopher Monckton, who can eloquently and quickly articulate his ideas as well as debate an issue with agility. Such a skill was once valued around the world as an expression of a civilized person. Today we are burdened with celebrities who cannot express a simple idea without lacing their sentences with “you know” and “like” until one is tempted to scream at them: Just say it!!! They speak as though they are choking on an egg. Writing skill goes hand-in-hand with speaking. Today there are far too many kids writing the way they speak. Because they are not taught to speak well, they cannot write well either. Too many are of the notion that writing is the same process as speaking. But it is not. If you write the same as you speak, then you are communicating far less than when speaking. And of course, it follows as night to day, anyone who cannot write well cannot read well either.

I was impressed in the fourth grade by my no-nonsense teacher that an education was not what was dispensed at school, but what the student obtained on their own initiative. She said teachers in public education only presented the basics. It was up to each student to be exactly that—a student. She quite eloquently pointed out that the law requiring children to attend school did not make them students, nor did it deliver to them an education. School was the resource provided by their parents’ taxation, and becoming a student was up to each of us. If we did not take advantage of that opportunity, we were robbing our parents of their labor on our behalf. When was the last time anyone heard such admonishment in public schools?

The heart of the problem of education lies in the conflict of inquisitiveness as opposed to indulgence. Public school in America is an environment of indulgence, and that is by design. Those industrialists who built up the backbone of our economy, making America the most productive nation on earth during the last two centuries, imposed their desires upon the education system. What they wanted was a populace who served in a production environment and performed their duties without objection or invention. Those who showed extraordinary capability among the elite families were sent to academies and ivy-league schools to cultivate leadership skills and scientific capacity. Those who wanted to be indulged tended to wash out, while those who were invested with the thirst for learning and excellence obtained higher learning.

However, even though public schooling does not accommodate well those of inquisitive mind and striving for excellence, they are not consigned to ignorance nor ineptitude. Numerous people have made themselves a success in this world without the benefit of a formal education. But they taught themselves a great many things concerning business, finance, marketing, and technology. Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are obvious examples. Not so obvious is Jesse Ventura, Jim Williams (applications engineer at National and Linear Technology), or Eric Hoffer.

Eric was an itinerant laborer until he moved into longshoring. Eric had the most rudimentary formal education (blind during most of his youth), but spent all his free time as an adult between jobs in the local library. If he was in a location long enough he would check books out to read during his leisure at the end of a back-breaking day in the field. Eric became America’s foremost philosopher in modern times, wrote several books, and taught courses at the university level. Of all his books, The True Believer and The Ordeal of Change are the most noted. Within them in concise, clear detail he lays out the human condition, and the characteristics of human behavior in mass associations. Eric was not interested in wealth with its attendant vain leisure. Leisure he had all he could desire. Eric thirsted for understanding the human condition. If you want to know what makes people tick, especially within a mass setting, Eric Hoffer is the man to read. Then look into the works that he studied to enlarge his world view.

What bothers me today is not the state or agenda of public education. Actually, the term is a misnomer, for it should be called State indoctrination. Never before in the history of man has so much knowledge been made available to those who desire it. Never before has there existed such a plethora of assistance programs to help those who struggle with their public indoctrination. Never before has there existed so many private foundations dedicated to learning. In the last decade the technology to provide information beyond one’s wildest dreams has been thrust upon the world. A medium so astounding in its revolutionizing life as man has known it for millennia sometimes leaves me speechless. In the midst of this cornucopia of available information we are beset with a level of ignorance and communicative skill found in the backwoods of America’s frontier three hundred years ago.

The problems we see manifesting in society, politics, religion, and the economy are all tied to indulgence. We have seen exceptional performance in the Olympics this year, but hardly anywhere one travels in this country  is a person found of exceptional communication skill and intelligence. The value of education more than anything else is knowing when and how one is being manipulated and taken advantage of. The best slave is the person who does not realize he is. The task master’s greatest fear lies in the person who awakens to their slavery—when they realize that it is all being carried out with his consent.

To stop the corruption of Wall Street, the warring in Washington foreign policy, the Federal oversight into every detail of American life, all that needs be done is to cease the sale of indulgence, to cease consent in being told what to do. Tyrants are always appointed by the people who sell indulgences. When the people cease giving their consent to tyranny, the entire structure collapses and peace, prosperity, and true happiness take root. Eric wrote about it. So did a lot of other students of the human condition.

But first, one must be able to read, to write, to communicate effectively. Only then will there exist enough intelligence to recognize when and how the megalomaniacs have taken over the destiny of Man to turn him back into the brute of ages past.

SethSmee

References
"People dream of making the virtuous powerful, so they can depend on them. Since they cannot do that, people choose to make the powerful virtuous, glorying in being victimized by them. After their secular savior-their Robespierre or Stalin-is safely in his grave, then the people glory once more in denouncing him as a betrayer of their trust. Then they repeat the cycle." Dr. Thomas Szasz Untamed Tongue p155