Recently by Tim Case: It Can't Happen in America… Oh,Really?

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

~ Sigmund Freud

Danny Glover's recent statement to a Texas A&M audience that: "The Second Amendment comes from the right to protect themselves (meaning the founding fathers) from slave revolts, and from uprisings by Native Americans…" is nothing short of liberal tripe. Of all people Glover should know better because the historical facts say just the opposite.

Don Kates a leading authority on the 2nd Amendment counters Glover with the well established foundation for the people's right to keep and bear arms. "The Founders views," Kates reminds us, "on the value of the right to arms began with Aristotle whom they revered as the font of liberal political thought. [For instance, Aristotle, POLITICS 218 (J. Sinclair trans., 1962)]: free government exalts an armed people, but oligarchies and tyrants u2018mistrust the people and therefore deprive them of their arms.'" (Emphasis mine)

We would do well to remember the statement in italics above because the history of firearm laws in U.S. history is less than laudable. In many ways the misuse of firearm laws to deny American citizens, of all races, the ownership of arms is uncomfortably sad and vehemently repugnant.

The sordid history of America's gun control policies is the foundation of American oligarchies' deliberate malicious bigotry, injustice, intolerance and deprivation of American citizen's civil and natural rights. Those Americans which have been most affected have been the black community, American Indians, immigrants, and any minority that has been deemed "undesirable," a threat to large industry, or "religiously inferior".

At this juncture it must be understood that we are not talking about the common man or woman who in their delusional thinking accept that a utopian society can be achieved simply by the absences of firearms. Most if not all of today's "liberals" would be horrified to learn that the "Jim Crow" laws they so routinely denounce are in fact the very product and made possible because of the anti-gun legislation they champion.

This flight of fantasy of those who adhere to anti-gun laws is dealt with in a most enlightening and well researched article written by Rabbi David Bendory, Rabbinic Director, for Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO) entitled Why Jews Hate Guns.

While Rabbi Bendory is dealing with the Jewish mindset his conclusions are more than applicable to the anti-gun hypocrites within the general population.

Rabbi Bendory elaborates on 10 fatal conditions within the "anti-gun" frame of mind which he identifies as:

1. A desire for utopian moral purity
2. A disproportional incidence of hoplophobia
3. A quest for power through victimization of peers
4. A utopian delusion that if guns would just "go away," crime would end and the world would be a peaceful safe place
5. Self hatred and a wish to be helpless, acting out guilt-based behavioral problems that develop in childhood
6. The Ostrich Syndrome
7. Garden-variety hypocrisy
8. Adulterated religion — Jews In Name Only (JINOs)
9. Feel-good sophistry
10. Abject fear that yields irrational behavior

If you really want to know what you are dealing with when you talk to friends, family members or neighbors who are of the anti-gun persuasion I highly recommend you read and take to heart the wisdom that Rabbi Bendory imparts in his article.

We are dealing with individuals within the executive, legislative, and judicial branches at both the state and federal level who have conspired — along with their money power brokers — to deliberately subdue any group or groups to which they feared losing their power; hated because of their moral persuasions; or stood as a force against illegal proclamations which included murder and overt acts of theft. This egregious assault on any human's natural right to self defense is always draped in the palatable lie of "public safety".

The convoluted thinking of those in power is brought home in the opinion expressed by Florida Justice Rivers H. Buford in the early part of the 20th century who wrote explaining a Florida gun control statute:

"I know something of the history of this legislation. The original Act of 1893 was passed when there was a great influx of negro laborers in this State drawn here for the purpose of working in turpentine and lumber camps. The same condition existed when the Act was amended in 1901 and the Act was passed for the purpose of disarming the negro laborers . . . . The statute was never intended to be applied to the white population and in practice has never been so applied. . . .[T]here has never been, within my knowledge, any effort to enforce the provisions of this statute as to white people, because it has been generally conceded to be in contravention of the Constitution and non-enforceable if contested."

Note that it is no longer a matter of conjecture, the message is perfectly clear; anti-gun laws were imposed on American citizens. These Americans were disarmed because they were black and an alleged threat to powerful Americans.

Forget that this opinion is based on a man's or woman's skin color; these are free American men and women he is speaking about! Now read it again! This opinion proclaims clearly a declaration of intolerance; if the powers that be feel they can trust you then you are allowed to own a firearm; if they fear you or want something from you — cheap labor — regardless of your skin color, the criminal force of the government will be used against you.

New York's "Sullivan law" went into effect September 1, 1911 and as with any anti-gun legislation it favored some while suppressing others. The sun., August 03, 1919, Section 3 Magazine Section, Page 10 gives us an inside look at what really transpired with the Sullivan law.

"The Sullivan law not only made the possessor of firearms amenable to its punishment clause, but designated a stiff fine and a jail sentence for any person who sold such weapons to any one not possessed of a proper permit. Those citizens who possessed firearms were cautioned to report such ownership to Police Headquarters and, if Police Headquarters deemed it wisdom to allow the registrant to retain the pistol or revolver or whatever it chanced to be, the citizen were given a permit for which he paid a few dollars."

"Doubtless the Sullivan law had its effect. It did not stop gang shootings nor did it stop the acquisition or the ownership of firearms. Furthermore it was used illegitimately by police. A few unfortunate citizens against whom somebody with Influence had a grudge were arrested on trumped up charges and when searched in the police station were found to have one or more revolvers in their possession. It made no difference whether the revolvers were in those pockets when the man was arrested. The fact remained that they were there when he was searched. He was guilty of a violation of the Sullivan law. The police said so and he might squall himself into apoplexy for all the good protest was going to do him. In brief, the gentleman had been framed and the guns planted and he went to jail and his enemies made merry." (Emphasis mine)

This is precisely what the u201CBlack Codesu201D – which had been in effect between 1803 and 1860 in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and the Michigan Territory – and now were revived by the Confederate states at the end of the War Between the States, were all about.

The common elements of the "Black Code" are generally accepted as being:

1. Race was defined by blood; the presence of any amount of black blood made one black
2. Employment was required of all freedmen; violators faced vagrancy charges
3. Freedmen could not assemble without the presence of a white person
4. Freedmen were assumed to be agricultural workers and their duties and hours were tightly regulated
5. Freedmen were not to be taught to read or write
6. Public facilities were segregated
7. Violators of these laws were subject to being whipped or branded.

Here again, forget that these "laws" were designed to suppress free black people, they are first and foremost free Americans regardless of their skin color. Now, ask yourself this question. What free armed American would subject himself, or his family to such a satanic law; especially articles #3 (insert government official for white person), #5, and #7 above?

Would you? I know of no one who would. Then for these types of laws to be enforceable the intended victims must first be disarmed, and so it was.

Dave Kopel makes the point for me: "…[T]he Black Codes… explicitly restricted gun possession and carrying by the freedmen. Sometimes these laws facilitated the activities of the terrorist organization Ku Klux Klan, America's first gun control organization. The top item on the Klan's agenda was confiscating arms from the freedmen, the better to terrorize them afterward."

An illustration of how obtuse and dangerous laws against personal ownership of firearms can be comes to us from Richmond Virginia and the Richmond planet., of November 25, 1899. In the article entitled "An Outrageous Decision" we read the following:

The latest outrageous verdict comes from Friars Point, Miss., under date of Nov. 8, 1899, and says that in the case of W. H. Elder (white) manager of the local telephone exchange who was charged with the murder of Burt Ward (colored) the coroners jury returned a verdict that Ward committed suicide by reflecting upon a white man’s character.

There was no denial that Elder literately and premeditatedly shot Ward.

If he had killed or maimed a horse he would have been fined at least $25 besides being required to pay the value of the animal.

We call attention to the fact that this murder was committed in Mississippi, which has disfranchised the Negro.

The Richmond, Va., Times has recently declared that such a remedy is “cure-all” for race troubles. We should like much to read its explanation of this crime, or stand convicted of advocating a policy which will do us much harm and the white man no good.

Colored men must protect themselves as there is no law now in the Southland to protect them.

We believe in owning firearms, and praying to God for the nerve to use them. This kind of “lamb-offering business” has no attraction for us.

Are you beginning to get the picture? Anti-gun laws are not and never have been designed to disarm a citizenry for the purpose of public safety. They are a precursor to far more nefarious laws and actions by government agents all of which have been and will be designed to drive individuals into fear and then submission.

Once disarmed are you absolutely sure that no law will ever be enacted that wouldn't allow government agents to take a hot branding iron and brand you and your family as someone undesirable, a malcontent, a terrorist, a religious fanatic, a homosexual, a patriot, or some other "crime" conjured up in their mentally sick witch's brew? How about a law forcing you to have a RFID chip implanted in you which has been coded with your "crime" rather than being branded?

Think of the control the government would have over your very life if this was the case. Are you sure this won't happen or that isn't part and parcel of their plan?

Don't think it can't happen. It has happened and it has happened in this country see here here and here to list just a few. Maybe it hasn't happened to your race or your religious group but it has happened to American citizens. Men and women who were guaranteed the same rights as you claim for yourself.

For my friends who enjoy disciplines in other shooting sports but who don't own one of those "scary" funny looking rifles and think they can appease the power structure; Don't you understand that they have to divest the American public of all weapons? This has also been a part of American history and at times has become as evil as to include "carrying any potential weapon, such as a cane." This is your fight as much as it is anyone else's.

Have you considered the question of why now? Why are those bent on destroying your way of life, your liberties, and your country so resolute at this point in time in disarming you?

Is there something coming that the general public hasn't been made aware of that will drive this nation into armed civil disobedience?

Certainly, many of us are aware that the American economy is faltering and headed for collapse. We are also aware that the American dollar is headed for the dustbin of history. The question as to when either of these events will occur may take years to answer.

Is there something more immediate and in the planning stages that the Federal government wishes to do? Some act so egregious that before it can be accomplished it would necessitate the disarming of the American public?

Certainly it is not the recent murderous death of children. If that were the case, there would have been a hue and cry in the media over the death of those innocent children, by Federal agents, at Waco, Texas.

Why does the present administration feel it is suddenly necessary to have "armed protection" for life?

Is the Federal government planning or hoping to seize American's retirement accounts? Is it the growing freedom movement among America's young?

I don't know, but historically the disarming of citizens within a society has been the precursor to economic chaos or regime change.

One thing is for certain and it comes from the renowned American moral and social philosopher Eric Hoffer who wrote: "You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you." 

It is also reasonable to assume that the power structure did not see the voraciousness with which the American public would respond by continuing to sweep clean the ammunition isles and gun shelves of America's firearm retailers. This act by itself has to compel any would be tyrant to at least pause.

It is more than obvious that the powerful American oligarchy is afraid of an armed American public. This alone is why Americans from all ethnic and religious backgrounds need high capacity magazines and those scary looking modern rifles. As long as Americans are armed, there is a chance we can keep this evil at bay. If you think otherwise history will prove you a fool.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

"Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed."

~ Friedrich Nietzsche

If there are two things that can be said with all confidence they are that throughout American history the American public has had and continues to have an enduring commitment to owning firearms. Second is the government's unerring ability to be the sole cause of economic calamities, regardless of how vibrant the markets.

War and the market place are strange bedfellows. A case in point is the Spencer Repeating Rifle.

On March 6, 1860 the Spencer Repeating Rifle was patented in the United States. This rifle was developed for the sole purpose of brother using it against brother during the War Between the States. In the words of Warren Fisher, Jr. treasurer of the Spencer Repeating Rifle company:

"…In the hands of scouts or sharpshooters, or regular troops — taking into consideration all the elements of range, rapidity of firing, and facility of reloading, the Spencer Rifle is so effective as to render one man with it fully equal to half a dozen men armed with single-loading muskets…"

Of this rifle and in conjunction with testimony of a great many within the Federal Army's General staff, George Armstrong Custer wrote:

Mr. F. Cheney,

Dear Sir: — Being in command of a Brigade of Cavalry which is armed throughout with the Spencer Carbine and Rifle, I take pleasure in testifying to their superiority over all other weapons. I am firmly of the opinion that fifteen hundred men armed with the Spencer Carbine are more than a match for twenty-five hundred armed with any other firearm — I know this to be true from actual experiment.

Very respectfully, &c.,

G.A. Custer

Brigadier General

(An admonition that Custer seems to have either forgotten or through his arrogance rejected when on June 25, 1876 he pitted his greatly divided and ill prepared 7th Cavalry using slow firing breach loading Springfield Model 1873 45-70 rifles against a greatly superior force; many of whom pressed the battle at the Little Bighorn with Spencer and Winchester repeating rifles.)

In December 1874 George Cary Eggleston, a veteran of the War Between the States, who had fought for the Confederacy, wrote in "The Atlantic" of the events in the South following the war:

"The end came, technically, at Appomattox, but of the real difficulties of the war the end was not yet. The trials and the perils of utter disorganization were still to be endured, and as the condition in which many parts of the South were left by the fall of the Confederate government was an anomalous one, some account of it seems necessary to the completeness of this narrative."

"Our principal danger was from the lawless bands of marauders who infested the country, and our greatest difficulty in dealing with them lay in the utter absence of constituted authority of any sort. Our country was full of highwaymen – not the picturesque highwaymen of whom fiction and questionable history tell us, those gallant, generous fellows whose purse-cutting proclivities seem mere peccadilloes in the midst of so many virtues; not these, by any means, but plain highwaymen of the most brutal description possible, and destitute even of the merit of presenting a respectable appearance…"

The circumstances Confederate soldiers found themselves in upon returning home were a direct result of Federal policy toward the Southern states and the National Bank Notes (AKA National Currency) that were now a permanent fixture in America's monetary system. This "new" money was liability-money (debt-obligation money) and with it came the real possibility of inflation as Jay Cooke, one of the creators of the national banking system, was acutely aware. At the war’s conclusion any money the Confederate government had issued was rendered worthless and the "greenback" dollar wasn't far behind; the value of which was no more then 35 cents in 1860 gold.

I am sure more than one Southern gentleman desired to own the Spencer rifle to protect his hearth and home during this era, but the 1866 Spencer Repeating Arms Catalog shows the rifle in the 44 caliber retailed for a whopping $45.00.

To a present day buyer this may not sound like a lot but let's put this in perspective; a frame of reference, which will remain constant throughout the rest of the article.

In 1866, according to nber.org, the average weekly wage of working Americans was $41.18, (adjusted to 1866 dollar), with the average work week being estimated at sixty-four hours. The results were an hourly wage of $0.64. With this in mind it would take a worker dedicating everything they earned from 70 hours of labor to purchase a Spencer rifle.

The rifle was undoubtedly obtained by those in the North who had an income somewhere equal to the national average. For the Confederate veterans who needed the rifle but were faced with high taxes, hyperinflation, the need to feed and cloth their families, then rebuild their society, which had suffered the scorched earth military policies of the Northern high command, such an item, for the moment, was far too expensive.

It was also in 1866 that an American icon under the corporate name of "Winchester Repeating Arms Company" came into being. At the same time "Winchester," as the company was to be commonly referred to, began production of the "Winchester Repeating Arm, Model 1866" better known as the "Yellow Boy" which sold to the public at around $45.00.

The Winchester Model 1866 was the standard bearer of repeating rifles until 1873 when Winchester introduced the Model 1873 repeating rifle.

Of the Winchester Model 1873 William F. Cody writing from Fort McPherson, Nebraska said this:

"I have been using and have thoroughly tested you latest improved rifle…While in the Black Hills this last summer I crippled a bear, and Mr. Bear made for me, and I am certain had I not been armed with one of your repeating rifles I would now be in the happy hunting grounds. The bear was not thirty feet from me when he charged, but before he could reach me I had eleven bullets in him, which was a little more lead than he could comfortably digest."

"Believe me that you have the most complete rifle now made." (Emphasis in the original)

W.F. Cody

"Buffalo Bill"

During the intervening years between 1866 and 1873 the hourly wage of American workers steadily increased first to $0.71 and hour in 1867 to $0.89 in 1873. During the same period the work week decreased from 64 hours 62 hours.

In 1870 the Montgomery Wards catalog (of 1870,) advertised the Sharps (?) 7 shot repeating rifle at $50.00 still requiring the American worker to dedicate 59.25 hours a 15% reduction in hours needed to work before purchasing the rifle.

1873 saw Winchester introduce the "Model 73" repeating rifle, however September 1873 ushered in the event known as the "Panic of 1873" followed by its supposed depression.

Historians argue concerning what caused this panic but there is no doubt the following factors contributed to the US economy's predicament.

1. Postwar inflation
2. a large and growing trade deficit
3. High Tariffs
4. Reported in the Nebraska Advertiser, September 13, 1877 former Vice President Schuyler Colfax, in a speech entitled "Hard Times Their Cause and Cure" said this: "The chief, though not the only cause, for the panic of 1873, was the overbuilding of railroads, and the enormous amount of money they withdrew from other uses." (The other causes conveniently missing in Colfax's statements certainly must take into account the state and federal subsidies which resulted in blatant, widespread corruption.)

(To read a fascinating discussion of the corruption during this era, see "The Consolidation of State Power via Reconstruction, 1865-1890" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo)

Regardless of the cause or causes the first indication of a problem occurred on September 8 with the failure of the New York Warehouse and Securities Company. Then Daniel Drew's firm Kenyon, Cox and Company ceased business a week later.

Jay Cooke, who had been instrumental in establishing the national banking system during the war by marketing government bonds, was next. Cooke had taken control of the Northern Pacific Railroad during the 1860s which had been the recipient of Federal land grants to the tune of 47 million acres. Cooke was so heavily invested in the railroad that once the Northern Pacific Railroad failed, in 1873, when millions of dollars in NPR bonds became unmarketable, it took the financial house of Jay Cooke and Company with it.

With the collapse of Jay Cooke and Company the house of cards began to fall rather quickly. Two other important financial firms closed their doors the same day with 37 more on September 19th. These shocks waves to the financial world set off the Panic of 1873.

There were business failures, some 5000 bankruptcies in the first year, and there were certainly many who became unemployed. Unemployment took place most notably in the railroad industry which was the largest single employer outside of agriculture. Persistent joblessness among the railroad workers eventually resulted in violence during the summer of 1877.

Of course the failing bankers immediately called for a "bail out", but President Grant, to his credit, refused to sign the April 14, 1874 bill that would inflate the currency supply by 100 million dollars. Grant justified his veto stating that the short term advantage of such a bill did not out weight the long term damage it would do to the economy.

President Grant's veto was important in that it gave the "hard money" politicians the needed impetus to pass the 1875 Specie Resumption Act, which programmed the US to return to a gold and silver standard on January 1, 1879.

President Grant was right. The yearly average wholesale hundred weight price for native beef steers, all weights from 750 to 1800 pounds, as compiled by the Chicago Daily Drover Journal indicates, during the period of 1874 to 1879, they were not as volatile as the prices were during the prosperous expansion years of 1881 to 1890.

Studying this era one is hard pressed to find the "Long Depression" so many historians claim occurred.

Between October 1873 and March 1879 there was no contraction in the money supply. It has been reported that during this period the money held by banks increased from 1.964 billion dollars to 2.221 billion dollars; increasing at an average rate of 2.6% per annum. Furthermore, we have to wonder how a "depression" could possibly result in an expansion (some even go so far as to call it an extraordinary expansion) of industry and real per capita income.

Nor do we see goods chasing dollars in the gun industry of the 1870s. Remington firearms catalog of 1875 shows the Remington's breech loading rifle, with 24 or 26 inch barrel, sold for $32.00 requiring the general public to dedicate 33 3/4 hours of labor to acquiring one. These prices reflect the value of the US greenbacks which were now roughly worth $0.86 in prewar gold dollars.

Prices had fallen since 1866 but not because of any tightening in the money supply. What had occurred was that under President Grant's direction the Federal government, through its banking system, hadn't caused a marked increase in the money made available. The lack of inflation allowed the relatively free-market capitalists to increase production along with economic growth at a rate greater than the rate new money was being pumped into the US economy.

The ensuing prosperity hadn't resulted in a price change within the Winchester line. The 1876 Winchester catalog shows the least expensive standard New Model u201873' Sporting Rifle with 24 inch barrel in the 44 caliber sold for $45.00; requiring the purchaser to contribute his earning from slightly more than 47 hours of toil before claiming it, as opposed to 70 hours in 1866.

What had happened was that wages had increased so that the average consumer was rewarded by having to work 23 hours less to purchase the Model 73 then it took in 1866 to acquire the Spenser rifle at the same price. Even a notoriously under paid sheriff from North Platte, Nebraska, of whom the Republican said was a "worthy and efficient sheriff", found he could own a Winchester rifle. Writing Winchester corporate headquarters Sheriff Struthers remarked:

"I have succeeded in getting one of your guns here that is first-class. It is, without any exception, the best gun I ever shot, and I am safe in saying that I have handled all sorts." (Emphasis in the original)

Alex. Struthers,

Sheriff, Lincoln Co., Nebraska

With the implementation of The Resumption Of Specie Act of January 14, 1875, the miracle of what can transpire in a free market, began to expose itself. Congress had commanded that the fiat greenbacks be redeemed by either gold or silver coin.

The increase in the Federal government's gold and silver holdings in combination with the ongoing flushing of the fiat dollars from circulation set up the American economy for the decade of the 1880s, which produced an era of remarkable economic growth.

In the intervening years of 1875 to 1880 this action by Congress had a positive influence on American's lives. During these years American's cost of living dropped by nearly 15%. This increase in American's standard of living is emphasized by the average yearly wholesale price of 750 to 1800 pound beef steers being reduced in value by over 17% during the same period.

While wages also declined, they dropped at the much slower rate of just over 9%. When adjusted to the value of the dollar of each respective year and its purchasing power — a consequence of the increased volume of gold and silver in circulation — there was a modest but positive improvement; the hourly wage in 1875 lost ground until 1877 before recovering in 1878 and again in 1879. While the money people had to spend had decreased in volume (up to 1878) their overall purchasing power had increased.

That firearms were beginning to be seen less as necessary tools of the West and more as sporting objects, due to people's increasing disposable income, can be gleaned from the an article printed in the "Nebraska advertiser" of September 05, 1878 which featured a Mr. Adam Goldie of Shannon County, Missouri.

Adam Goldie was a sharpshooter who many thought could beat the up and coming then later acknowledged reigning king of marksmen, William Frank “Doc” Carver.

The article entitled "The Greatest Marksman Yet" states the 38 year-old Goldie could break "299 glass balls out of 300 in twelve minutes with a forty-four caliber Winchester rifle…A seemingly incredible feat that he performs is as follows: A soda-water bottle is thrown into the air in a certain manner, and before it falls, Goldie will send a bullet down the neck of the bottle and make a hole in the bottom."

At distance Goldie was not a bad shot either. Remember these shooters were shooting with open sights. "…At one thousand yards he will hit the centre of the bulls eye and then send six bullets one after the other hitting the very indent made by the first…"

I don't know if the shooting match between Goldie and "Doc" Carver ever took place, but an article like this had to spark the imagination of every young man — along with anyone who fancied themselves good with a rifle — to sharpen his shooting skills. Nor would it hurt Winchester sales whose advertising stressed their rifle's rapid-fire ability and its accuracy.

As the end of 1880 approached Winchester Repeating Arms August catalog reports that the Model 73 had been reduced in price by 33% to $30.00 from $45.00 in 1876. The American buying public now was able, with less then twenty-nine and a half hours of labor to purchase a Winchester, down nearly 58% from 1866.

With the now continuing expansion of railroads, overland shipping costs — moving goods to markets — were continually falling. Technology resulted in large-scale production (and lower cost) of many goods including steel. By 1880 the once agrarian society, which had been so dominant in the U.S. was almost evenly divided between farm and non-farm workers.

The 1880s saw a nearly 13% increase in the average America's wage.

An example of wages during 1881 comes to us from Webster County, Nebraska paper the "The Red Cloud Chief", of June 02, 1881 in which "Billy the Kid" was hired, in the vicinity of Albuquerque New Mexico, to stop a rash of sheep thefts. Billy's starting salary, according to the article, was $40.00 a month, but within two days and because of his proficiency with his Winchester rifle was quickly raised to $60.00 a month.

The next day Billy "dispatched" two more thieves and as a result his boss purposed "that hereafter… his salary from the time he entered his employ would be $100 per month, (plus) grub (room/board) and ammunition." This raise, plus room and board, put Billy the Kid's total monthly income no more than $30.00 short of the national average.

The continuing expansion of the US economy during the 1880s produced a real GNP of approximately 24%.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo from his 1991 paper "The Antitrust Economists’ Paradox" explains:

“As with measures of output, not all of the relevant price data are available, but the information that is at hand indicates that falling prices accompanied the rapid expansion of output in the “monopolized” industries. In addition, although the consumer price index fell by 7 percent from 1880 to 1890, prices in many of the suspect industries were falling even faster.

“The average price of steel rails, for example, fell by 53 percent from $68 per ton in 1880 to $32 per ton in 1890. The price of refined sugar fell from 9 cents per pound in 1880, to 7 cents in 1890, to 4.5 cents in 1900. The price of lead dropped 12 percent, from $5.04 per pound in 1880 to $4.41 in 1890. The price of zinc declined by 20 percent, from $5.51 to $4.40 per pound from 1880 to 1890.”

And fall prices did! In February 1890 rifles from Winchester had been further reduced by 35% from the 1880 cost to the following: Model 1873 — $19.50; Model 1876 — $19.50; with the newest Model 1886, in a round barrel also retailing for $19.50. These prices represented a reduction in hours the buyer needed to work by 78.28% over 1866 and down 48.35% from 1880. The sportsman now needed only to dedicate less then 16 hours (one and one half days labor) in wages before owning a new Winchester rifle.

To some it may seem like today is light-years removed from the world of the late 1860s and early 1870s.

Have we really advanced that far when property values continue to fall; 100 million out of a population of 242 million Americans, of working age, are unemployed; 15% of the American population needs government assistance just to survive; inflation is running close to 10% making working people poorer by the day; and the value of the American dollar has lost 97% of its purchasing power since 1913?

Are we content with rampant corruption on Wall Street with its deceitful mortgage schemes and reckless looting of the American people? Is it to our advantage when, no longer capable of continuing their criminal scheme and faced with financial ruin, this corrupt system is granted trillions of dollars in bail outs, further impoverishing the nation? Are we better off when rampant crony capitalism, which makes the swindling of Americans out of their future a virtual certainty; is the standard operating procedure among all levels of American government? 

Most Americans aren't happy with either their current situation or the path that is being taken by government. In a recent Rasmussen Report the headline read "92% Favor Strict Limits on Government to Protect the Individual".

How this is to be accomplished is never mentioned.

Americans have convinced themselves that the only way to solve the continuing federal, state and local debt problem is by the creation of more debt. This lie will only add to their sorrows as the federal debt is projected to reach 20 trillion dollars by 2020 resulting in larger government and with it an escalation of the use of fear to acquire unprecedented powers intended to subject, harass, imprison, and murder citizens of this country.

As we have just seen, anyone who is serious about restoring smaller government MUST begin with the establishment of honest money.

In The Commercial and Financial Chronicle of May 6, 1948 Congressman Howard Buffett from Nebraska makes a strong case for honest money. In his article entitled "Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money" Congressman Buffett saw clearly America's future if it continued with a debt ridden fiat money system.

"…[T]he individual citizen is deprived of freedom of movement. He is prevented from laying away purchasing power for the future. He becomes dependent upon the goodwill of the politicians for his daily bread. Unless he lives on land that will sustain him, freedom for him does not exist…"

Nor was the fact that honest money and freedom go hand in hand lost on the former Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, who wrote in his 1966 article "Gold and Economic Freedom":

"…[T]he opposition to the gold standard in any form-from a growing number of welfare-state advocates-was prompted by a much subtler insight: the realization that the gold standard is incompatible with chronic deficit spending (the hallmark of the welfare state). Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes… But the welfare statists were quick to recognize that if they wished to retain political power, the amount of taxation had to be limited and they had to resort to programs of massive deficit spending, i.e., they had to borrow money, by issuing government bonds, to finance welfare expenditures on a large scale…" (Emphasis mine)

For those who continue to remain ensconced in the delusion that "it can't happen in America" remember this. If your income falls within the medium average family income of most Americans at $46,326.00 a year and you wish to own that icon of the Old West, the Winchester Model 1894, it will cost you $1399.99. You are now committed to dedicating a minimum of 63 hours labor to owning one.

Welcome to the defeated South of 1866 and your future.

My sincere thanks to Abby Mouat at Cornell Publications whose guidance helped me in purchasing the right catalogs for this article. If you enjoy old catalogs for either reading or research Cornell Publications at www.cornellpubs.com has available over 3000 titles which they will reprint on acid free paper at more than reasonable prices.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

“It is natural
for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut
our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that
siren till she transforms us into beasts…For my part, whatever
anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth,
to know the worst, and to provide for it.”

~ Patrick Henry

It was a 3
AM wakeup in late September. The threat of an early frost had necessitated
that the last 1000 acres of corn be harvested quickly to avoid the
potential loss of what remained of the 2010 harvest.

Cresting the
Cascade Mountain range of central Washington, beginning my decent
into the Yakima valley, I noticed that it was just minutes before
sunrise. The crystal clear dark blue sky promised a warm day, but
was also the cause of nights that were getting colder. The truck
thermometer read 28 degrees however, that was to be expected at
4000 feet on top of a mountain. I remember wondering if it had gotten
cold enough to frost further east. In almost the same instant, I
noticed what seemed to be small drops of my engine oil on the door
window.

Having driven
the road literally thousands of times, over the years, I knew there
was a turn-out less then a quarter mile ahead where the truck with
its dual trailers could safely be pulled off the road and a search
for the cause of the oil droplets could be made.

Exiting the
cab I was greeted with the unmistakable smell of engine oil which
had unceremoniously left its assigned place in the engine, made
obvious by the myriad of miniature puddles of oil forming under
the truck. The rogue oil now coated the driver side fender well;
the underside of the hood, the driver side running boards, and in
a final act of rebellion was flowing off the left fuel tank quickly
threatening to combine into a rather larger extended puddle on the
side of the road.

Lifting the
hood to expose the 475 horsepower, Caterpillar C15 engine, I noticed
that my partner, who had stopped a short distance from me, was approaching
the driver side door. "Wow, it looks terminal to me."

"Yeah,
something is really wrong," I answered.

Gerald with
his usual dry wit didn't understate the obvious: "Well, at
least that CAT® engine decided to bleed out on a nice day. It
won't be too bad a wait for the shop mechanics. Only two and a half;
maybe five hours and you should be on the road again. Sure looks
like it's been raining oil, doesn't it?"

I wasn't amused
and my expression must have shown my annoyance because Gerald then
turned serious. "Let's see what we got here before we call
the shop."

As we both
approached the driver side steering tire Gerald started looking
at the oil filter and rear of the engine while I began inspecting
the lines and the front of the engine. It was only a matter of seconds
when I realized that the whole problem was due to the oil filler
cap which was no longer in the filler tube but hanging from its
retaining chain.

When that filler
cap had left its assigned position the laws of pressure (expansion)
had instantly come into play. High pressure always flows to a low
pressure. The high pressures that are generated in an engine of
this size (or any engine for that matter) are useful as long as
the system remains closed.

In my case
that meant the release of pressure took one gallon of engine oil
with it; all in a matter of a few minutes.

I mention this
not because it is anything extraordinary but because it is how prudent
people respond countless times a day to a potentially serious crisis.
When something doesn't look, feel, or sound correct we judiciously
stop and find out where the problem resides. We do this to avoid
loss of production, to evade suffering a financial catastrophe or
for countless other reasons.

While many
will "play it safe" in their daily lives it is equally
obvious that the same attention to detail is lacking and many times
nonexistent when it comes to national events and policies. Especially
when those policies and events are transforming America into an
economically impotent third-world police state, which is far more
dangerous then a great many of the daily crises individuals face.

Why the lack
of concern or attention to these events is so common among a people
has been discussed by many authors. Rarely, however, has the problem
been expressed as succinctly as by Wolf DeVoon in his 1999 article
"De-Facto
Anarchy."

"Government…,"
Mr. DeVoon observes, "does not exist of necessity, but rather
by virtue of a tragic, almost comical combination of klutzy,
opportunistic terrorism against sitting ducks whom it
pretends to shelter, plus our childish phobia of responsibility,
praying to be exempted from the hard reality of life on life’s terms."
(Emphasis Mr. DeVoon's)

For an excellent
clarification of the above statement read Gary North's article "TSA:
Thou Shalt Acquiesce."

For years the
warnings have gone out from a plethora of writers and speakers throughout
the political spectrum. So for a moment let's consider the general
admonitions that have systematically been ignored by the collective
and have now come to nearly full maturity in our verging third-world
police state.

In no particular
order:

• A
  continuing effort on the part of the central government to
  deny people the right of private ownership of firearms by direct
  and nefarious
  means.
• A state-controlled
  media which supports and amplifies the central government's fear
  and distrust of its citizenry while championing the government's
  programs of unwarranted surveillance and acts of state sponsored
  terrorism. This is coupled with the attempted suppression
  of any dissenting media.
• The illegal
  shifting of power from elected legislative bodies to unelected
  judges allowing the national government to negate any
  law it doesn't approve of.
• A two-tiered
  legal system whereby privileges
  are extended to select groups and those of elite standing,
  exempting them
  from general regulations, or laws.
• Treaties
  which seek to remove the power of elected officials to rule locally
  while subjecting
  the population to "laws" originating from international
  bodies.
• The national
  government's use of established bureaucracies (Federal and State)
  to deny business licenses, to harass,
  close down or financially destroy those who seek to supply
  goods and services that are considered outside accepted government
  policy or contrary to the wishes of large competing industries.
  An example of this is the war which state and federal agencies
  are waging against whole milk, natural
  foods, illegal drugs and alternative medicine.
• Spreading
  criminal
  activity among local
  and federal LEA departments. "The law," notes Paul
  Craig Roberts, "has ceased to be a shield to protect
  the rights of the innocent and has instead become a weapon in
  the hands of the state."
• An ongoing
  destruction
  of America's industrial base, a perpetual housing
  crisis and government-sanctioned
  fraud by the banking system.
• Unwarranted
  raids of legal businesses and into peoples homes under the
  pretence of the war on terrorism and protecting the public's welfare.
  This includes the direct physical assault of citizens, with the
  accompanying humiliation, during a "pat-down" under
  the pretense of keeping the nation secure. A corollary being the
  random demanding that legal citizens produce proper documentation.
  The guise for such action was recently expressed by TSA's union
  director of membership and organization, Sharon
  Pinnock. "Our concern is that the public not confuse
  the people implementing the policies with the people who developed
  the policies." (We
  are just following orders?) Hmmmm!
• The national
  government's declared "right" to murder
  US citizens on the slimmest of excuses. In the article sited,
  Paul Craig Roberts points out that "(t)he argument by the
  Justice Department (is) that the executive branch has unreviewable
  authority to kill Americans, whom the executive branch has unilaterally,
  without presenting evidence, determined to pose a threat…"
• The enduring
  militarization
  of state and local police forces. Former President Clinton
  justifies this breach in the civility of common law with his speech
  of April 16, 2010 entitled "The
  tragedy of Oklahoma City 15 years later and the lessons for today."
  
• Training
  of military units to be used on American soil against American
  citizens ostensibly in response to social unrest, but in reality
  to defend those deemed essential to continuance of the "government."
  (Are death
  squads in our near future?)
• The unwillingness
  or inability to control national borders. Phil Williams writing
  for the Strategic
  Studies Institute; United States Army War College in publication
  867; page 27, dated June 2008 correctly observers: "The inability
  of states to control their borders and the global flows –
  of people, money, weapons, drugs, etc. – that cross these
  borders into their national territories is both a manifestation
  of the decline of the state and a major contributor
  to the strengthening and acceleration of this tendency."
  (Emphasis mine)
• A
  national
  decaying infrastructure which includes
  the suburbia
  of major cities becoming the new slums.
• A
  very real potential for a food
  crises that will have a direct violent
  effect on American's lives.
• A
  national debt and monetary
  crises that threatens to destroy
  the economic machine of both the US and
  the world.

Many
will look at this list then nod in the affirmative that yes, indeed,
these are the causes of our misery. Sadly that is where they will
stop with their inquiry never realizing that these events are symptoms
of a far greater social disease.

Consider
that the list above is the natural result of social actions and
public apathy, which are identifiable in an historical context.
Consider also that that history is readily identifiable as government
programs which seek to satisfy the following public desires, chief
among which are:

• I
  have a right to a good-paying job.
• I
  have a right to own a business and sell my products free from
  "unfair" competition.
• I
  have the right to own a home
• I
  have a right to medical care and the opportunity to achieve
  and enjoy good health.
• I
  have a right to a good education.
• I
  have a right to be economically protected in old age, during
  a sickness, after an accident, and when unemployed.
• I have the
  right to be protected from all harm.

If this partial
list of newly enumerated "rights" seems vaguely familiar
it was taken from FDR's,
1944, purposed "Second Bill of Rights." It is no coincidence
that FDR's ideas of American's "rights" have their roots
in the socialist "positive rights" which the Europeans
have enshrined in their social compacts and are the root of Europe's
economic problem today.

These so-called
"positive rights" are the very antithesis to self-reliance,
independence, and individual success. When implemented in a social
program, "positive rights" demand, by government edict,
that the productive in a society supply the needs of others.

This is analogous
to running an engine with a displaced oil filler cap; sooner or
later there won't be enough engine oil to lubricate the system.
At that point you are faced with massive engine failure. This is
the condition America and a good part of western civilization finds
itself in today.

The social
unrest which is occurring and will soon morph into horrific, if
not murderous, chaos among nations is not theory, it is natural
and predictable, based on irrefutable economic laws and history.
Economic laws which are grounded in reality just as natural law
assures us high pressure will always flow to low pressure.

Patrick
Henry was correct: "We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful
truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms
us into beasts…" Western civilization faces the bestiality
of its actions today.

It
will be a painfully hard lesson to learn; it very well could cost
millions of lives, but if history repeats itself mankind will again
turn away from their foolish lust of being coddled and pampered;
once again embracing the principles of success through self-reliance
which comes with freedom.

If not, the
quagmire of self destruction in which societies have placed themselves
will run its course until nothing of the former civilization is
left, but a rotting shell of its former self. This is another natural
law which will not be denied.

December
9, 2010

Tim
Case [send him mail]
is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the
first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated
are free.u201D

Tim
Case Archives

~ John Adams

The other day I was talking with our town mayor concerning the present administration and the events unfolding in the United States. We both felt the lawless actions, supported and encouraged by the Obama cartel, portend very ominous times, but he was taken back when I mentioned that this country was headed for a break-up if not a civil war.

His expression of shock was accompanied by the declaration that anyone who has been in a war zone would not wish another civil war on this country. I agreed, but again shocked him when I noted that it wouldn’t be the everyday citizens of the America who would start the civil uprising leading to war, but rather it would be the present administration and the power elite.

He asked what I thought would be the catalyst for such a horrific event. I answered with a simple question: "Have you ever heard of the Philadelphia Aurora?"

The good mayor admitted he had not; just as I suspect that few in this country know of, or the history behind the Philadelphia Aurora newspaper; or the evil intent that has been demonstrated by the American Federal government since the late 1700′s.

The general media’s frequent glib use of the word "crisis" in their headlines in an attempt to scare the reader has all but rendered the word nonsensical; if not totally irrelevant. True, a crisis has come to mean another emergency or catastrophe, but this was not always the case.

The identification and clarification of a "crisis" has a far more threatening meaning when it is understood in its full context. Historically a crisis is "a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events, especially for better or for worse, is determined; turning point." This has a direct relationship to what is probably the original meaning of the Greek word "krisis" with its medical implications: "the point in the course of a serious disease at which a decisive change occurs, leading either to recovery or to death."

It was in the context of a turning point that a crisis occurred in the American experience and in which the Philadelphia Aurora plays a significant part.

The Philadelphia Aurora or the "Aurora" — as it came to be known — was originally founded in 1790 under the name "General Advertiser" by one Benjamin Franklin Bache, the grandson of Benjamin Franklin.

There seems to be little disagreement among historians that during the period between 1790 and 1793 the General Advertiser was one of, if not the, most important political journals in the fifteen states. That status was solidified with the closing, in 1793, of the National Gazette owned by Philip Freneau, leaving Bache and his newspaper as the chief source of criticism of the administration and policies of George Washington.

In 1794, B.F. Bache added the name of Aurora, and continued defending the ongoing French Revolution while acrimoniously chastising Washington’s administration for its "pro-British" predisposition, prejudices and sentiments.

It was the Aurora, in 1795, which leaked the text of Jay’s Treaty, then through the paper’s editorials and articles, generated well-known common protests against the tenets of the treaty.

Thomas Jefferson along with James Madison, were the leading opponents of the treaty. Adversaries of the treaty argued that any further economic ties with Britain would only strengthen the monarchists/Federalists here in the United States.

For the present it averted another war with Great Britain — which made both sides of the debate happy and surely had a great deal to do with the treaty’s ratification — but by 1803 the agreement was in tatters. The treaty’s failure was instrumental in causing renewed tensions between the United State and Britain, which ultimately resulted in the War of 1812.

It was also during 1795 that the Aurora began publicly increasing its attacks on the president by accusing George Washington of monarchical tendencies, financial malfeasance, an inferior military record and being "servile to Britain and hostile to France."

The Aurora along with it supporters lost the battle over the Jay Treaty, but in the process this one newspaper emerged as the single greatest supporter of Thomas Jefferson’s campaign for the presidency, over the bid of John Adams, during the 1796 election. As such, the Aurora became the center of the Republican newspaper network disseminating its anti-federalist/pro-Jeffersonian message to the now sixteen states of the United States.

The election of 1796 was close, but in the end the final electoral vote was 71 for John Adams and 68 for Thomas Jefferson. (Bache and his paper had warned the American people of the deadly intentions of Adams who had no desire to be president, but rather sought to seize the reins of power as king. Those supporting Jefferson were not wrong! Adams had addressed this subject to Benjamin Rush on June 9, 1789 when Adams wrote: "America must resort (to) hereditary Monarchy or Aristocracy…as an asylum during discord, Seditions and Civil War.")

The supporters of Thomas Jefferson had once again lost the argument, but the election of John Adams — who Bache identified as the "Old, querulous, Bald, blind, crippled, Toothless Adams," — had made them some powerful, if not eternal, enemies.

What the Americans had after the election of 1796 was not a new president but a haughty and fault-finding scholar; a narcissistic Harvard graduate and Massachusetts lawyer; an argumentative, ugly, short, belligerent bully who wanted more than anything to be king.

Those who knew John Adams have said of him: "in some things (he is) absolutely out of his senses" — Benjamin Franklin; "sometimes (he is) absolutely mad" — Thomas Jefferson; "sometimes wholly out of his senses" — James Madison; "(He is) liable to paroxysms of anger, which deprive him of self command" — Alexander Hamilton; "a brute in manners and a bully in his family" — John Adams’ nephew Thomas.

On July 6, 1798, just a little over a year after taking the oath of office (March 4, 1797), the U.S. Congress under the leadership of John Adams enacted two pieces of legislation which were the very mirror of the president’s personality: An Act Respecting Alien Enemies which has become known as the Alien Act of 1798. Then eight days later on July 14, 1798 an addendum labeled: An Act in Addition to the Act, Entitled “An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States" which is commonly called the Sedition Act of 1798. Today we refer to these two pieces of legislation as the "The Alien and Sedition Act of 1798."

Historians always give an altruistic reason for the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 by referring to the XYZ affair along with the Quasi War with France and the need to "increase military preparations," or to "enact a series of internal security measures." I prefer to accept these acts for what they were and as defined by Thomas Jefferson in his letter to Stephens Thompson Mason dated October 11, 1798:

"…I consider those laws as merely an experiment on the American mind, to see how far it will bear an avowed violation of the Constitution. If this goes down, we shall immediately see attempted another act of Congress, declaring that the President shall continue in office during life, reserving to another occasion the transfer of the succession to his heirs, and the establishment of the Senate for life… (Emphasis mine) That these things are in contemplation, I have no doubt; nor can I be confident of their failure, after the dupery of which our countrymen have shown themselves susceptible…"

Then in November of 1798 Vice-President Jefferson writes to John Taylor:

"…It is a singular phenomenon, that while our State governments are the very best in the world, without exception or comparison, our General Government has, in the rapid course of nine or ten years, become more arbitrary, and has swallowed more of the public liberty than even that of England. (Emphasis mine) I enclose you a column, cut out of a London paper, to show you that the English, though charmed with our making their enemies our enemies, yet blush and weep over our sedition law…"

No, the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 was the result of a conscious, premeditated attempt on the part of the Monarchists/Federalists to destroy the Constitution, purge the states of the Irish using racial hatred, while at the same time silencing by prosecuting, beating, murdering, or deporting any critics, and the Aurora’s owner B.F. Bache, was at the head of the list.

This attempt rested on a fabricated, undeclared war, and the delusion (Jefferson’s word) called the XYZ Affair. It was in the words of Thomas Jefferson the "reign of witches"; an organized, orchestrated reign of terror on the part of the Federal government!

As soon as Adams had signed the Sedition Act into law the Aurora continued its attacks, condemning the Federalists, represented by the Adams regime, with this shot over the administration’s bow.

"u2018Advertisement Extraordinary!!!’ (Philadelphia) Aurora 14 July 1798

Orator Mum takes this very orderly method of announcing to his fellow citizens that a THINKING CLUB will be established in a few days at the sign of the Muzzle in Gag Street. The first subject for cogitation will be:

"Ought a Free People to obey laws which violate the constitution they have sworn to support?"

N.B. (nota bene means “note well”) No member will be permitted to think longer than fifteen minutes."

Over the years Benjamin Franklin Bache had suffered beatings, financial hardship due to Federalist boycotts, political woes, and fears of criminal prosecution, but it all came to an end on September 10, 1798 when he died having became one of the "ONE HUNDRED and TWENTY SEVEN new cases" of yellow fever reported every 24 hours in the city of Philadelphia.

As the Aurora’s presses fell silent there must have been unbridled joy, if not relief, among those of the Adams administration. Adams certainly exhibited a strong hatred for Bache in his letter to Benjamin Rush years later. "[T]he yellow fever arrested [this] malicious libeler," Adams wrote, "[in his] detestable career and sent him to his grandfather, from whom he inherited a dirty, envious, jealous, and revengeful spite against me."

The Adams administration armed with the Sedition Act now seemed to be in full command, giving the anti-Federalists more than enough reason to fear that their fate was sealed along with that of the Constitution and the new republic.

Then in October, 1798 the state of Kentucky drafted a resolution of nullification declaring The Alien and Sedition Acts are "void, and of no force, and will…take measures…for providing that neither these acts, nor any others of the General Government not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be exercised…"

Any relief the Federalists had felt in September must have been brought under temporary suspension when on November 1, 1798, Margaret Bach with the help of her assistant and future husband, William Duane, resumed publication of the Aurora.

On December 24, 1798 the "Virginia Resolution — Alien and Sedition Acts" nullified the law in the Common Wealth of Virginia, it showing the tide was turning against Adams.

By March 1799 the tide was fast approaching a flood. Thomas Jefferson writing to Thomas Lomax on March 12, 1799 outlines the problem now facing the Federalists.

"The spirit of 1776 is not dead. It has only been slumbering. The body of the American people is substantially republican. But their virtuous feelings have been played on by some fact with more fiction; they have been the dupes of artful maneuvers, & made for a moment to be willing instruments in forging chains for themselves. But time & truth have dissipated the delusion, & opened their eyes. …Pennsylvania, Jersey & New York are coming majestically round to the true principles. In Pennsylvania, 13 out of 22 counties had already petitioned on the alien & sedition laws. Jersey & N Y had begun the same movement, and tho’ the rising of Congress stops that channel for the expression of their sentiment, the sentiment is going on rapidly, & before their next meeting those three States will be solidly embodied in sentiment with the six Southern & Western ones."

If Thomas Jefferson was aware of the erosion of support among Adams’ strongholds then there is no doubt that Adams and his cohorts were also conscious they were loosing the support of their followers.

It is no coincidence then that on March 12, 1799 Adams ordered "federal troops" commanded by the infamous William McPherson of the McPherson Blues and the Whiskey Rebellion to arrest those deemed "subversive of the just authority of the Government, by misrepresentations, to render the laws odious… certain acts which I am advised amount to treason, being overt acts of levying war against the United States…[and] to suppress such combinations and to cause the laws to be duly executed…"

All this amounted to was the arrest or murder of those opposed to Adams’ war taxes and the Alien and Sedition Acts among the Pennsylvania farmers of Northampton, Bucks and Montgomery counties.

The troops that Adams was sending to subdue those opposed to him were not "federal troops" in the sense we think of them. They were the most virulent members of street gangs calling themselves the militias, and being accepted as such by Adams because of their fervent deadly support. These militias were described by William Duane of the Aurora, this way:

"Their rise was at a season of alarm and political ferment… [M]en of sound republican principles but weak minds were seen enrolling themselves in ranks under the apprehension of their growing power and the consequent danger; and men…were seen disgracing the memories of their fathers and the independence of their country by the elevation of the black British cockade!… This corps, sanctioned by the President… gave a species of law to the public of this city. Weak men feared them… The theatre, the public streets and even the domestic sanctuary was infested with their folly or their violence…"

It wasn’t long before America’s Democrats and anti-Federalists were also arming themselves then forming their own private militias to protect against Federalist violence. As early as May 9, 1798, Adams’ militias had clashed with Democratic-Republican militias in Philadelphia. As one would guess none of Adams’ militia members were arrested.

This is the "militia" that Adams released into the Pennsylvania countryside with a "do whatever is necessary" order. Twelve hundred violent "friends of the President" were on the loose to "subdue" one hundred "subversives" and as might be expected the results where horrific. Reports of the "troop’s" activities returning to Pennsylvania recounted acts of extreme violence, crudeness, private homes being invaded; men, women, and children terrorized, private property destroyed, and political symbols ("liberty poles") torn down.

In May of 1799 the Aurora published a story of how Adams’ militia, in violation of the 3rd Amendment, had invaded people’s homes and without the owners permission had remained "at free quarters." In the same issue appeared an article by Tench Coxe, a former Adams supporter and administration official who had been "dismissed" for his growing support of Jefferson and his "Republican" ideals.

Coxe, like many Americans, was more than alarmed by the actions of Adams’ militia. He addressed his article “To the Republican Citizens of Pennsylvania," expressly reminding the readership of the principles on which their freedom rested:

“But as men intent upon hostility have associated themselves in military corps, it becomes your duty to associate likewise ― Arm and organize yourselves immediately….

“Do you wish to preserve your rights? Arm yourselves. Do you desire to secure your dwellings? Arm yourselves. Do you wish your wives and daughters protected? Arm yourselves. Do you wish to be defended against assassins or the Bully Rocks of faction? Arm yourselves. Do you desire to assemble in security to consult for your own good or the good of your country? Arm yourselves. To arms, to arms, and you may then sit down contented, each man under his own vine and his own fig-tree and have no one to make him afraid….

“If you are desirous to counteract a design pregnant with misery and ruin, then arm yourselves; for in a firm, imposing and dignified attitude, will consist your own security and that of your families. To arms, then to arms.”

Duane’s article concerning Adams’ militia violating the 3rd Amendment, struck a cord because on Wednesday, May 15, 1799 some thirty "officers" of the militia lead by the son of Judge Thomas M’Kean assaulted the Aurora demanding, of Duane, to know where he had received the information, the name of the informant and an apology.

When Duane refused to give them any information or an apology he was forcibly dragged from his office taken into Philadelphia’s Market Street then unmercifully beaten before being humiliated by being whipped in front of his 16-year-old son.

Immediately after the assault Duane penned the following:

“If any circumstance could more deeply impress on his mind . . . to guard, with vigilance of republican jealousy, against the artifices, the intrigues and injustice of arbitrary men; — this conduct would only more and more attack him to his principles — but he has never slackened since he has had the honor to hold his present situation — and while he holds it, his hand must perish or his vital principles must be suspended by the hand of some of those assassins before he will shrink from exposing villains and crimes to public obloquy.”

Duane’s resolve to fight the injustice of Adam’s criminals had reached a fevered pitch with the citizens of Philadelphia. Vice-President Jefferson recounts what occurred next.

“[T]hese friends of order, these enemies of disorganization, assemble a second time to pull down the printing office of the young and amiable widow of the grandson of Benjamin Franklin. On the other hand, a body of real republicans, of men who are real friends of order, assemble in arms, and… mounted guard to protect the office of this widow, the person of the Editor, of his journeymen, his apprentices and his son. “

The presses further reported that during the next two weeks, "the streets of Philadelphia were filled with crowds of people who wanted nothing but the firing of the first musket to precipitate Pennsylvania, and perhaps the continent, into the horrors of civil war."

It is impossible in a short article like this one to portray all the events that encompassed the four years of the Adams administration. Nor, can one artfully depict the horror and brutality people experienced during the reign of terror. Spies were everywhere, lamented Jefferson.

Those early Americans faced much the same tribulations as we do today: impending war; national debt; higher taxes; and a government that identified the citizens of the United State who opposed Federal policies as potential terrorists.

What had occurred was not a single isolated event. Instead those four years are the foundational norm for the actions of the Federal government in domestic and international policy to the present day. This was the crisis point for the American constitutional experience.

The Federalists lost the election of 1800 to Thomas Jefferson, but Federalism wasn’t defeated; it simply morphed into another form, raising it ugly head most notably in 1861, 1913, 1933, and 2009. Federalism, by any title, is never far from the surface and always working even when not openly visible.

How can I be sure that this nation will be faced with either a civil war or be broken into independent parts?

The answer resides in the fact that the nature of government is so damnably predicable. What can’t be quantified is when. That depends on how long and how many economic, social and physical beatings those who are productive are willing to take from a chimerical, desultory, and deceptive central government.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

~ Friedrich W. Nietzsche (1844—1900)

You would think that if the present administration with its adoring minions is going to rule by the Machiavellian code, as outlined in the The Prince, they would at least take to heart the admonition that "as princes cannot help being hated by someone, they ought, in the first place, to avoid being hated by every one, and when they cannot compass this, they ought to endeavor with the utmost diligence to avoid the hatred of the most powerful."

That is unless Obama et al. are convinced that all the dissention and anger is nothing more than the cries of the ‘idiot du village; which seems to be the case.

Just before he died, Herodian of Antioch reports that the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius cautioned his son, Commodus, and the young man’s advisors: "…No amount of money is large enough to compensate for a tyrant’s excesses, nor is the protection of his bodyguards enough to shield the ruler who does not possess the good will of his subjects. The ruler who implants in the hearts of his subjects not fear resulting from cruelty, but love occasioned by kindness, is most likely to complete his reign safely…[I]t is not those who submit from necessity but those who are persuaded to obedience who continue to serve and to suffer without suspicion and without pretense of flattery. And they never rebel unless they are driven to it by violence and arrogance…"

As most know the death of Marcus Aurelius transferred to his young son, Commodus, the full title of emperor.

Dio Cassius, (73.1.2) tells us that Commodus was “not naturally wicked but, on the contrary, as guileless as any man that ever lived. His great simplicity, however, together with his cowardice, made him the slave of his companions, and it was through them that he at first, out of ignorance, missed the better life and then was led on into lustful and cruel habits, which soon became second nature.”

Regardless of his character, Commodus had not heeded his father’s words. As such his unrestrained brutality aroused massive unrest resulting in, among other things, a civil war which aided in a continuing erosion of the empire’s stability and prosperity.

Herodian confirms for us that Commodus’ end came when it was discovered that he had sentenced his loyal, loving mistress, Marcia; his praetorian prefect, Laetus; his bedroom steward, Eclectus, and a long list of prominent senators to be put to death.

Marcia "poured the poison into the cup, mixed it with a pungent wine, and gave it to him to drink. Since it was his practice to take a cup of friendship after his many baths and jousts with animals, he drained it without noticing anything unusual." Afraid that Commodus would somehow live, Marcia, Laetus and Eclectus also persuaded a young nobleman, by the name of Narcissus, to strangle the emperor, just to be sure he really died.

The legacy of Commodus is fittingly coupled with his body being unceremoniously removed from the Imperial palace wrapped in bed linen as just another bundle of dirty laundry, then placed in a common wagon and taken to the outskirts of the city.

It is what happened next that has a lesson for us today.

Wanting to save their lives, because they had murdered Commodus, but also desiring to place a man on the throne that would rule Rome justly, Laetus and Eclectus settled on the most venerated of Commodus’ advisors and native-born Italian by the name of Pertinax.

Pertinax had never sought the purple robe and had had no part in any conspiracy against the emperor. Of Pertinax it can rightfully be said that he served both Marcus Aurelius and Commodus honorably. Even so, when Laetus came with Eclectus to Pertinax’s estate to offer him the position of emperor, his first reaction was to serenely accept the fact that Commodus had sent Eclectus and Laetus to kill him.

“For a long time now,” Pertinax said, “I have been waiting for my life to end in this fashion, and I was surprised that Commodus was so slow to act against me, the sole survivor of the advisers his father appointed for him. Why do you delay? You will be carrying out your orders, and I will be relieved from degrading hope and constant fear.”

It took some time, but Laetus and Eclectus eventually convinced Pertinax they were not there to take his life, but rather to offer him the Roman throne. This, they argued, was because of his age, proven wisdom, distinguished service as a senator and his love for justice.

As word of Commodus’ death spread the Roman people reacted as if the Roman Empire had suddenly found itself translated upward into orbit in the empyrean. Herodian of Antioch explains:

"When these events became known, the people milled about in a frenzy of joy, like men possessed, and everyone took delight in telling the news to his neighbors, especially if they happened to be men of wealth and position, for Commodus was particularly dangerous to such men. Rushing to the temples and altars, the people united in giving thanks to the gods, shouting all sorts of things: u2018The tyrant is dead!’ u2018The gladiator is slain!’ and other blasphemies more scurrilous. All the insults which had hitherto been left unsaid through fear were now voiced openly, with freedom and safety restored."

The Praetorian Guard was not nearly as easily swayed, but due to the passion of the people, the Praetorian Guard’s knowledge of Pertinax’s courage, his temperate life, his honorable military service, and his acceptance among the troops on the empire’s frontiers, they reluctantly accepted Pertinax as emperor. But first they had to be persuaded that Commodus’ death hadn’t been murder.

It fell to the Praetorian Prefect, Laetus, to address the Praetorian Guard and put their suspicions to rest.

Laetus did exactly that with these words: "Commodus, your emperor, is dead of apoplexy. In a case of this kind, the blame can be put on no one else. The emperor was responsible for his own death. He paid no attention when we urged him time and again to adopt a safer and saner course. You know the way he lived his life. Now he lies dead, choked by his own gluttony. The death he was destined for has overtaken him at last. As you are aware, the cause of death is not one and the same for all men. The most diverse causes bring us to life’s inevitable outcome…"

It was a lie but it roused the people to the point that they accepted it as fact, and while the praetorians were still not convinced, they realized they were surrounded by a mass of the people, and the people had decided the issue by declaring Pertinax their new emperor.

Even with the backing of the people, and the unenthusiastic consent of the Praetorian Guards Pertinax wasn’t sure that the Roman senators would be willing to confirm him as emperor. His concern resided not in his own safety but rather the "abrupt change from the autocracy of Commodus, and about the noble ancestry of certain of the senators. He suspected that these senators, after having been ruled by the most nobly born of all the emperors, would not be willing to let the reins of government fall into the hands of a man who came to the high office from humble and undistinguished antecedents."

Pertinax’s worries were put to rest when the senate enthusiastically accepted him, then conferred on him the full title of emperor along with "every honor and every token of respect." The senators then accompanied their new emperor to the temple of Jupiter and the rest of the shrines, subsequently completing their journey by ushering Pertinax into the imperial palace.

What Emperor Pertinax did to try and right the Roman Empire in the next three months can only be described as extraordinary.

Pertinax’s first act was to curb the praetorian’s arrogant, cruel treatment of people. He outlawed their carrying of axes (probably the fasces) and their arbitrary striking of anyone they wished. This order "delighted the older people, and won the good will of the others without difficulty…" Pertinax’s sense of justice freed the people from the savage and oppressive tyranny of which they had become accustomed, allowing them to again live a relaxed, efficient life.

The unique sense of justice exhibited by Pertinax included the banishing of informers who had been accustomed to stealing property by false witness. He even went to extraordinary lengths to see to it that no one could be threatened by false accusations, and to prosecute those who engaged in such practices.

On the domestic front the emperor also banned the unjust tolls; "fees collected at the banks of rivers, the harbors of cities, and the crossroads," allowing people the freedom of movement that had been restricted under Commodus.

More importantly "Pertinax assigned all the land in Italy and the rest of the provinces not under cultivation, to anyone willing to care for it and farm it, to be his own private property; he gave to each man as much land as he wished and was able to manage, even if the land were imperial property. To these farmers he granted exemption from all taxes for ten years and freedom from government duties as well."

The emperor would not allow "his name to be stamped on imperial property, stating that these effects were not the emperor’s personal property but the common and public possessions of the Roman Empire."

Pertinax’s sense of justice also had international repercussions. Herodian confirms that "… the mildness of his rule became known everywhere, all nations subject to Roman rule or friendly to the Romans, and all the armies in the field as well, came to regard his reign as that of a god."

Even the "barbarians who were formerly restless and rebellious mindful of his brilliant achievements in his previous campaigns, feared him and willingly submitted to him. They put their trust in his reputation for never purposely doing an injustice and always treating every man according to his deserts; improper conduct and savage violence were completely foreign to his nature. Embassies from all countries came to him, and everyone delighted in the rule of the Romans under Pertinax."

Certainly it doesn’t take much imagination to realize what effect the domestic and foreign policies of Pertinax would have on domestic and foreign markets. There must have been an unbridled joy, coupled with a new enthusiastic fervor that swept over the import businesses along with permeating every sector of economic endeavor.

We will never know what Emperor Pertinax’s strategies would have had on the decaying Roman Empire. His sense of justice and sound fiscal plan had made his powerful enemies among the imperial bodyguard angry.

Those who had habitually supplemented their income through lies, mugging and pillage were not to be denied. The praetorians "who, being accustomed to live licentiously under Commodus," writes Machiavelli, "could not endure the honest life to which Pertinax wished to reduce them; … having given cause for hatred, to which hatred there was added contempt for his old age" one day they assaulted the Imperial palace and murdered Emperor Pertinax.

The life flowing from the old emperor is equally symbolic of the life ebbing from Old Rome. This one act doomed the empire to years of military despotism, massive inflation and economic failures only to be exacerbated, codified and finally culminated in the edicts of Diocletian.

The instruction that can be gleaned from Pertinax’s short reign is almost legion. Beyond the obvious danger that is faced by all those good men and women who seek to reestablish justice and economic stability through government, there exists a far more ominous admonition.

For far too long we have allowed ourselves to be deluded into thinking that our fight resides with and is encompassed within the framework of political and social ideologies.

As such we use labels such as right and left; liberal and conservative; or socialist and communist to define either foes or ourselves. It is time we realize that these labels are smoke screens designed to justify and persuade us as to why we should be plundered.

Historically the real battle resides not in philosophical gibberish, but in the reality within society that there are powerful criminal elements that will always seek to justify their self-serving, selfish need to rob, maim, imprison and murder others. The conflict always has been between criminal action of the few and the resistance (and/or lack of it) by the mass of intended victims.

Pertinax is reported to have told the Roman senate on the day he was received as emperor, "…[T]hose who have grown accustomed to reveling in the extravagant excesses of a tyranny not only object to any change toward a more moderate and more economical way of life occasioned by a shortage of money, not terming it sensible economy or planned and judicious management, but they reject it as a mean and wretched way to live, oblivious to the fact that had it not been for the loot taken by pillage and plunder, they could never have enjoyed their luxurious way of life."

Until the people of this nation become enraged at the brutal illicit activities being forced on them, the human, social and legal condition of the United States will continue to be consumed by a voracious criminal element with the same rapaciousness which was experienced by Roman society after the death of Emperor Pertinax.

In case you were wondering, the Roman people did riot for a few days after they learned of Pertinax’s murder, but the Praetorian Guard simply hid in their compound until the people settled down and accepted their fate. This took the Roman people from the state of victimization, to that of being complicit in their own destruction.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

"In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: Who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: Who does not obey shall not eat."

~ Leon Trotsky (1879—1940)

What sort of national leader persecutes the people within the nation he rules? That question can be answered in part by asking another question: Which Emperors led Rome in persecuting Christians? Serious students of Roman history are taught that it was under those Emperors which historians consider the "good" Emperors that Christians had the most to fear. Why? The answer resides in the assumption that the "good" Emperors were those men whose overriding concern was for the welfare of the Empire.

On the other hand "bad" Emperors placed most of their time and attention on their own hedonistic pleasures while caring little or nothing for the Empire’s security, or its economic problems.

Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 161—180) was considered one such "good" Emperor and was proclaimed a great Stoic philosopher for his composition "Meditations." As such, he was, in the beginning, respected by a number of Christian communities. That is until the Empire began having serious problems.

In 162 A.D. Rome faced a devastating famine which had resulted from a noteworthy deluge of the Tiber River. This flood had destroyed a significant portion of Rome, left fields unusable, and drowned cattle. On the heels of the Tiber flood the empire experienced earthquakes, a series of fires, then plagues of insects.

These events, understandably, began to unnerve the populations in the various affected provinces. The people’s discontent took the form of questioning: "Why have the ancient Roman gods allowed this to happen to us?" "Who is to blame for our misfortunes?"

The local governors, faced with the growing discontent of terrified and dispirited populations seeking an appropriate scapegoat, settled on the upstart Christian communities. This resulted in "new" decrees (Eusebius; Church History IV.26.5) being issued around the year 162 AD blaming the Christian communities for the Roman’s travails.

The problems faced by the emperor and the empire were compounded when the legions in Britain sought to persuade their general, Statius Priscus, to declare himself emperor and march on Rome. Further tribulations came with the uprising of the Parthians under Vologaeses III. Roman forces commanded by Serverianus were annihilated at the battle of Elegia in Cappadocia (presently eastern central Turkey) allowing the Parthians to overwhelm and occupy Syria.

Lucius Verus, the adopted son of Emperor Hadrian and co-regent with Marcus Aurelius, was considered a man of great courage with superior leadership abilities and as such it was decided he should be the commander which would contest the Parthian rebellion. Verus, however, had a problem. His luxurious lifestyle, gambling and a beauty by the name of Panthea — described as "low-born girl-friend” — along with various other "debaucheries" put the Armenian campaign and possibly the empire in peril.

Lucius, however, was blessed with very capable generals. Because of these generals the Parthian War was favorably concluded when the Parthian leader, Vologases IV, sued for peace then ceded western Mesopotamia to the Romans in late 164 or early 165 AD. It had taken nearly half the decade but the Romans finally had something to cheer over.

On Lucius’ return to Rome he was rewarded with a parade of triumph. The cheers of victory, however, were short lived because the returning military also brought with them a catastrophic disease. The whole Roman Empire was going to face and deal with what historians call the Antonine Plague.

This plague, whether small pox or measles, would ravage the empire for some fifteen years, take the lives of Emperor Lucius Verus in 169 AD, his co-regent Marcus Aurelius in 180 AD along with an estimated five million people throughout the Roman Empire. It would also twist the Romans’ social and economic world into a monster of Biblical proportions.

The Antonine plague turned once thriving prosperous towns and villages from Persia to the Rhine into ghost towns. With a decimated population the empire’s economy teetered on ruin, yet taxes were increased to support greater military spending and an overstuffed bureaucracy. Huge "donations" of grain were stolen from the remaining farms to support the troops as well as the hungry in the large population centers, including Rome. Romans were saddled with land taxes, every imaginable property tax, occupation taxes, and poll taxes. Almost every attempt to be a productive citizen of the Roman Empire was penalized.

In the words of the 19th century historian Barthold Georg Niebuhr this plague during "the reign of M. Aurelius forms a turning point in so many things, and above all in literature and art, I have no doubt that this crisis was brought about by that plague… The ancient world never recovered from the blow inflicted on it by the plague which visited it in the reign of M. Aurelius.”

Adding to the suffering of the Roman people, weakened armies were sent to deal with Britons who threatened to revolt, barbarian tribes beyond the Alps looking to invade Italy and the ever seditious, unrepentant Parthians.

To the Roman people it must have seemed to have been the end of the world. The Roman hubris of invincibility which had prevailed during the years of Pax Romana (Roman peace) was now forever gone. No longer could the gluttonous and smug upper class, along with the corrupt and vile urban masses which had been appeased through imperial gratuities, punctuated with blood-drenched public games, pretend that everything in the Roman world was working in perfect harmony.

The once civilized Romans now actively turned their anger on the Christians, who they deemed responsible for every calamity the empire experienced. Ancient "tattletale" law concerning perjury was set aside to the point that Christian apologists were alarmed. (For an example of this ancient Roman law see 9.8.3.)

Clement of Alexandria writes: "For the shameless informers and coveters of the property of others, taking occasion from the decrees, openly carry on robbery night and day, despoiling those who are guilty of no wrong."

All appeals to the emperor for justice fell on deaf ears; Christian blood was now to flow freely in many parts of the empire. The populations of the Roman Empire were to see, in all the accompanying death and misery visited on the Christian communities, justification that indeed, the Roman gods had been angered because the empire had tolerated Christianity. So the cry of the Roman masses Christianos ad leonem (Throw the Christians to the lions) continued unabated.

To be fair the Romans did offer Christians a means of escape, if they would only swear allegiance and offer incense to the Emperor they would be allowed to continue living. Those who didn’t? Well, they were immediately declared disloyal traitors who were planning to revolt against the empire.

The Christians’ refusal to be broken was a continuing bewilderment to Aurelius and the Romans, but ultimately their defiance was the very thing that saved them.

The previous account of Roman society during the reign of Marcus Aurelius shows clearly what can occur in any closely structured collective when that society comes under extreme stress. We all would like to believe we would never partake in wholesale murder, theft, or carnage as the Romans did. Only "evil" people do such things and "we" would never cross that line.

The Romans, in desperation, looked for and found a scapegoat. Yet, we witness, and then excuse, the same process when our national interests or national security are deemed threatened by an external or internal foe and many times on the slimmest of evidence or a plethora of state sponsored propaganda.

A case in point was the dehumanization of the German population in America and fear they were subjected to starting in 1915.

The dehumanization of those thought to be the problem or threat, will transform what had been ordinary, normal people into indifferent or actively willful participants in the most hideous crimes. It also causes otherwise loving mothers to wrap their sons in the flag and send them to war. Simply, mass fear causes otherwise rational, reasonable people to respond irrationally. The need to "conform" becomes mindless, brute conformity; we are no different than the ancient Romans and are subject to the same influences.

Recently I read a most interesting article written by Glenn Harlan Reynolds. In Consent of the governed — and the lack thereof Mr. Reynolds points out that "only 21 percent of American voters believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed." This is contrasted by a poll in which it was discovered that a "full 63 percent of the u2018political class’ believe that the government enjoys the consent of the governed."

With 79 percent of those polled believing that there is no consent giving the federal government the right to rule; coupled with a continuing and ultimate economic catastrophe; unprecedented federal intrusion into the people’s personal lives; unparalleled political malfeasance; extortion; increasing social unrest with the rising specter of civil war, Americans should be concerned that their government maintains its rule only from a position of brute force. Here I presume that the remaining 37 percent of the political class feel secure in their despotism.

However, before we resort to the sharpening then brandishing of the long knives let us step back and see where we are today in the scheme of things. There is always enough time to fight but the time for reasoning and preparing may be far more precious and limited.

Ultimately we as humans want to be responsible for the safety and security of our families and communities. We take this responsibility willingly and because it is crucial; but to accomplish it we must survive the onslaught of powerful counterproductive forces. As such it is appropriate that the word survive contains the very essence of what is needed.

Size up the situation

Are we in imminent or immediate danger? If not, then what must be done or acquired to prepare for future possibilities? If we are in danger what response is morally justified and will assure the safety of our loved ones and others in our group?

Are we being manipulated?

For an intriguing discussion of free market thinking and why it is so productive, I highly recommend a wonderful little book by Tom Baugh. In Starving the Monkeys Mr. Baugh lays out the case for free market economics in a manner that is easy to read and rife with personal experiences.

If you enjoyed Atlas Shrugged you will find in Mr. Baugh gives an up-to-date and no-nonsense "examination of the problems, and solutions that are more practical than hoping to run away to a prepared Galt’s Gulch retreat or community."

Beyond this Mr. Baugh gives the reader sound reasoning for a solid education in math and the physical sciences with practical means of resisting government influences. Mr. Baugh is not interested in telling you what to think but seeing that you have the tools to make good rational and ultimately life saving decisions.

What is the psychology and methodology of those forces arrayed against us?

The human capacity for evil, as seen above, is almost limitless. The psychology behind conformity to immoral social pressures is fully explored in Philip Zimbardo’s book, "The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil." Mr. Zimbardo also gives an excellent discussion on heroism and how ordinary people can successfully resist the powers of a cruel out-of-control system.

Don’t bet for a moment this country is immune to the ravages of "good" people.

Undue Haste will be disastrous

Don’t allow irrational fear or anger to be the driving force in your actions. Conserve your resources and energy until you know what must be done then move quickly.

I was interested how the economic law of scarcity came into focus during Gerald Celente’s recent experience during the earthquake in Chile. Mr. Celente recounts that he "bolted from bed, put on his pants, slipped on his shoes, grabbed his jacket and ran for the stairwell."

He goes on to report his thoughts were "get out of the hotel before it collapsed. Nothing else counted. Personal possessions (passports, wallets, money, watches) became instant nonessentials. When it comes to life and death, the only things to leave behind are everything." (Emphasis mine)

Mr. Celente took exactly what was needed and moved quickly to find the scarcity of safety.

Unless there is an immediate need (as in the case of an earthquake, or a medical emergency) to move or act, energy and resources are precious and time of less importance.

Resist — Remember who and where you are

Take stock of yourself. Are the actions of the group rational and consistent with your own moral code? If not then find others who will be supportive. A good support group can make all the difference in your survival. If you are in a group where there is dissension; get out. The infighting and bickering will only get worse as the stress on the group increases.

Even though those second-century Christians were armed they refused to fight. Why? As a small community within the Roman Empire, they knew it was futile and would only lead to more deaths within their own ranks. The simple principle is that without the majority supporting an armed rebellion it is doomed to fail and the Roman population was in no mood to support anyone.

Have an escape plan in place and be prepared to use it.

Vanquish Fear and Panic

I have no idea how many have lost their lives because their emotions overrode their common sense.

Recently, I received an email from a friend in which he noted that in an emergency (a fire for example) in a public building, where a large crowd is present, the majority of dead will be found at the front door. I have since found out that under life and death stress most will egress a building by the same route they entered. In short, don’t follow the herd.

In the event of social chaos, panic and fear will be lessened by family, friends and faith.

Improvise

No matter what the emergency you won’t have everything you need. Look around you; you will be surprised what is available to help you.

Value Living

No matter what occurs don’t give in to pessimism or defeatism. Shun those people like the plague.

Essential skills

Learn and train yourself in skills which you feel are indispensable; especially those things, which at present, someone else has to do for you.

Learn how to barter and trade value for value.

This is by no means an extensive list and it should be expanded, but use it as a good starting point.

We are already witness to the dehumanization of those who are opposed to the present administration and its agenda. It is only going to get worse. Everything you put into place now will be to your advantage later.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, we don’t have to suffer the fate of those second-century Christians.

For far too long we have allowed ourselves to be deluded into thinking that Americans would always be free; that guaranteed "checks and balances" within government would never allow to occur what we witnessed over the last few weeks with the "health care" monstrosity. Reality has finally assaulted our idealistic fantasies, now the devil wants his due.

Oh, and don’t bet that Leon Trotsky was wrong on either of his points; I guarantee you will lose the bet.

I opened this article with this question. "What sort of national leader persecutes the people within the nation he rules?" I’ll wager you already knew the answer.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

~ Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson, July 1775

I usually don’t read too many antigun articles for the simple reason that rarely are they anything but illogical emotional ramblings. The commentary, "Haven’t we had enough?" is another such criticism but two items in this editorial struck me as interesting.

First, the author actually admitted she was completely ignorant concerning firearms. "I don’t like guns. I’ve never handled a gun. I was not raised in a family that hunted." Okay, so this is another hysterical plea for weapon confiscation predicated on fear; at least Ms. Larsen acquiesces to the obvious.

At the conclusion of her impassioned appeal I found a point on which Ms. Larsen and I would agree. "It’s a health issue, and it’s a safety issue." She claims. I completely concur; it is a health and a safety issue. Weapons have always been at the center of physical and mental wellness.

Sadly, modern society has become so affluent that it is taken for granted that others will supply the daily needs of food and clothing which once were supplied by the use of weapons including firearms. However, it is either cowardliness or sloth which drives one to demand that others put their wellbeing on the line for those too timid to protect their own lives or the lives of their family through the use of arms.

Ms. Larsen unwittingly reveals the wretchedness of her argument when she asks: "…[W]hat about my right to be safe?" Let me be as succinct as humanly possible. You have no right to be safe by requiring others to jeopardize their own lives, wealth, or safety! Frankly, there is nothing more disgusting than those who willfully put themselves and their loved ones in the position of being victims, whine about it, and then demand that others save them.

"One cannot legislate the maniacs off the street…" wrote Lieutenant Colonel Jeff Cooper, "these maniacs can only be shut down by an armed citizenry. Indeed bad things can happen in nations where the citizenry is armed, but not as bad as those which seem to be threatening our disarmed citizenry in this country at this time."

Those that are infected with the utopian virus of a weapon free society are also the same people that will stand timidly by and with a clear conscience justify every heinous crime perpetuated by the state, which is an all too familiar result of this social attitude.

"Democracy," wrote Frederick Engels in 1847 "would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat."

There are twelve "measures" Engels states as being necessary but we are concerned with his third point: "Confiscation of the possessions of all emigrants and rebels against the majority of the people."

Translation: We will force all insurgents (anyone who disagrees with us) to be equal victims, along with the rest of society, by the confiscation of all your property — especially your weapons. Shades of Ms. Larsen’s appeal but without the attached amoral sobbing?

There is nothing draconian in pointing out that amorality is the mark of a sociopath. I have even heard individuals who cannot tell right from wrong aptly called "moral imbeciles."

Let’s be frank, antisocial behavior is not something you catch from a public toilet seat. It is the natural result of a cold calculated decision to reject incontrovertible truth, fundamental purpose and productive principles and replace them with unspecified change, idealistic dreams, and historical myths.

Don’t believe me? Ruminate on this statement from Obama’s book The Audacity of Hope: "Implicit…in the very idea of ordered liberty,” [is] a rejection of absolute truth, the infallibility of any idea or ideology or theology or ‘ism,’ any tyrannical consistency that might lock future generations into a single, unalterable course….” (Emphasis mine)

Ordered liberty? Does he mean liberty that is arranged, controlled or well-organized? Isn’t that what Ms. Larsen was wishing for in her statements? Isn’t "ordered liberty" self-contradictory and a false proposition?

Shhhh, don’t tell anyone but we have holding the reins of state one whose unspecified "change" is continuing to destroy a social, and economic order which has brought prosperity wherever it has been tried; only to reinstitute idealistic dreams and historical myths which benefit a few, leaving multitudes languishing in poverty.

Those who claim, L’État c’est Moi (the state, it is I) are always problematic but especially so when Americans ignore or haven’t learned the lessons of history. It is the age-old axiom: The doltish are always led by the boorish in supporting the authoritarian.

The façade of "hope" which was recently perpetrated on Americans, resulting in the election of the present administration, was doomed to be revealed.

The sine qua non being that those who are enamored with power over others; feel secure in their prestige and status, think they are incapable of making mistakes; make no moral distinction between right and wrong, will eventually reveal their true nature.

In a blunt July 2009 NRO.com post titled "I still hate you Sarah Palin" David Kahane satirically states, "If you just think of us — liberal Democrats — as Capone you’ll begin to understand what we’re up to."

Mr. Kahane continues, "…we men of the Left are perfectly comfortable lying, cheating, and stealing… in order to attain and keep political power. Not for nothing is one of our mottos, u2018By Any Means Necessary.’ You see, we’re the good guys, and for us the ends always justify the means. We are, literally, shameless…"

It would be easy to write Mr. Kahane off as some deluded crank if his words weren’t firmly grounded in historical fact and plucked from current headlines.

At the moment there is no reason to again recount the events surrounding the first year of the present administration’s term. What is important is to state the historical operational maxims of oligarchs — which of necessity include the present administration with its cohorts in or out of Congress: First, the people are stupid; second the people are evil and third when in doubt see the second principle.

So, I wasn’t the least bit surprised when I read that the Obama administration was to continue Bush’s policy of "targeting selected American citizens for assassination if they are deemed (by the Executive Branch) to be Terrorists." Certainly this was generally in keeping with and a natural result of the paranoia and antisocial behavior exhibited by DHS in June of 2009.

I was tickled when Roland Martin, of CNN fame, recently made the point for me. "Obama’s critics keep blasting him for Chicago-style politics," Mr. Martin wrote. "So, fine. Channel your (speaking of Obama) inner Al Capone and go gangsta against your foes. Let ‘em know that if they aren’t with you, they are against you, and will pay the price."

However, it was Josh Sugarmann who took the cake. As the Executive director of the Violence Policy Center in Washington, DC, Mr. Sugarmann thought to make a plea for gun control by exposing himself to the entire world. His appeal rested on black murder statistics but his intent was to suggest that all, starting with the Black people, should be disarmed.

Mr. Sugarmann is evidently historically challenged since America tried that once. It was called slavery and it still is! Irrespective of whom is being disarmed. I really wonder if the Black people of this nation would like to return to the collectivist utopia of beatings, forced labor, "cross burnings" and random lynching? Just how many times do we have to repeat history before all communities learn that disarmament benefits the masters and not the subjects? It would be fun to read Mr. Martin’s feelings on the matter. It is without doubt he supports moving the collectivist agenda forward by any means necessary.

With the Congress’ turning the National Guard into the Praetorian Guard in 2006, the United States entered, for all intents and purposes, a state of martial law. Now, serving at the president’s pleasure, the National Guard is attached to the US Northern command whose stated mission is "Defending the Homeland" and this includes working closely with domestic law enforcement.

This by itself may not seem objectionable but coupled with the more ominous December 2009 decision of the Supreme Court, that there are those who can be deemed and treated as "non-persons" one has to wonder just how far removed we are from those good ol’ days of public floggings and forced labor.

For those skeptics who would say that the recent Supreme Court ruling designates "non-persons" as only those "terrorists" who are captured on a foreign battlefield. Let me remind you that it is a very short step between the Court’s ruling and those deemed "terrorists" by DHS here in this country also being classified as "non-persons."

Communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist, progressive, etc., are complex ideologies which each, in its own way, produce only one thing — a police state. Anyone following the events that have been unfolding since 9-11-01 should be left with the inescapable conclusion that, indeed, we are living in a verging police state. Give it whatever title you like it is the most common condition of mankind in human history.

There are two reasons why we should view our present circumstance as approaching police state status. First, the apparatus needs to be established and given the cover of "law" which has been almost completed. Second, it needs a maniacal authoritarian to put it into operation.

Some would argue that the present administration meets the second criteria but I am not convinced that Obama’s criminal actions are any worse than George W’s, Woodrow Wilson’s, FDR’s, or Abraham Lincoln’s to name a few.

No, we are witnessing what in broad terms should rightfully be called a sub-revolutionary police state. This stage of social/political decay is not aimed at overtly overthrowing the present structure but rather at modifying or undermining the traditional sociopolitical apparatus.

It is precisely because we are in this state of sociopolitical atrophy that firearms are still tolerated in society. The state does not fear firearms, as such; it is well known that a firearm is nothing more than a tool. What the state fears more than anything is the public’s willingness to use firearms in the defense of their lives, property and traditional values.

This was evident when in 1942 the United States Office of Strategic Services (OSS) commissioned the production of the "Liberator Pistol" (official designation FP-45); a smooth bore 45 caliber single shot pistol that was intended to be disturbed in occupied Europe for use by Resistance groups. This cheaply produced stamped handgun (some might even say "Saturday Night Special") had one purpose and that was to enable the holder to kill a German soldier and acquire his weapons.

While there is no record of any mass distribution of the "Liberator" in France or the rest of Europe during WWII the idea had merit and shows that even statists are aware of the power inherent in the human will.

History is a witness that the present government cannot remain benevolent or even civil. Sooner or later someone is going to pull the dictator lever and government will turn ruthless. When it does woe unto the party that isn’t in power.

What are all the factors that cause a state to morph into state-sponsored terrorism, turning against its own citizens? Well, that is anyone’s guess but I have no doubt rising national debt and the failing economy will be major contributing issues.

Just as with the Roman Emperor Diocletian who, faced with a monetary crises in 301 AD, announced that, “It is our pleasure that anyone who resists the measures of this statute shall be subject to the capital penalty (death) for daring to do so…" It is not hard to imagine similar events occurring again but this time in the United States as the government, under the weight of its own ineptness, continues its hegemonic orgy, ultimately culminating in inexorable brutality (Waco on steroids).

Nor is Diocletian an isolated instance. "Shortly before the Soviet empire collapsed," William Grigg reminds us, "its ruling elite imposed the death penalty for violations of its currency exchange laws…"

It is time we come to grips with the fact that governments murder their subject strategically, after coming to a "rational" conclusion, that it is necessary to accomplish a presupposed "ordered liberty."

In the final analysis waving the Constitution, while sniveling "We have rights," is nothing more than the desperate act of the damned. What keeps the statists at bay is not solely the ownership of weapons but rather the certainty that many people, as a last resort, would be willing and able to effectively use them.

We have the same choices as did Thomas Jefferson and John Dickinson in 1775.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

~ John Trenchard (1662—1723)

One of the most amazing scientific discoveries in my lifetime occurred at approximately 10,500 feet above sea level on the Tisenjoch pass, in the Ötzal Alps of Northern Italy. Sheltered for millennia from the moving ice of a glacier in a secluded crevice a 5000-year-old human body was preserved, finally to be discovered by a two German hikers in September 1991.

This ancient male was soon named Ötzi, in honor of where he was found, and quickly gave modern man some amazing insights into the lives of the early Europeans.

Amongst all the information that Ötzi shared with modern man, I was most impressed with how well armed an individual from 3300 BC would be.

The tools Ötzi needed for his survival were a yew longbow, a quiver made of chamois hide containing fourteen arrows, a copper axe and a woven sheath which housed a flint bladed dagger.

These tools took on a whole new significance, for me, when it was disclosed that Ötzi had been in a fight and probably was killed by an arrow, which had penetrated his heavy fur coat and left shoulder blade. That deadly arrow may have lacerated the brachial artery aiding, if not causing, Ötzi to bleed to death.

Of course, we will never know what really transpired during the last days of Ötzi’s life and no one will ever be able to state categorically what caused his death. One thing, however, can be safely stated, in 5000 years, even given the technological advancements of a modern society, mankind still has a need to be prepared to defend himself, his family and his way of life.

Certainly, the rhetoric of an enlightened society groveling at the Federal government’s feet is beginning to wear more than a little thin with the American public. This is evident when considering the annual report of NICS background checks, which are done by the FBI for all pending firearm sales. The following graph for the years 1999 through December 2009 illustrates how many American’s attitude seems to have changed.

The conventional wisdom has attributed the rise in firearm sales to the present Administration under the dictum: "Obama, Gun salesman of the year."

To say that the current political atmosphere has nothing to do with firearms sales would be ludicrous, at best. There are, however, more to the statistics than first meets the eyes. On closer inspection the NICS data shows the rise of firearms sales beginning in September 2005 and really taking hold in December of the same year.

What accounts for this sudden rise in firearm interest can only be attributed to the events following the destruction of New Orleans and the surrounding areas in the wake of Hurricane Katrina in late August 2005.

Who wasn’t horrified when we learned of police officers going door-to-door through New Orleans neighborhoods forcing the residents into the streets, or their beating of an elderly woman then handcuffing her for having a handgun? Next we discovered that not only were New Orleans officers responsible for the theft of legally owned firearms but also of personal wealth.

This would account for the increase in weapon sales during the month of September which was 6.46% greater than September of 2004 and 29% greater that July 2005.

The criminal events occurring in New Orleans, along with the continuing failure of the federal apparatus, being further empowered by the December renewal of the PATRIOT Act with its increase in surveillance and investigative powers was, to many, the perfect environment for pushing the United States into a verging police state.

Not surprisingly firearm sales increased in December 2005 over the previous December by almost 8% and in January 2006 over January 2005 by 11.57%.

Making no effort to alleviate the public concerns, the Federal government treated us to two acts in September 2006, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act and the Military Commissions Act.

The latter act effectively gave the President of the United States the power to detain anyone — U.S. citizen or foreign nationals — indefinitely. It also stripped anyone detained of the right to habeas corpus. The New York Times says of this act: "Rather than reining in the formidable presidential powers…the law gives some of those powers a solid statutory foundation."

The John Warner Defense Authorization Act continued to anger and to arouse the fears of many with its provision to legitimize martial law (section 1076) — in the event of a "natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident or other condition in which the President determines that domestic violence has occurred to the extent that state officials cannot maintain public order."

It was during the debate over these two bills that gun sales in 2006 began to rise dramatically over 2005 as the increases in May, June, July, August, and September (below) show. The roused fears of the American public didn’t abate as rapidly as in previous years causing sales to stay high with increases in October, and November before tapering off in December, only to resume in January 2007.

`

Checks

2005/2006

Month

2006

%

May

626,270

11.05%

Jun

616,097

9.83%

Jul

631,156

11.06%

Aug

833,070

17.53%

Sep

919,487

13.94%

Oct

970,030

12.12%

Nov

1,045,194

11.27%

Dec

1,253,840

7.12%

The American people knew something was amiss even in 2007. As government and many private sector economists overlooked or ignored the deflating housing bubble along with the consequences of declining home values, I believe, there was a growing body of Americans who realized the world’s financial system was in free fall and it was going to take America’s banking system with it.

As if to push Americans to the brink, either of desperation or fury, then President Bush, on May 9, 2007, signed what many felt was the ultimate betrayal of the American principle. That abandonment came in the form of the National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive which was either unseen or disregarded by the media, given no examination by Congress, but endowed the president of the United States with extensive dictatorial powers with the emergence of a yet to be defined, "catastrophic event."

Predictably, people’s suspicions concerning a possible declaration of martial law from the year before, the threat of a failing economy and now the presidential office being crowned with such repugnant monocratic powers was enough to send weapon sales through the roof.

`

Checks

2006/2007

Month

2007

% Increase

Jan

894,608

13.31%

Feb

914,954

10.30%

Mar

975,806

13.38%

Apr

840,271

16.65%

May

803,051

22.01%

Jun

792,943

22.30%

Jul

757,884

16.72%

Aug

917,358

9.19%

Sep

944,889

2.69%

Perhaps it was because of the deepening recession, because it was an election year, or because there really was a collective hope that there would be a change for the better, the American conscience, while still showing a comparatively high degree of anxiety in early in 2008, seems to have taken a "let’s wait and see attitude."

The revelation, in February 2008, that the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security had deputized private contractors and given them unprecedented authority, including "shoot to kill" authorization, certainly wasn’t calming news.

Sales in July of 2008 indicate that many Americans were not buying Justice Scalia’s opinion, expressed in the wake of the June 27, 2008 Heller decision that; “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Nor was there any confidence generated by Obama supporters who in print were promising "he (Obama) believes the Second Amendment confers an individual right to own a gun," then adding, "[A]lthough he doesn’t think it protects u2018gang bangers.’" I remember wondering at the time how long it would be before a large segment of the American public would suddenly be declared "terrorists."

In spite of the bank failures and severe downturn in the economy, American’s apprehension concerning the future began fully manifesting itself in October. The passage of H.R. 1424 enacting the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 creating a $700 billion T.A.R.P. fund may have been part of catalyst, but the pot boiled over in November with the "election" of Obama.

`

Checks

2007/2008

Month

2008

%

Jan

942,556

5.09%

Feb

1,021,130

10.40%

Mar

1,040,863

6.25%

Apr

940,961

10.70%

May

886,183

9.38%

Jun

819,891

3.29%

Jul

891,224

14.96%

Aug

956,872

4.13%

Sep

973,003

2.89%

Oct

1,183,279

13.37%

Nov

1,529,635

29.40%

Dec

1,523,426

19.23%

The new administration, which had been presented in 2008 as a sweet smelling rose, soon had the aroma of a sun-baked "honey pot."

In rapid succession America was strapped with another $787 billion of debt, the Federal government’s takeover of major financial institutions, then two automotive manufactures. Suddenly we had more "czars" than the Russian empire had throughout its history and a continuing rise in unemployment portending an economic crisis greater than that of the 1930′s.

Then we learned that anyone who understood or favored the principles espoused in the US Constitution or Declaration of Independence, believed in God and went to church, belonged to or supported the Constitution Party or Ron Paul, owned guns, disagreed with the Obama administration and a plethora of other no-no’s, was now deemed by DHS as "right-wing extremists" and "potential terrorists." (I guess "gang bangers" is just a colloquial euphemism.)

In early November 2008 the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence sensed that with a Democrat-controlled congress and a Democrat president, the time was ripe for a series of new gun laws. Publishing a 30-page pamphlet entitled "Common Sense Gun Laws Won, The NRA Lost, & What It Means" they laid out, on page 7, the Obama agenda concerning firearms. Under a box entitled "Obama’s Long Record Of Supporting Reasonable Gun Laws" we find Obama:

1. "Opposed restrictions on ATF, including barring ATF from disclosing crime gun data (the u2018Tiahrt Amendment’)."
2. "Supported requiring background checks for gun sales at gun shows (closing the u2018gun show loophole’)."
3. "Supported establishing a national database that would capture and record imprints left by bullets, and making gun locks mandatory."
4. "Supported a ban on semiautomatic military-style assault weapons."
5. "Supported preventing gun trafficking by limiting handgun purchases to one a month."
6. "Supported microstamping (sic) of ammunition to allow law enforcement to trace cartridges left at crime scenes."
7. "Supported child-proofing of handguns."

The bloom however, was off the bud; Obama et al. had not ingratiated themselves with many in the country and few were convinced of the present administration’s or the Federal government’s benign intent towards firearm ownership. Thankfully not just individual Americans but states and their legislatures were also seeing the light.

The plundering of the economy and Constitutional rights, which started under the Bush administration, was accelerated by the Obama administration and was driving America to ruin. In March two top IMF officials said that the U.S. had already become a third-world banana republic.

State legislatures now moved to stem the tide with state resolutions, state amendments or firearm freedom acts, putting the Federal government on notice that the tenth amendment to the Constitution was still valid.

Even so America’s skepticism remained evident. The numbers of weapon checks preformed by the FBI continued to rise. Even with shortages in ammunition 14,033,824 firearms were sold in 2009, an increase over 2008 of 9.44% and over 2005 by a whooping 36.20%.

To some it is finally becoming obvious that this is still a very dangerous world. Being armed means the same thing now as it did 5000 years ago. Modern man; meet Ötzi. Now learn to watch your back!

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

"When politics are used to allocate resources, the resources all end up being allocated to politics."

~ P.J. O’Rourke

Within the populace of the United States there seems to be a slow awakening to the destruction that is beginning to overtake us. After my last article I was asked by more than one reader: "What happened? How did we get into this mess? What did you mean by u2018survive’?"

The answers to these questions have no simple explanation but the bulk of our problem stems from a wave of philosophical attacks which have corrupted the fundamentals that have, throughout history, assured happiness, and more than a modicum of prosperity.

These corrupting influences have not always been readily identifiable; the reason being that as with any heretical doctrines, they seem logical, inspiring and thus judged by the majority to be the correct. It should also be noted that the numbers of those who see the future destruction, which ultimately follows a new orthodoxy, are always far less than those who don’t; thus the implementation of the harmful principles are always accompanied by intimidation and the associated threat of violence, when the academic arguments falter.

It is the old tired mantra of tyrants everywhere; you will be convinced by the force of our argument or we will convince you with force.

Once adopted by society, it is only the passing of time which reveals how perverse, irrational, harsh, and caustic these false standards are to the individual and social order.

Whether we like it or not we live in a world of scarcity. Economists tell us that scarcity is the constant characteristic of the human condition whereby our desires and needs are always greater than our ability to satisfy them.

Certainly history testifies to the fact that human wants are almost limitless and encompass a wide array of material and spiritual desires.

The caveat, as Thomas Woods explains, is that man’s "resources and his body itself exist in finite quantities; any expenditure of these things in the pursuit of some end necessarily comes at the expense of a foregone alternative. He cannot simultaneously perform or enjoy the fruits of all the ends he wishes to pursue. Time, for example, is an irreversible continuum; an hour, once devoted to a particular task, is never again available in the service of another task."

The conflict arises when we as humans realize — consciously or unconsciously — that the ability to satisfy our desires is limited by the finiteness of our resources; including the number of years in our lifetime.

This is man’s Achilles’ heel that allows governments to promise — contingent upon allegiance to the state — "You can have it all." Humans gladly accept this faade for one simple reason; they tend to make choices based on what they believe will bring swift and complete happiness.

It is human nature to take promises as acts which will either avoid danger or that which is unpleasant, thus satisfying a need or desire. Consider the ultimate swindles (Social Security, Medicare), spurious notions (Unlimited credit, "Universal" Health Care, Welfare) and surreptitious campaigns (One World Government, Global warming, saving the planet) that have cajoled the people to the brink of economic disaster.

The common thread of human misery, weaving through centuries of man’s history, resides in the fact that the more utopian, the more feckless, the more fatuous the pledge, the more faithful the public adherence.

Mankind’s wretchedness derives from what is known among Austrian economists as the law of marginal utility.

"This law says," explains Thomas Woods, "that each additional amount of a homogeneous good yields a lesser amount of utility. This law follows from the existence of value scales: the more units of a good a person possesses the lower and lower ranked are the ends he can satisfy with them. His first unit of water, for example, he may devote to drinking, in order to keep himself alive. He may devote his second unit to bathing. A third unit might be used to water his lawn. The value of the marginal unit, therefore, is the value of the end he could no longer satisfy if that unit were taken away. If he loses the third unit he will certainly not go without drinking; he will instead refrain from watering his lawn — in other words, he will refrain from pursuing the least valued of the ends he was previously able to satisfy."

It is often forgotten that "The Government" or "The State" is not an independent, omniscient entity. Rather it is an organization made up of individuals and as such is subject to the same laws of economics — including the law of marginal utility — that govern all human beings.

As more and more power, along with society’s resources, are concentrated in the hands of the "elite," wastefulness ensues in the form of debts and mismanagement or outright theft of resources. Ultimately this squandering, decadent misuse of assets becomes pandemic throughout all government entities, manifesting itself in the cavalier, haughty, if not total disregard for private property and even human life.

This is not some academic exercise but rather a considerable fact of history. Predictably, the empty-headed barbarians among us will continue to find their fantasy world of a benevolent government preferable to reality; spurning self-reliance and personal property while endorsing state terrorism (TSA, FDA, FEMA, Homeland Security, etc…) with its unabated misery.

Just how dangerous this can be was recently brought home to me while speaking with a delightful lady whose youngest years were spent under the Stalin régime (1928—1953) and grew up in the "liberated" Soviet Block country of Poland. (The Soviet Empire held Poland in subjection from 1945 to 1983.)

Eva was not born in Poland; she was born in the west, in Austria which by 1941 was in the orbit of Nazi Germany.

She has little or no recollection of either her father or uncle. During the war they had left the house to do some personal shopping and were never heard of again. Eva has no idea; neither did anyone else, whether they deserted the family, were incarcerated, or killed in a bombing raid.

This, however, was only the beginning of the family’s sorrows.

During the war German ideals of "racial purity" and "politically incorrect" were evident by a number of means. Eva remembers, "…Granny told me the letter "P" had to be sewn on all our clothing so we would be recognized as non-German…"

In 1945, at the conclusion of WWII, this racial profiling continued to put her family in an untenable position, which ultimately resulted in the family being consigned to the deprivation of the Soviets. "…[M]y mother was born in Austria," she elaborates further, "but my Granny was Polish hence the Germans considered us Poles and the Russians as Germans and that’s why we were evacuated to Poland."

Criminals, then as now, wear uniforms and the trip to Poland, as related by her mother, is complete with the shameless arrogance that accompanies state sponsored crime. "The train we travel(ed) on was stopped several times on the way and we were removed from the train waiting on the platforms until the Russian soldiers robbed our possessions and then we were ordered back on the train. Mama and the rest of the family learned (by) the second time to grab whatever they could before the train stopped. By the time we arrived (at our destination), Gorzow Wielkopolski, most of our possessions were gone."

"The whole city was full of Russian soldiers," she continues, "We… kids were forbidden to open our mouths on the streets as we did not speak Polish and whenever we ask mom something in German we were called German swine… We were not allowed to speak German at all; we had to learn Polish from Granny and Mom." Eva’s mother’s wisdom even extended to forbidding the speaking of German at home. "So by the time I went to school I already spoke good Polish. The rest I have learned (in school)."

However, there was more to come. Eva discloses that "[b]y the time I reached the 3rd class [grade] (10 years old) [the] Russian language (had) become compulsory… one day the Russian soldiers came and all Polish history books were confiscated and replaced with Stalin’s/Lenin’s and Dzierzynski’s (Feliks Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky) Russian revolution history."

It was during those years, while learning to speak Russian, that she had a problem rolling her "r" in a manner acceptable to her teacher. "One day," she recounts with more than a painful expression, "the teacher got very mad at me. She then went into the kitchen and got a tablespoon." Returning to the classroom this "teacher" grabbed Eva, pinned her against the wall, then "… jammed her knee into my stomach, pushed my head against the wall, and forced the spoon under my tongue. She held me like that until I rolled my "r" to her satisfaction."

Nor was there a lack of political correctness. "During all my time in Gorzów, that is the school time, we were not allowed to address our teachers in any other way but by calling them u2018citizens.’ If you said Mr. or Miss. or Mrs. they would not reply until you said citizen."

It was at the age of 4—5 years old, while walking home one afternoon, another traumatic event occurred. "I was beautifully dressed when a Russian woman (we called them Uncle or Auntie IVAN) pulled me into a doorway and started taking the dress off me. She kept saying she only wanted to see if the dress was the right size for her daughter. She stole my dress and never returned. I was found later by friends and my Mom standing in a doorway half naked."

When I inquired as to what they ate and the availability of food, Eva gave a most startling response. "Some of the food was coming from UNRA [United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration] from (the) USA and karitas (charitable) church organizations. The only spare meat that was available was horse meat and pork dipped in boiling water. (The) rest of the food was grabbed by the Russians before even the butcher was open."

Fruit was equally hard to come by. "We could get, with great difficulty, 4 oranges for Christmas and Easter and the same applied to lemons and other exotic fruits. They were simply not available to (the) normal public." The rest can be presumed to have gone to the "elite" and well connected.

Remembering the hardships she and her family endured brings an obvious look of pain to Eva’s face. That pain, however, is quickly replaced by unbridled joy as she remembers the first time she ever saw a grocery store display with oranges, in any quantity desired, available to the general public.

"…(T)he day I arrived (in) Dover, after missing Mother in Amsterdam, Lila with her husband picked me up at the (train) station and we were driving along one street when I suddenly saw a shop window full of oranges…. I shouted to Richard, u2018Stop!’ u2018Stop the car!’"

Her brother-in-law asked; "What was the matter?" and Eva pointed to the window with all the oranges and asked, "Are they real?" "I just could not believe that they were real and nobody was queuing (standing in line). I went inside the shop to check for myself if the oranges were for real; THEY WERE!"

During her teenage years, in Poland, Eva recalls. "Most of the books were forbidden and just vanished from the libraries and book shops. Listening to any foreign radio stations (or Radio Free Europe) was forbidden and very dangerous."

She and her friends would go into the basement cover themselves with whatever was available and turn a radio on, being sure to keep the volume down very low, just to hear the news or listen to music. "Music like Rock and Roll and Elvis Presley were absolutely out. You could have been severely punished if caught with his record bought somewhere on the black market."

Even so, Eva became an accomplished singer. In a dichotomy which properly belongs to a black comedy those decadent western songs which had been banned by the regime were the very tunes, "…I sang… at the official parties of the dignitaries in Warsaw and got away with it."

There are many more horrifying events which could be recounted from the time Eva and her family spent in Communist Poland but the most troubling comes from her preteen years. "The most frightening were some nights when drunken soldiers would knock (on) our door, with their rifle butts, demanding to be let in or they (would) open fire. I was usually pushed to the door to say that: u2018Mom is away working and I am alone sleeping.’ That made me very nervous and for the rest of my life I become very nervous when somebody knocks on my door, even now."

I will leave it to the reader to decipher these drunken soldiers’ intent.

Eva now lives comfortably in a western country but is still ever cautious about what she says, to whom she is talking, her surrounding and especially who is following her: behavioral traits that aided and acted in concert to assure her survival.

I can hear detractors declaring: "That was then this is now!" "We don’t live in Communist Poland, this is America and it can’t happen here!"

Are you sure? Take a hard look at the TSA; government intrusion into every aspect of our lives; rogue police officers committing crimes that only a few years ago would have brought public outrage but now are sanctioned by "law"; regulations upon regulations designed to leave us no better off than defenseless, destitute medieval serfs; then there is Congress which is staffed by blatant fools who have brought one of greatest economies in modern history to its knees and on the verge of a catastrophic meltdown. Do I really need to go on?

The executive branch of the Federal government is embracing and openly declaring its support of ideologies and espousers of pogroms who have been responsible for the death of millions upon millions from Europe to China.

What is the ostensive difference between the actions of our present chief executive’s administration, in concert with its dupes in Congress over the last year, and Lenin’s statement that “Communism is power based upon force and limited to nothing, by no kind of law and by absolutely no set rule”? Lenin’s Collected Works, Vol. XVIII, page 361

With the acceleration of government size and power are we that far away from certain books, websites, cable news networks, and radio programs being outlawed? Can we expect harsh penalties being exacted for dispersing, or even speaking certain "unapproved, government banned" ideals? You think not? Consider how many words are no longer "politically correct" and construed as "hate crimes."

Is it a stretch of the imagination to see a future that has government induced food shortages or clothing shortages? You had better be sure of your answer. Our banking and financial systems are failing!

How long do you really think it will be before we are reliving the worst that history has to offer? Take a look at your children and grandchildren; will they survive? Could you survive? Before you answer don’t let a modicum of present wealth and comfort lull you into apathy or a false sense of security.

Survival begins not with guns, gold, and a garden. It starts with self-reliance, strong family and communal bonds, a plan of subterfuge, and clandestine acts centered in the refusal to be subdued. You can’t have it all so you had better spend the scarce time, energy and resources you have left to prepare.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

~ James Winthrop, Antifederalist No. 11

I doubt there are many who have thought about the transitive verb, secure, used by James Winthrop in the quote above. Noah Webster’s, 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language, says secure is to make certain; to put beyond hazard, then addresses secure in this context: "Liberty and fixed laws secure to every citizen due protection of person and property…"

Noah Webster addresses the blessings that accompany the constraints placed on unrestrained centralized power, while James Winthrop addresses the curses which are the consort of unjust, excessive governmental controls.

I am sure there are many in the United States who have never read (or heaven forbid, studied) the Antifederalist papers. If they had we may have averted the present governmental albatross which is choking the life out of our society.

Given the present political climate, with its common disregard for the lessons of history, I am sure those learned 19th-century Anti-Federalists are viewed as nothing less than arcane mystics espousing apocryphal concepts. So, the Antifederalist papers are discarded, having no place in any social discussion, undoubtedly on the grounds that they are offensive myths. The void is, of course, filled by the assertions of the mentally dull, noisome parasites belonging to the politically correct, progressive, liberal, (choose your own label) camp.

The historical fact that these progressive policies have failed miserably, wherever and whenever they have been tried, is summarily dismissed. So, we are treated to a rehashed assortment of the original tripe while being asked to believe that this time it will work because a new and improved noxious byproduct emanates from the southern orifice of the smartest, most enlightened in society.

Nor have the tactics of the nationalists changed.

When the Constitution was first presented for ratification (without the bill of rights) to the thirteen states, the Federalists argued that it needed to be voted on without debate so as to "avoid the possible and transitory evils" of anarchy, and "as the instrument of deliverance, as the only avenue to safety and happiness."

"The other specter," wrote Centinel in Antifederalist No. 6, "that has been raised to terrify and alarm the people out of the exercise of their judgment… is the dread of our splitting into separate confederacies or republics, that might become rival powers and consequently liable to mutual wars from the usual motives of contention."

Centinel continues, "This hobgoblin appears to have sprung from the deranged brain of Publius, [The Federalist] a New York writer, who, mistaking sound for argument, has with Herculean labor accumulated myriads of unmeaning sentences, and mechanically endeavored to force conviction by a torrent of misplaced words."

If you recognize the argument of necessity, fear, lies and safety as the means to push a political agenda, then it should come as no surprise that these are the emotions used recently to pass the "stimulus bill" of 787 billion dollars. To one degree or another, these sentiments have been at the forefront of every governmental policy which has been detrimental to the American society.

It was "Montezuma" in Antifederalist #9, entitled A Consolidated Government is a Tyranny, who stated one of the greatest concerns of those opposing a new constitution. Montezuma points out, "… (W)e have thought… to indulge them in something like a democracy in the new constitution, which part we have designated by the popular name of the House of Representatives. But to guard against every possible danger from this lower house, we have subjected every bill they bring forward, to the double negative of our upper house and president. Nor have we allowed the populace the right to elect their representatives annually… lest this body should be too much under the influence and control of their constituents… for we have not yet to learn that little else is wanting to aristocratize (sic) the most democratical representative than to make him somewhat independent of his political creators…"

Did you really think an aristocracy would listen to your complaints?

Philadephiensis in Antifederalist 74 expressed the danger clearest when he wrote: "A conspiracy against the freedom of America, both deep and dangerous, has been formed by an infernal junto of demagogues."

In spite of the Antifederalists’ arguments the Constitution was ratified; ostensibly to "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…"

Under the guise of the U.S. Constitution and agog with their own self-importance, Americans fooled themselves into believing they, and only they, were the freest people in the history of world.

National acquiescence to a blatant lie has relegated a number of pesky historical facts to the backwaters of the national memory. These specifics include, but are not limited to: The Sedition Act of 1798; The Bureau of Indian Affairs; The Tyranny of Abe Lincoln; The Reconstruction era lasting until 1917; The temperance movement resulting in the 18th Amendment to the Constitution (Prohibition, 1919—33).

Then there are those paragons of virtue: the conservation movement and the ensuing environmental movement along with the food and drug laws which now reside in the FDA. Each in turn has clearly denoted the Constitutional government’s intent, which has never been anything less than the total domination of the American public and every aspect of our lives.

Is it any wonder, then, why we are faced with the socialistic beast that is trying to steamroll over our lives now?

Equally objectionable is the declaration that under the guidance of a constitutionally mandated Federal government, America has had the highest standard of living the world has ever known.

Doesn’t logic dictate that if a people are to have quality housing, food, medical care, educational opportunities, transportation, communications…etc that their money must be either: (A.) of high value or lacking that (B.) available in great quantities?

"Money," writes D.G. White in Gold, the Golden Rule, and Government: Civil Society and the End of the State, "…is simply a commodity that, as an inherent store of value, is used as a conduit for exchange. And given its considerable attributes — e.g., beauty, density, indestructibility, malleability, homogeneity, divisibility, transportability — it is little wonder that, over time, gold became the commodity of choice, the preeminent medium of exchange the world over. Nor is it any wonder that with the subsequent emergence of banknotes and other money substitutes, which greatly facilitated indirect exchange and therefore the division of labor, it was gold that usually backed them up."

This was certainly true of the 1904 Liberty Head Gold Double Eagle affectionately known as the $20 Gold Piece. The coin was made up of 90 percent gold (30.0924 grams) and 10 percent copper.

At the time the coin was issued it contained 96.75% of 1 Troy ounce of gold while both the US government and the New York Market set the value of gold at $20.67, a price it had maintained since 1879. As such, the $20 Gold Piece had an inherent value of exactly $20.

Since we are talking about a standard of living based on purchasing power we will use 96.75% of 1 Troy ounce equaling $20 as our constant.

We generally think of those living in the early part of the 20th century as being poor by our standards today, but were they really poor? Let’s look at the years 1920, 25 and 30.

The US Index of Composite Wages gives us the following information concerning the average US worker’s wage during the years 1920, 1925, and 1930.

Doc # a08061a

1920 Wages

1925 Wages

1930 Wages

`

Monthly

Monthly

Monthly

January

$94.00

$97.60

$104.40

February

$96.00

$97.70

$104.20

March

$96.90

$98.50

$104.20

April

$98.20

$98.30

$104.40

May

$98.90

$98.40

$103.80

June

$99.60

$98.30

$103.60

July

$100.10

$98.10

$103.60

August

$100.30

$98.20

$103.40

September

$101.40

$98.70

$103.30

October

$102.40

$98.70

$102.70

November

$101.30

$98.90

$101.90

December

$99.80

$99.00

$101.70

Annual Income

$1,188.90

$1,180.40

$1,241.20

To check these figures let’s look at the average weekly incomes for twelve major manufacturing industries during the same period.

AVERAGE WEEKLY SALARIES — 12 MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

Doc. # m08041

INDUSTRY

1920

1925

1930

AUTOMOBILES

$28.35

$24.52

$23.73

BOOTS AND SHOES

$28.62

$26.43

$25.60

RAILROAD CAR BUILDING & REPAIR

$29.38

$26.59

$25.83

CIGARS AND CIGARETTES

$29.21

$26.22

$25.79

MEN’S CLOTHING

$29.41

$26.41

$25.45

COTTON GOODS

$30.67

$25.70

$24.74

HOISERY AND UNDERWEAR

$28.97

$25.35

$22.90

IRON AND STEEL

$30.38

$25.63

$22.21

LEATHER

$30.75

$25.10

$22.51

PAPER AND PULP

$30.79

$26.65

$22.44

SILK GOODS

$29.65

$26.72

$21.54

WOOLENS

$27.56

$26.65

$21.45

Average Weekly Salary

$29.48

$26.00

$23.68

Average Yearly Salary

$1,433.12

$1,385.80

$1,115.40

The yearly average salary of those in the manufacturing industries is slightly greater for the years 1920 and 25 than the national average and slightly less in 1930.

What does that mean for us today?

As of this writing, the value of 1 troy ounce of gold is $1176.90. Using the standards set above the current wages on a national average would have to be greater than or equal to $67,687.09; 68,911.14 and $70,664.67 respectively to offer the same purchasing power as our forefathers had.

Granted, it is extremely hard to compare the "standard of living" between the 1920′s and today but we can get a sense of how we measure up by looking at the tax rates and a family budget during the 20′s verses today.

For the years, 1920, 25 and 30 the US Federal Tax was as follows:

Data source

Personal Exemptions

Tax Rates

Year

Single Persons

Married Couples

Dependants

Tax Rate

Taxable Income Under

1920

$1,000.00

$2,000.00

$200.00

4.000%

$4,000.00

1925

$1,500.00

$3,500.00

$400.00

1.125%

$4,000.00

1930

$1,500.00

$3,500.00

$400.00

1.125%

$4,000.00

This is very telling since the national income was less than $2,000.00 annually we have the salaries of most Americans being equal to their total disposable income.

To have parity with the tax rates above, at today’s gold price, our tax table would have to read:

Personal Exemptions

Tax Rates

Single Persons

Married Couples

Dependants

Tax Rate

Taxable Income Under

$56,931.40

$113,862.80

$11,386.28

4.000%

$227,725.59

$85,397.10

$199,259.89

$22,772.56

1.125%

$227,725.59

$85,397.10

$199,259.89

$22,772.56

1.125%

$227,725.59

Oh, and lets not forget the wealthy.

In 1920, 25 and 30 the highest incomes were taxed as follows:

`

Personal Exemptions

Tax Rates

Year

Single Persons

Married Couples

Dependants

Tax Rate

Taxable Income OVER

1920

$1,000.00

$2,000.00

$200.00

73.000%

$1,000,000.00

1925

$1,500.00

$3,500.00

$400.00

25.000%

$100,000.00

1930

$1,500.00

$3,500.00

$400.00

25.000%

$100,000.00

As a comparable the tax table today would look like this:

Personal Exemptions

Tax Rates

Single Persons

Married Couples

Dependants

Tax Rate

Taxable Income OVER

$56,931.40

$113,862.80

$11,386.28

73.000%

$56,931,397.67

$85,397.10

$199,259.89

$22,772.56

25.000%

$5,693,139.77

$85,397.10

$199,259.89

$22,772.56

25.000%

$5,693,139.77

Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t know of anyone who wouldn’t be tickled to death to pay those sorts of taxes. But I also don’t know anyone personally who has an annual taxable income of over 5 million dollars let alone over 56 million dollars.

I certainly will understand if you’re not feeling too enthusiastic about our national economy, at the moment. The simple fact is that for today’s family to have the purchasing power of a 1920′s family our total disposable income would have to be greater than 67,000 dollars annually.

It is true that family budgets would, of necessity, widely vary from region to region throughout the United States as they do today. This would be due, in large part, to the price of housing, food prices, what the family used for fuel to heat the home, whether they owned a car or not, and a host of other variables.

However, for the moment let’s agree to hold a budget taken from Fall River, Massachusetts in 1919 as a workable model for families through out the U.S. during the 1920′s.

In 1919 the National Industrial Conference Board of Boston, Massachusetts study found that the probable distribution of an American family’s disposable income broke down into the categories "Minimum Budget" and "More Liberal Budget." Their conclusions resulted in the allocation of the family income as follows:

COST OF LIVING FOR A MAN, WIFE, AND THREE CHILDREN UNDER FOURTEEN YEARS OF AGE

Data Source

FOR THE YEAR OF 1919

`

Minimum budget

More liberal budget

Average of both budgets

Food

45.10%

39.80%

42.45%

Shelter

9.30%

11.60%

10.45%

Clothing

19.20%

20.50%

19.85%

Fuel, heat and light

5.50%

5.30%

5.40%

Sundries

20.90%

22.80%

21.85%

Totals

100.00%

100.00%

100.00%

The Industrial Board concludes that "to maintain a family consisting of man, wife and three children under fourteen years of age, at a minimum American standard of living but without any allowance for savings, $1,267.76 per year will be required, or a steady income of $24.38 per week."

If gold today does not exceed $1176.90 a Troy ounce this would mean the American family of today would need to have an income, after taxes, equal to or greater than $72,175.35 yearly or a weekly income of $1,387.99.

It also becomes apparent that from 1920 to 1930 Americans were maintaining a standard of living fully in line with the Board’s findings in 1919.

As it takes more and more dollars to purchase a troy ounce of gold these figures will increase commiserate to the number of dollars chasing an ounce of gold.

At the present we are left with the realization that today’s dollar has a value of less than two pieces of penny candy from the 1920′s.

Not unlike the ancient Romans we have deluded ourselves; we have rejected the warnings that knowledgeable men of history have tried to give, to our own detriment: the continued degradation of our standard of living accompanying the reduction of our freedoms.

Many may be feeling comfortable and confident with their present status and that maybe as it should be.

However, generations of complacency and ignorance are about to come to an end. Reality is going to have its day and it is coming with the fury of a woman scorned. We will pay for our folly and it will be a penalty few will survive.

This article is dedicated to Joanne Hare, a dear friend and a delightful lady.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

“But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was affected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people.”

~ John Adams, Second President of the United States

Do you remember the first time you read Charles Dickens opening paragraph to his book Tale of Two Cities? "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way – in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only."

It was November 22, 1963 just before 10:30 AM Pacific Standard time; I was sitting in my English literature class, when those words were forever burned into my mind. I had no more finished reading Dickens' opening paragraph when the school loud-speaker system came on with the disquieting news that "President John F. Kennedy has been shot in Dallas, Texas."

Within seconds many of the young ladies in the class began to quietly sob while an otherwise stunned hush fell over the class. Our literature teacher then gave permission for the girls to leave the class but told the males to stay put he had something he wanted to tell us.

As the last girl left the room, the door to the classroom was closed and locked. Turning to those of us remaining; that wise old sage in a controlled but stern voice said: "Gentleman, your world is going to change. I know most of you hunt. I doubt there is anyone here that doesn't own a firearm. The day is coming when the Federal government is going to try and disarm you. I won't see it, but you will. Mark my words and be on your guard, the Second Amendment is the only thing standing between you and the suffering you can't comprehend. Class is dismissed."

What experiences had brought that literature teacher to make those proclamations, I'll never know.

Of course, we didn't see any immediate change in our lives. Groups of us still made the weekly rounds to the Sears', Wards', and Penny's stores to look at and drool over the racks of firearms. We still bought our ammunition from these stores or the local gun shops even though none of us had reached our fourteenth birthday. No one gave us a second look when a troop of us walked through town carrying our weapons on the way down to the river to plink at tin cans or to go bird hunting.

If we were approached by a police officer, there was no fear. He was one of us and would tell us to be careful or warn us of something he had seen that we needed to know to stay out of harm’s way. When bird hunting he would ask us to let him know where the birds were or to tell us where he had had some success during his hunts.

Life really hadn't changed but we often talked about what that literature teacher had said and we wondered what was going to happen.

It was as Dickens' had said, "the best of times…" while the worst times were not having the fifty-five cents it took to buy a box of 22 long rifle shells to plink with or the ninety-nine cents for a box of shotgun shells during bird season.

My, how times have changed! What we didn't understand, in those early years, is that the government is an entity which stays benign only so long as those who make up its character are so disposed. The very soul, mind, heart and action of any government are a direct expression of the morality, or lack of it, by those who make up the government and those who elect them.

Now, we are seeing the truth of that statement. Recently, I was sent an article entitled, "Does the Right Want a Civil War?" by one Sara Robinson, Orcinus. The blog is one long diatribe which blames every recent illegal shooting on anyone who doesn't hold her perverted view of reality. In her words, the Department of Homeland Security was perfectly correct when it "expressed their worries about right-wing extremist violence last April…"

Furthermore, anyone who objects to the policies being foisted on the American public doesn't "seem to give a damn about the future of this country, either." Sara Robinson condemns any objections as "selling hate…without regard for the cultural sewage you’re creating, without regard for the way you’ve polluted the political landscape, and now apparently without even a moment’s regard for the innocent lives that are being lost because you seem bent on destroying every shred of trust required for our democracy to function."

It is not my intent to dispute an obviously sick ideologue who clearly has never seen what war can do to society. One such as Sara Robinson lives in a world of morbid paranoia supported by the dementia of those in the media, DHS, or a number of governmental positions, Federal, state and local.

What is relevant is that it seems to be spreading. How far from social chaos are we when the question can be asked: "Isn’t it time we started rounding up promoters of hate before they kill?" Bonnie Erbe of CBS isn't kidding, she means without trial, or without just cause. She wants people arrested and jailed based simply on some "authority's" concept of hate. She would be perfectly happy to incarcerate those who have any opinion contrary to hers and the present administration.

It is no wonder then that "terrorists" as defined by the state must be an ever-expanding all-inclusive term. Between delusional state agents and rampant governmental paranoia they must try to marginalize and herd all those they fear into one giant boogeyman. Never realizing the "terrorism" they fear is not a single unified adversary.

If you think this isn't getting a little out of hand consider this; On Friday, June 19, 2009 the NRA-ILA posted "In Border States, BATFE Asks: “May We See Your Guns?”

It seems that "[i]n some cases, agents have asked to enter these people’s homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess."

"In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico." 

So who changed? Was it those of us, who, in our formative years, understood the inherent danger in the misuse of weapons? Are we who grew up respecting other's property rights and the sanctity of life the ones to blame for the tension being felt in the current social environment?

It sure isn't those of us who looked to remove ourselves from governmental oversight, while remaining productive members of society, which entailed avoidance, as opposed to open violent confrontation with the state. We learned early the necessity of self-reliance; looking to provide for ourselves and our community. We knew instinctively that this is the road to happiness.

No! What changed was not us but the state with its support from those statists, conservatives and progressives who fostered continuing, never-ending oppression, seeking to place all human activity under political control.

For a while it worked, didn't it? A friend's correspondence concerning what has occurred over the last 50 plus years seems more than appropriate. "I suspect that some of us recognize that with the term u2018sheeple,' we herd up.  We’ve got a shepherd, big government.  That government even has dogs. u2018Don’t worry, they’re not there to attack you (even though they… look like wolves), they’re only to protect you from the wolves.'  And we buy that.  Of course the shepherd is only willing to expend his time and resources because he can fleece us and maybe even sell us as mutton!"  

This, by definition, is that most common and loathsome circumstance known throughout history as state-sponsored terrorism. With it comes intimidation of citizens by their government using state resources such as the police, judiciary, news media and military to quell domestic opposition to its policies. To that list we can now add the banking system and domestic thugs funded by the state through "private community" organizations.

The old Literature teacher was right; to stay in control those in favor of government domination must find a way to do away with the Second Amendment right and confiscate private weapons.

The catch is that some within the "herd" are now starting to question all those altruistic lies. Why? Maybe it is because they are learning that they would be better off not sacrificing more wealth for a new set of lies. Maybe they are beginning to understand that big government is not the sweet smiling parent figure it has pretended to be. Maybe people would just like to keep what is theirs.

Could it be that people are just sick and tired of having a government that will not listen but continues to act without the consent of the people? It happened in 1776.

Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th Circuit Court in 2003 wrote in part:

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once." (Emphasis mine)

Progressives and statists are you listening?

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

~ Gandhi

It seems to be a forgone conclusion that American society, within a short period of time, will face a complete breakdown of its consumer culture. Some think there is a strong likelihood it will be worse than that suffered by those whom historians call the "Depression survivors" and include a social restructuring or even social chaos.

Certainly, the likelihood of this occurring is enhanced by the indication that China either will not or cannot continue to finance America’s debt. Added to our concerns is the world financial market’s growing lack of confidence in the American economy which portends the ultimate collapse of the U.S. dollar.

The warnings have been numerous and the reasoning sound; so where do we go from here?

Undoubtedly the anxieties among those who are watching these events unfold are becoming manifest in their resistance to any further state usurpations and their focus on personal survival. Ah yes, we are now contemplating, individually and collectively, the very acts that every modern, massive, centralized government since William the Conqueror has sought to suppress by law.

What is often forgotten amongst the melee of "how to" articles, is the consideration of two basic questions. First: Is there a moral justification for resistance against an increasingly pernicious centralized government? Second: If the moral justification for resistance does exist can that struggle take the form of secession?

Each of these questions is answered in the negative by the power elite. Donald Livingston gives us meticulous historical reasons why the state is so adamant in its objections.

"In time, a modern state came to be seen as an association to protect the rights of individuals, and this added a stronger presumption against secession, because any right of a people to secede could only be the aggregate right of a set of individuals. But if one set could secede, any other set or subset-down to one individual — could secede. An acknowledged right of secession would mean the unraveling of the modern state."

The soft, vulnerable underbelly of the modern state being so easily exposed explains in part why the state and its supporters have had to resort to deception shrouded in religious dogma and patriotic gibberish to justify their existence. It is simply their hope of keeping the dogs of freedom at bay.

By way of illustration we need only to return to 1860 when the Southern people where hotly debating the issue of secession.

In his book, Tupelo, John Hill Aughey relates a sermon he preached, during that year, against Southern secession while at the Poplar Creek Presbyterian church of Choctaw County, Mississippi.

The nationalistic tenor of Aughey’s sermon is immediately apparent from the Scripture on which he had chosen to base his sermon, which just happened to be Romans 13:1. "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."

Mr. Aughey begins his sermon with a feeble attempt to juxtapose the Southern talk of secession, due in large part to the May 1860 Morrill Tariff, which would raise the average tariff from about 15% to 37%, with Israel’s "idolatry" and rebellion against Judah after the death of King Solomon.

The pastor then goes on to declare: "if we, as the ten tribes, resist the ordinance of God, (meaning, of course, the accepted dogma of Romans 13:1) we will perish. At this time many are advocating the course of the ten tribes. Secession is a word of frequent occurrence. It is openly advocated by many. Nullification and rebellion, secession and treason, are convertible terms, and no good citizen will mention them with approval."

Furthermore Aughey accents his nationalism with these words: "Where do we obtain the right of secession? Clearly not from the word of God, which enjoins obedience to all that are in authority, to whom we must be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience’s sake."

As if on cue pastor Aughey calls on his congregation to find the right of state secession in the Constitution of the United States and continues his remarks with this remarkable statement.

"Henry Clay, the great statesman, Daniel Webster, the expounder of the constitution, General Jackson, George Washington, and a mighty host, whose names would fill a volume, regarded secession as treason." (Emphasis mine)

It is unquestionably true that those named would regard secession as treason. However, the good pastor conveniently neglected to mention that each, save one, owed their fortunes to those who had committed acts of secession (treason), which during the late 18th century were justified by economic and social conditions far less odious than those being faced by the Southern States in 1860.

Aughey’s sermon goes on for several more pages. However, the point is that while the sermon is expressed in 19th century words, it contains 21st century progressive sentiments. Sentiments that now espouse blind obedience to an even more abusive Federal government.

Pastor Aughey’s problem continues when he calls upon Romans 13:1 to stand as an injunction against secession.

However, the passages in the Bible as well as secular history, which are contrary to Pastor Aughey’s moral contention, are almost legion. Starting with Genesis 10 and the tower of Babel, the Psalms declaring God’s enmity with rulers and the state, Samuel’s proclaiming those who wish to rule are no better than "weeds" (Judges 9:7—15), Jesus’ own actions concerning state authority, the acts of the Apostles in disobeying Roman authority, and the Christian community through the first three centuries all tell a different story.

The problem resides in the awareness, or lack of it, concerning the history and etymology of the word "powers."

In a work entitled "The Higher Right to Choose" Brother Gregory Williams makes an incisive observation concerning the word "powers" used in Romans 13:1.

"The word is exousia and it is from two Greek words. Ex means ‘of’ or ‘from’, while ousia is u2018what one has, i.e. property, possessions, estate…’"

Even a cursory check of a Greek dictionary reveals that "exousia" has as its primary meaning: "noun feminine; power of choice, liberty of doing as one pleases."

Furthermore that is exactly how those notable thinkers of antiquity, Plato and Aristotle used the word "exousia." The Greek Glossary of Aristotelian Terms affirms that "exousia" means "a right."

Aristotle not only uses exousia as a right but further qualifies the word when he says: "The right (exousia) to do anything one wishes leaves [the political community] defenseless…"

However, Brother Gregory Williams has another shoe to drop when he writes:

"In Bryn Mawr’s Classical Review we see, u2018Brancacci notices that the term used by Enomaos to refer to human freedom is not the typical Cynic one (eleutheria), but exousia, which expresses the new concept of freedom in opposition to the already defunct and unhelpful eleutheria’."

"It seems clear that Paul is telling us that we should be subject to the liberty and right to choose endowed by God. Paul understood the perfect law of liberty, to oppose liberty is to oppose the will of God for men."

This is an ugly breach in the state’s longstanding bastion of Biblical legitimacy and government’s opposition to individual freedoms. For the world of classical antiquity would have read Romans 13:1 as; "Let every soul be subject to the higher liberty. For there is no liberty except from God, and the liberties that exist are appointed by God."

So why did such an eminent scholar, who was fluent in Greek, as St. Jerome, when writing the Vulgate, use the Latin word "potestatibus;" (power, rule, force; strength, ability; chance, or opportunity) instead of the Latin "licentia" (freedom, liberty, license, leave, authorization) in Romans 13?

Jerome certainly knew that the Greek "exousia" meant liberty and freedom since in 1 Corinthians 8:9; he properly renders "exousia" as "licentia."

The answer resides in the times (360 to 420 AD) in which Jerome lived and translated the New Testament from Greek into Latin.

Gibbon’s reminds us that:

"Constantine and his successors could not easily persuade themselves that they had forfeited, by their conversion, any branch of the Imperial prerogatives, or that they were incapable of giving laws to a religion which they had protected and embraced. The emperors still continued to exercise a supreme jurisdiction over the A.D. 312—438 ecclesiastical order; and the sixteenth book of the Theodosian code represents, under a variety of titles, the authority which they assumed in the government of the Catholic Church."

On Friday, February 28, 380 AD and five years before Jerome begins his work on Epistles of St. Paul the Emperors Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius Augustuses issued an edict which commanded the people of Constantinople and the Roman Empire to embrace the name of Catholic Christians. Then added to those who didn’t, "whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment."

From then on what the Church would consider heresy was not only a sin against God but now a crime against the State and was severely punished.

Jerome was working under the demands of "political correctness" which prevailed at that time. Anything which he wrote or believed which countermanded the authority of the Emperors was analogous to one standing before the president of the United States, today, brandishing a weapon and slinging 19th century racial slurs.

We have a revealing sense of how dangerous writing the truth could be during this era from Procopius: "You see, it was not possible, during the life of certain persons, to write the truth of what they did, as a historian should. If I had, their hordes of spies would have found out about it, and they would have put me to a most horrible death. I could not even trust my nearest relatives. That is why I was compelled to hide the real explanation of many matters glossed over in my previous books."

One could now legitimately ask, why then did the King James Bible of 1611 retain the word power(s) in Romans 13?

The answer is in the rules that were set down to guide the translators, one of which was: "When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith."

This is a most curious rule since the translators rejected St. Paul’s, who by the way was the most Ancient father, use of the word "exousia" in favor of Jerome’s "potestatibus." One can only guess what part the marriage between the Church of England and the English state with its Divine Right of Kings dogma played in that decision. However, I doubt either were far from the minds of those learned 17th century translators.

It is my contention that since the state has a long history of using physical threats, not the least of which have included the threat of death in the suppression of civil liberties; there is no reason to assume the state’s innocence in the marginalization of St. Paul’s thoughts in Romans 13.

The state’s chronic dishonesty accompanied by pervasive intrusions into all aspects of our lives has rendered, as Professor Block says, "no real important distinction… between the state and any run of the mill u2018private’ criminal gang. The only difference is better public relations on the part of the former; Both are organized criminal gangs; one has public legitimacy, the other does not." (Emphases are Professor Block’s)

The question of secession then becomes a moot point, for only cohorts in the ongoing criminal actions would refuse to extricate themselves from that which seeks to destroy the calling of mankind to liberty.

Equally essential is the realization that any act from an individual or collective of individuals in favor of the right to do anything one wishes as long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of others, is by definition an act of secession and will be labeled sedition by the hoodlums in power.

However, regardless of the consequences, the highest calling of man remains freedom, which reaches back beyond Plato and Aristotle and is embodied in the Greek word "exousia." Sadly, all of history points to it being a costly struggle and with the current political and economic climate it looks to be again.

So let’s at least start by putting away these childish semantic games that have been the hallmark of state supported abuses and begin the fight from the moral high ground. The alternative is historically disastrous and morally unacceptable.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

~ John Steinbeck (1902—1968) American Author

I was glad I wasn’t eating anything other than ice cream when I heard the news report proclaiming atheism was on the rise in America. It produced one of those moments when mind and body fall into discord. You know, when the mind says, "WHAT!" while the body tries desperately not to inhale what should properly be swallowed.

As my mind tried frantically, between coughs and gasping for air, to come to terms with the words being used in the report it became clear that the news anchor was serious. He actually was stating what he believed was a reality!

Wow, you talk about being disengaged from the dialectic, but then why, after all, should we look to find truth through a logical set of arguments? Anymore, few in the news use the English language in a manner that properly expresses what the words mean; rather it’s all about the unstated agenda.

What the reporter was trying to say, was that the report states there has been a decrease in American’s acceptance of traditional Christian monotheism. Whether that is the truth or not can be debated but to say that the American public is trending toward a philosophy of "no god" is ludicrous.

Without going into a long discourse on the derivation or etymology of the word "god" let’s, for the moment, agree that the word is a title as opposed to a proper name. As such "god" has been used throughout history as title for the sun, moon, planets, sky, earth, deified ancestors, judges, magistrates, tyrants, emperors — Domitian, 81—96 AD, was renowned for wearing a crown of gold on which was inscribed "Dominus et Deus" (Lord and God) — and a supreme being who in monotheistic religions is conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient, ruler of the universe.

It is because of the Sanskrit "div," "diu" (sky, day, shine) that we have the words "deity," "divine" and "divinity."

It is through the concept of "a god" that man confers sovereignty to something or someone other than himself, which in turn grounds his belief in an awe-inspiring entity that is endowed with the power of physical and/or spiritual life or death over the adherents. Conversely, the more sovereignty conferred the greater the god and the godly powers. This belief in the supremacy of an ultimate authority to rule is what we commonly call religion.

It is true to say that many religions have a moral view which is in opposition to violence but it is equally false to claim they have been true to their principles. The simple fact is all religions have used the state to advance their goals by the force of arms.

Aristotle understood the concept when he said: "A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side."

The extremes of both the Humanist atheists and religious sectarians have a problem. The humanist sees theistic religion as being a danger to society’s greatest ambitions and freedom. In turn the sectarian theists see the humanists as a threat to the moral values of the society. Both camps try to martial the state to further the "cause" thereby making the state the sole judge and arbitrator; which has the consequence of placing the state in the position of the ruling god.

In asking the nation-state to "back" their causes both camps obliterate the veracity of their cases. The Humanist Atheists prove they are not really concerned with freedom or the welfare of humanity. Nor are they atheist but in actuality theists who must use a power higher than themselves and their arguments, and that power resides in their god-state.

Through state agencies, the sectarian theists relegate their god to the realm of myth; proving the impotence of their god and their canon by transferring His supremacy to the state. State supported Christianity has, in the words of Karl Marx, "a vested interest in unjust structures that create victims, to whom you then can pour out your hearts in charity.”

On one point both extremes agree. Only the true god in the form of the nation-state or its agent may take life and require others to shed blood or sacrifice their life. Whoever accepts these terms is allowed to continue to exist, to preach their precepts, and call their cult whatever they wish. However, only the nation-state as the sole deity of man may kill its own; everything else is heresy (falling under the heading of "crime") — simply put, no competition will be allowed.

Each camp asserting to be moral giants are in reality ethical infants, who while claiming to be standing on principles of freedom are perfectly happy to reduce society to slavery.

The end result is a history of extremes. One extreme uses the central government to promote "political correctness" while the other promotes "religious intolerance" in the form of Pharisaism. One gleefully accepts mountains of dead, destruction of ancient civilizations, and wholesale murder under the guise of "protecting" freedom and themselves from barbarians; while the other bilk the innocent of life in the name of individual reproductive "freedom," "saving the earth" or as a matter of "economic expediency."

It is equally true that most in society are not in one camp or the other but have as a matter of record accepted, in one degree or another, the tenets of both. Thus, the ebb and flow of the political fortunes of each extreme, in a matter of course and time, has resulted in an inept, lying, omnipotent, omnipresent god-state that seeks to control every economic and physical aspect of life, including our water, food, energy, medicine, and information.

The existing political entanglements have now produced a god-state which no longer seeks to persuade but rather dictates it’s will under the pejorative declaration: "IT IS THE LAW AND IT MUST BE ENFORCED."

In 1833 John C. Calhoun addressed this albatross to freedom:

"The law must be enforced! The imperial edict must be executed! It is under such sophistry, couched in general terms, without looking to the limitations which must ever exist in the practical exercise of power, that the most cruel and despotic acts ever have been covered. It was such sophistry as this that cast Daniel into the lions’ den and the three Innocents into the fiery furnace. Under the same sophistry the bloody edicts of Nero and Caligula were executed. The law must be enforced!…No, no!… Force may indeed hold the parts together, but such Union would be the bond between master and slave, a Union of exaction on one side and of unqualified obedience on the other. Disguise it as you may, the contest is one between power and liberty."

As the United States continues its economic slide toward a 13th-century feudal society it has become blatantly obvious to a growing minority that something is dreadfully wrong. Whether they know it or not they sense the central government is preparing an armed response to the coming social crisis.

People are beginning to dread any governmental "corrective" actions; hate taxation with its continual rising rates; know the courts, via judicial activism, have bastardized Constitutional, as well as common law, setting in motion events which have annihilated their property and civil rights. Feeling immured by laws people don’t like and don’t understand they attribute their chains to an unresponsive, hidebound, feckless congress backing a bumptious, chimerical, outré executive who trots out one crises after another, followed by patently stupid nostrums which flummox all but the simple minded.

For those who haven’t had this revelation of reality the American Revolutionary diplomat Arthur Lee’s words should have some resonance for today. Speaking to the parallel conditions of the ancient Roman people enslaved to their government and the lot of the people of America if they continued in their state under British rule, Lee wrote:

The Roman people "were already wicked . . . [and] were soon to be weak and miserable; they were soon to groan under the most execrable monsters that ever blackened human nature: Tiberius, Nero, Caligula, Commodus, and Domitian…"

Samuel Adams could also be called on to verify the present dilemma that Americans face in relation to ancient Rome.

Adams informed his readership through the Boston Gazette:

"Had not Caesar seen that Rome was ready to stoop, he would not have dared to make himself the Master of that once brave people . . . [he] led them gently into slavery. . . . What difference is there between the present state of this province, which in course will be the deplorable state of all America, and that of Rome?"

Indeed, what difference is there between the present state of American society and that of ancient Rome; save the speed of descent into abject servitude?

There, however, was one difference between Julius Caesar and our modern "political leadership," which can only be expressed by one as learned as Samuel Adams. "The Tyrant of Rome, to do him justice, had learning, courage, and great abilities…"

Is it any wonder that some within society are threatening the lives of judges and their families?

When society, at large, is faced with being annihilated in a blizzard of bullets under the pretext of "enforcing the law" or dying a slow agonizing death from a horde of viruses or swarms of bacteria released to save Gia, what is to be expected?

What is the incongruity between the current economic, judicial, political morass being perpetuated by a brain-dead bureaucracy and the fact that the "profane" among the American public having purchased enough weapons and ammunition, since January 2009, to "outfit the entire Chinese and Indian armies"?

Why were so many surprised that the god-state listed those they fear the most in a number of pamphlets designed to warn its enforcers?

In a recent conversation with a close friend concerning this subject he asked, "So what happens next?"

No one can fully answer that question. History says there will be a revolution but what form it will take or when it will take place is anyone’s guess. It is inevitable that a straightforward transformation in the power relations within American society will occur; probably due to economic necessity but assuredly due to survival from the abuse present with political mediocrity.

The reason for such an event was addressed by John S. Preston, Commissioner from South Carolina, to the Convention of Virginia, on February 19, 1861.

After listing the abuses suffered over the years by the State of South Carolina at the hands of the Federal government Mr. Preston said in part:

"It is not only a revolution of actual material necessity, but it is a revolution resulting from the deepest convictions, the ideas, the sentiments, the moral and intellectual necessities, of earnest and intelligent men. It is not only the primeval and never-dying struggle of the liberty of labor against the despotism of power; but it is that still sterner conflict which shivered Greece and disintegrated the huge and solid mass of Rome…"

History marches on, the names of nations and empires change but the underlying reason for their coming into existence, maturing into empires, and leaving the world stage remain constant.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

Officials close to Emperor Diocletian announced today that developing economic conditions, which may result in an unparalleled crisis, have made it necessary for the Emperor to take drastic steps to save the Empire.

With unusual candor the Emperor’s spokesman stated that between today and December 10, 301 AD an Edict of Wage and Price Controls will be issued which will effectively bring stability and "renewed vigor" to the empire’s markets.

When pressed for further information the spokesman said all the "particulars had not been finalized" but that he had been informed that the controls would encompass all sectors of the Roman Empire’s economy. However, he was at liberty to release the edict’s preamble, which had been approved by Emperor Diocletian and his co-regents, Maximian, Constantius, and Galerius which would help explain the necessity for the Emperors’ actions.

Worded curtly in the Emperors’ statement is the reasoning behind the coming harsh law. "If the excesses perpetrated by persons of unlimited and frenzied avarice could be checked by some self-restraint — this avarice which rushes for gain and profit with no thought for mankind…; or if the general welfare could endure without harm this riotous license by which, in its unfortunate state, it is being very seriously injured every day, the situation could perhaps be faced with… silence, with the hope that human tolerance might alleviate the cruel and pitiable situation…"

Government economists applaud wage and price controls stating that the time has come, in the words of Emperor Diocletian, to stop the "unscrupulous, the immoderate, and… avaricious" madmen of the market places "from plundering the wealth of all…"

Every official interviewed echoed the sentiments of the Emperor that the state should hasten to apply "the remedies long demanded by the situation…" While being equally sure that "no one can complain that our intervention with regulations is untimely or unnecessary, trivial or unimportant."

These same officials are equally quick to point out what everyone knows, which is that "uncontrolled prices are widespread in the sales taking place in the markets and in the daily life of the cities. Nor is the uncurbed passion for profiteering lessened either by abundant supplies or by fruitful years…."

However, these same officials point out that this is uncharted territory and "we don’t know what the future will bring but we know that for this bold stance, taken by the Emperor, to work requires everyone’s cooperation and loyalty."

This undoubtedly is the logic behind the government’s proclamation that: "It is our pleasure that anyone who resists the measures of this statute shall be subject to the capital penalty (death) for daring to do so. And let no one consider the statute harsh, since there is at hand a ready protection from danger in the observance…" of the law.

While among bureaucrats and government economists there is an unbridled and almost universal enthusiasm for the Emperor’s Wage and Price edict; there is by no means the same joy exhibited among economists or business men in the private sector.

When asked, many business owners simply replied, "You can’t run an economy with the point of the sword." Others were more forthcoming and wondered how it was that "one of such humble birth, and lowly education was qualified to micromanage an economy as large and complex as that of the Roman Empire."

One business owner was far more direct, pointing out that, "This will mean an explosion in government payroll. The state will have to increase the number of inspectors and bureaucrats to monitor all production and distribution, along with retail sales. That in turn will mean an increase in taxes. Just who will be left to pay these taxes to support an eternally bloating bureaucracy? Especially when shops, mills, and factories close, farms are left fallow and commerce disappears?"

"Furthermore," he continued, "it was just a little over 20 years ago, during the reign of Marcus Aurelius that the plague completely wiped out many towns and villages from Persia to the Rhine. With a decimated population the empire’s economy teetered on ruin, yet taxes were increased to support greater military spending and an overstuffed bureaucracy. Huge u2018donations’ of grain were stolen from farmers to support the troops along with the hungry in the large population centers, including Rome. We were saddled with land taxes, every imaginable property tax, occupation taxes, and poll taxes. It seems that any attempt to be a productive citizen of the Roman Empire is penalized."

"Now we are being told by an emperor, who has never managed so much as a shoe store, what wages we can pay or what prices we can charge for goods or services? What next? Will the Emperor take it upon himself to hire or discharge factory managers? Maybe we are to be killed for making a profit or going out of business?"

When we pointed out that there was a strong likelihood of both since the preamble expressly states: "we decree that if anyone should, in his boldness, strive against the form of this statute, he shall undergo a capital penalty." He threw up his hands and said, "I am taking my family and going to go live with the Huns!"

Others business owners predict "that before long there would be a huge underground market, much like what was happening among the Christians, which would operate outside the control of the Roman state and starve it of taxes."

In response to Emperor Diocletian’s taking the title "Iovius" and claiming to be the gods’ representative, another business owner opined: "So this is the gods’ will to make us all beggars! The emperor has become an Oriental despot!"

Contacts among economists of the private sector — who wish to have their names withheld — sought to shed some light on the likely outcome of Diocletian’s wage and price controls.

Historically, they claim, wage and price controls equal scarcities of goods and services, and ultimately political chaos.

In Egypt, the economists point out, as early as the 3rd century BC the Pharaoh and his hoards of inspectors tried to control grain production and distribution through a law which fixed the price of grain at all levels. While it seemed necessary at the time the results were not what were desired.

Angered by the harshness of the law and the governments intrusion into their lives many Egyptian farmers simply deserted their farms. So great was this impact on the Egyptian economy that by the end of the century both the economy and the political system of Egypt were in tatters and on the verge of collapse.

It should also be noted that 2300 years prior to Diocletian the powerful Babylonian ruler, Hammurabi, had a long list of wage and price controls. The results were that as long as Hammurabi’s laws were in force the people of that empire suffered brutal economic stagnation. However, it was only after those ancient codes were relaxed or nullified that the people of Babylon saw their fortunes reverse.

Equally important is the lesson to be learned from the Athenian Greeks, who like the Egyptians thought to impose "just" price controls on grain with a swarm of inspectors and government officials. As with the Babylonians, and Egyptians it wasn’t long before grain shortages were so severe that starvation was a problem among the people. If it hadn’t been for those brave souls who, despite the threat of death, traded their grain through the underground market, many in Athens would have died of starvation.

The economists are also quick to point out that the present economic woes of the Roman Empire are not due to the "greedy, unprincipled and licentious" business owners who seek a return on their investments. Instead, they argue, that the fault should be placed where it belongs; on excessive government with its spending, and Diocletian who 17 years earlier had created inflation by allowing too much money to be placed in circulation.

The economists are equally adamant that, even Diocletian’s Edict on Coinage, issued September 1 of this year, with its attempt to maintain the current price of gold and maintain the empire’s coinage base in silver, won’t help but will further the empire’s inflationary problems.

Asked what would change the course of the Empire’s economic downturn, to a man the economist’s stated that only reduction in the size of government, less government spending, lower taxes, little or no regulation of business and allowing the free market to right itself would cure the Empire’s economic ills.

When the Empire’s economists and bureaucrats were presented with the history of price controls among the Babylonians, Egyptians and Athenians, the responses were predictable. All acknowledge the history was correct but were equally sure that the mistakes of those ancient civilizations were not repeatable due to the superior Roman intellect.

"Besides," a spokesman for the imperial treasury said, "we are dealing with complex interrelated issues of a modern economy. Not the simple backward economies of the ancient Egyptians or Babylonians. As such we need to take steps which have not been dealt with before and have no precedence in history. We are making history; we are setting a model for future generations to follow, not reliving the mistakes of the past."

In the hopes of getting a religious viewpoint to Diocletian’s wage and price control plans we contacted the renowned Christian apologist, Lactantius. Lactantius refused a prolonged interview due, he said, to his lack of economic knowledge. However, he did think wage and price controls would portend disaster but refused to elucidate further. Then with an esoteric smile and a wave of the hand in dismissal he stated: "Even the Sibyls openly say that Rome is doomed to perish."

— End of Report —

The results of Diocletian’s Edict of Wage and Price controls were almost immediate; the insane rush to "fix" the failing Roman economy ignored the law of supply and demand. Nowhere does it take into account the variances of prices between regions or even seasons, and certainly not the cost of transporting goods and raw materials.

Lactantius tells us the Edict drove goods off the market. Historians relate that businesses closed, Roman farms became idle, while some people fled to regions controlled by "barbarians" to find safety and justice.

As history had related, the Roman government in an attempt to create jobs increased its own payroll with petty bureaucrats and "inspectors," meanwhile tax revenues continued to decline while the Roman economy persisted in suffering the effects of inflation.

For those who "played by the rules" there were food riots, with a plummeting standard of living until, "For merest trifles blood was shed and, out of fear, nothing was offered for sale and the scarcity grew much worse until, after the death of many persons, the law was repealed from mere necessity."

Those who resisted or ignored the edict; many became wealthy by supplying the needs of the people, as they could, through the underground economy (AKA Black Market). Among those who defied the state were the Christians who were later persecuted under the "official" guise of subverting Diocletian’s and Maximian’s claim of being the gods’ (Jupiter and Hercules) special representatives on earth, when the likelihood is that these "criminals" held wealth that would be irresistible to a desperate state. After all, Rome had a long history of gaining wealth through plunder, why should they stop now?

As we watch another hapless crew of self-deluded morons, in Washington DC, trot out the same old failed polices disguised by different words and catch phases, one has to wonder how long before we suffer the same fate as those ancient Romans.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

~ Heinrich Himmler; Reichsfhrer-SS

Recently, there has been a great deal of conversation concerning the Second Amendment and whether the present administration is going to be a friend, foe or neutral to "gun ownership."

This article attempts to shed light on the discussion.

Can we find an historical time which gives us enough social, economic, and governmental parallels with today and the current administration to make a rational judgment concerning what is likely to occur? Sure we can, more than one; but I think we will find today has a great deal in common with the reign of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian I (527 to 565 AD).

When Justin, Justinian’s uncle, took the throne (518 AD) he and Justinian found the treasuries full. Procopius tells us that the previous emperor "had been the most provident and economical of all monarchs, fearing…that the inheritor of his Empire should find himself in need of money, would perhaps plunder his subjects, (and) filled all the treasuries to their brim with gold before he completed his span of life."

According to Procopius this was a huge sum that "would take the most extravagant of Emperors a hundred years to disburse…" However, Justinian had in a few short years squandered the entire amount.

The result was that when Justinian, in 527 AD, acquired the purple robe of the emperor the eastern empire was in financial straights.

Justinian also found himself embroiled in a war with the Sassanian Dynasty of Persia. This inherited war, along with his desire to regain western Roman provinces which had been lost through earlier barbarian invasions, meant he had to support Roman troops in northern Africa against the Vandals, the Visigoths in Spain and in Italy against the Ostrogoths.

Equally important was the amount of money Justinian paid to those who we would consider "illegal aliens." While a potential threat, the Huns were thought by Justinian, to be indispensable on the grounds that an alliance "was necessary to the Romans against the Goths…or some other foe." Justinian was so convinced of the Huns value to the empire that even after they had raided and plundered Roman citizens he stopped the Thracian and Illyrian generals who planned to attack them as they returned to their own territories.

The consequence of Justinian’s payments and policy toward the Huns was that "having once tasted (of) Roman wealth, (they) never forgot the road that led to it." The Huns, thus emboldened, "ravaged the country as if they were the foe, and enslaved the Romans there; and, laden with booty and captives, these friends and allies of the Romans returned to their homes."

One of the great aspects of studying history is realizing how human nature never changes. Justinian’s policies toward the Huns and their continued raiding of Roman property holders put the Romans farmers in those provinces attacked, in an awkward position. Thus the farmers did what any reasonable person would do when faced with a continuing threat to their family and property; they banded together and attacked the unlawful intruders.

Evidently these justice-loving farmers were successful, for we are told their retaliation resulted in Huns being killed, horses taken and packed with spoils; all of which were undoubtedly considered to be just recompense for past pain and suffering.

We are often informed that government hates competition and it was the same in ancient times. Justinian’s reaction was unquestionably to label those Roman farmers as terrorists, vigilantes, rogue militia or some such "antisocial" term, then to send "agents…from Constantinople to beat and torture them and seize their property, until they had given up all the horses they had taken from the barbarians."

Justinian, unlike today, didn’t have the means to produce money out of thin air. Oh, his policies would impoverish future generations but it wasn’t through debt. Justinian’s only means of raising the capital he needed was either through taxation or unashamed murder and subsequent confiscation of the victim’s wealth. Those whose wealth had been stolen, but allowed to live were released to struggle through life in abject poverty.

Some bureaucratic offices were abolished while others were created then staffed with criminals who were thought to be too smart or too capable not to be placed in positions of authority. This, of course, led to more political abuses, authoritarian injustices, and a more powerful criminal state.

So great was the fear of Justinian and his roving agents that family members and friends turned on each other and "… many died by conspiracy of members of their own households. Nor was there any investigation after these deeds…and none avenged the victim. No longer was there left any force in law or contract, because of this disorder, but everything was settled by violence."

"The State," Procopius says, "might as well have been a tyranny": but it wasn’t an established tyranny in the conventional sense, rather the Byzantine state was so chaotic that what was law one day was being replaced with something new and different the next.

Honest bureaucrats were reduced to sniveling cowards, while judges decided cases not according to what was lawful or traditional justice but based solely on who had the greatest or fewest political connections and what was currently politically correct.

It was one injustice heaped upon another that finally brought the people to a state of rebellion. Procopius explains: "…[T]hose who suffer the most grievously from evildoers are relieved of the greater part of their anguish by the expectation they will sometime be avenged by law and authority. Men who are confident of the future can bear more easily and less painfully their present troubles; but when they are outraged even by the government what befalls them is naturally all the more grievous, and by the failing of all hope of redress they are turned to utter despair."

This despair was first manifested in the rural districts when, because of new laws which amounted to a religious form of political correctness, people were forced u201C…by the compulsion of law, (to) abandon the belief of their fathers…u201D which resulted in armed rebellion. The rebellion was for a time successful, but eventually suppressed by Roman troops.

In bringing the uprising to an end, Justinian had in effect made some of the "…most fertile country on earth…destitute of farmers. To the Christian owners of these lands, the affair brought great hardship: for while their profits from these properties were annihilated, they had to pay heavy annual taxes…to the Emperor for the rest of their lives, and secured no remission of this burden."

However, this was just the beginning of Justinian’s problems.

Justinian had come from the peasant class and didn’t have the support of the Roman nobility which left him with no power base among the old aristocracy.

As a result Justinian sought to establish his power base through what was known as the blue party. This was a group of criminals who, with Justinian’s blessing "carried steel openly from the first, while by day they concealed their two-edged daggers along the thigh under their cloaks" and to whom he was very generous with both money and positions of power.

To say that Justinian was not universally popular would be an understatement. His unbridled use of power, criminal associations, lack of support among the nobility, failed economic policies, and total disregard for justice, almost cost him his throne.

It was January 13, 532 AD when the anger of Justinian’s subjects reached a fevered pitch in what is known as the Nika riots. When it was all over Justinian was still in power but some 30,000 who had opposed him were dead; leaving Justinian free to enforce his brand of law.

Among Justinian’s laws, is Title XIV, Concerning Arms, Eighty-Fifth New Constitution (P.313) in which we find the following:

Chapter I

"Therefore, desiring to prevent men from killing each other, We have thought it proper to decree that no private person shall engage in the manufacture of weapons, and that only those shall be authorized to do so who are employed in the public arsenals, or are called armorers; and also that manufacturers of arms should not sell them to any private individual…"

Chapter III

"Therefore, God directing Our thoughts, We decree by the present law that no private individual, or anyone else whosoever shall, in any province or city of Our Empire, have the right to make or sell arms, or deal in them in any way, but only such as are authorized to manufacture them can do so, and deposit them in Our armory…"

Chapter IV

"But in order that what has been forbidden by Us to private persons and all others may become clear, We have taken pains to enumerate in this law the different kinds of weapons whose manufacture is forbidden. Therefore We prohibit private individuals from either making or buying bows, arrows, double-edged swords, ordinary swords, weapons usually called hunting knives, those styled zabes, breast-plates, javelins, lances and spears of every shape whatever, arms called by the Isaurians monocopia, others called sitinnes, or missiles, shields, and helmets; for We do not permit anything of this kind to be manufactured, except by those who are appointed for that purpose in Our arsenals, and only small knives which no one uses in fighting shall be allowed to be made and sold by private persons…"

Far too often the concern regarding gun ownership has revolved around the question: "Will the government seek to take our firearms?" This has consistently been the wrong inquiry; it should never have been "will," but rather "when will." The former is implicit with the addition of the Second Amendment to the Constitution while the latter is subject to a number of real or imagined threats to the state.

George Washington stated much the same thing in his letter to congress at the close of the Constitutional Convention. Washington wrote in part: "…It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance as on the object to be obtained…" (Italics mine)

President George Washington’s dislike of the "militia" as defined by the Second Amendment, in favor of a standing army, is well documented by historians.

Washington defined the statement "magnitude of the sacrifice" when he utilized "militias" from Pennsylvania, Virginia, Maryland, and New Jersey as a de facto federal standing army to put down the Monongahela Valley "Whisky Rebellion" of the 1790′s; thereby securing a federal tax in perpetuity.

In earlier articles I endeavored to show that government is neither about morality, nor immorality but always about power; either as a protector or predator and sometimes as the principle in both roles at once. When it is understood that government’s power is in reality compulsive unification then it becomes equally obvious that any nonconformity will not be tolerated.

Thus, Washington’s statement above takes on a whole new meaning. For as society continues in the woes of an economic meltdown, being pressured by border incursions, hampered by decisions of inept leadership, saddled with abusive taxation and faced with the loss of their present and future welfare etc… they will of necessity become less amenable to conforming to the dictates of the state.

This threat to the government’s power base will be met first with tactics that generate fear and intimidation, then in the last instance with raw, brute force. Both will be designed to reduce the threat to the state, from nonconformity, by disarming the general public.

As a centralized force, the Federal government, regardless of the administration, has been a foe of gun owners since April 30, 1789 and of the Second Amendment since December 15, 1791.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

~ Lord Thomas B. Macaulay, 1st Baron (1800—1859)

The Scythian Philosopher, Anacharsis (6th century BC), is claimed to have penned: "Written laws are like spiders’ webs, and will, like them, only entangle and hold the poor and weak, while the rich and powerful easily break through them."

Anacharsis’ truism contains the very essence of what we know as "Machiavellism." This philosophy historically asserts that in politics efficiency is paramount; political motives and actions should not be constrained by considerations of morality. Thus, the acts of the state are not to be held to any common standards of good and evil (i.e. law) but rather the actions of the state are in and of themselves justified, independent of civil and moral law.

The models contained in "Machiavellism" did not originate with Niccol Machiavelli but are as ancient as they are interminably evil. The very idea that political power was exempt from the norms of ethical behavior was rampant throughout the ancient world.

Both Cicero (De officiis — "On Obligations," Book 3: chapter 2) and Tacitus (Annals, Book 14: chapter 44) advance the idea that political violation of moral law was not only permissible but required for the "public welfare." Cicero declares that "there never can be such a thing as a conflict between expediency and moral rectitude." Both these ancient writer’s thoughts reverberate in Machiavelli’s instruction that "… it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity." (The Prince, Chapter IV)

So here is the crux of the matter: "necessity" and "public welfare" stand as the excuses for the state to act outside the bounds of common decency and at the same time to become the archenemy of the population under its control.

It is "public welfare" and "necessity" that stood as the justification for the most barbaric acts of ancient state paganism: that of human sacrifice.

The ancient historian Sanchoniathon — who we know through the works of the Christian bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea — writes concerning the pagan Phoenician religion: “It was the custom among the ancients in times of great calamity, in order to prevent the ruin of all, for the rulers of the city or nation to sacrifice to the avenging deities the most beloved of their children as the price of their redemption.”

So also Julius Caesar, speaking of the Druidical religion in Gaul, says: “They who are engaged in battles and dangers, either sacrifice men as victims, or vow that they will sacrifice them, and employ the Druids as the performers of these sacrifices, because they think that unless the life of a man be offered for the life of a man, the mind of the immortal gods cannot be propitiated, and they have sacrifices of that kind ordained for national purposes. Others have figures of vast size, the limbs of which formed of osiers they fill with living men, which being set on fire; the men perish enveloped in the flames.”

Some authors have shown, with great skill and clarity, that this abhorrent practice was common among almost every civilization prior to the fall of Troy.

Nor were these atrocities confined to the ancient world. Archeologists and historians are now telling us that as late as 800 AD the Maya of Southern Mexico and Central America were known to sacrifice children. There is also the remarkable custom of the sacrificing priest tearing out the heart of the living victim and holding it up as an offering to the Sun god in the hopes of securing the "public welfare." How many died in such a horrific manner is anyone’s guess.

Some will argue that modern man is long removed from such inhuman acts. I would offer two thoughts to the contrary.

First, what is the ostensive difference between ecclesiastical rule, which claims the right of directing the lives of a people through "divine guidance" and that of a civil authority comprised of elitists who claim the same right through legislation?

If, as it has often been stated, both ecclesiastical law and civil law are obligatory because of the threat of civil force; is one less odious than the other? Don’t both set aside moral law for the benefit of the state?

Second, is a society, which will continually relinquish its freedoms, rights, and markets to a ruling authority, capable of refusing the ultimate demand of the state, i.e., the inhuman right to commit wholesale murder?

Ah, here is the real meat of the matter isn’t it? We as a collective have surrendered almost every aspect of our lives to state control and now are faced with the very real possibility of the unthinkable and we are the intended victims in waiting whether figuratively or in actuality.

We pretended to be the benefactors of the majestic Roman law, which some claim was the single greatest element responsible for bringing civilization back to Europe following the Dark Ages.

Yet, it was wantonly forgotten that Roman law left untouchable the power and authority of the emperor. It sanctioned slavery; it allowed that free men could be tortured and deprived of the right to a fair trial when suspected of treason, which then as now, was loosely defined and its definition relied on the whim of the emperor. Punishments for crime were cruel and could include being torn apart by wild beasts, to the crowds delight, and it was far more "just" when applied to the "connected" wealthy than to those of lower social, economic classes.

As a result we sit and watch as one Administration after another takes the mantel of emperor, and backed by congresses that even the Roman Senate would deem spineless cowards, prance and strut as if they are the authors of creation; untouchable gods of all they survey.

We complain about the gluttonous ways these same cretins consign us and future generations to abject slavery via mountains of debt, with numbers that are unfathomable.

We worry that these self-same leaders will release the dogs of war on our streets, accompanied by the same torture and depravity witnessed by those of foreign ancient civilizations under the guise of restoring social order.

We see judicial decisions, congressional law, and presidential orders that, like ancient Rome, deprive us of our property and wealth and label anyone who objects as "terrorist" while turning a blind eye to the criminal temerity of our deluded, nocuous saviors.

In truth, the English historian, Bishop William Stubbs says of Roman law that it was "a most pliant tool of oppression… no nation using the Civil Law has ever made its way to freedom… wherever it has been introduced the extinction of popular liberty has followed sooner or later." (Letters, p. 159) Few dispute that royal absolutism, as it developed in the Middle Ages, was directly due to the revival of the Roman law.

The Emperor Justinian codified Roman law but that law was nothing less than the common law of "pagan" Rome which had developed over the centuries and as we have seen "paganism" has predictable "pagan" consequences.

No longer is state intrusion into our private and business lives called "paganism." We have developed new titles — collectivism, socialism, communism, democracy etc… — to convey the state’s acts that equate with those ancient governmental systems, but the results are the same.

So we are facing a seemingly black hole, from which there is no apparent escape. Certainly, societies around the world are faced with hard times, which may last for decades. However, there is hope.

History, time and time again, shows that governments fail and disappear, societies along with their economies realign and adjust, governmental monetary systems evaporate returning to the abyss from which they came, and distribution systems collapse. Yet through it all the markets, while they may be suppressed, don’t stop working.

For as long as there is any market demand, human energies and resources will be employed in a productive manner to offer a supply. But as long as any society continues to accept government and its pagan policies over personal liberty, and the market place, laissez-faire will, by necessity, take a form the state will consider criminal and we will find foreign or uncomfortable.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

~ Rose Wilder Lane (1886—1968)

"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."

~ Charles Mackay (1814—1889)

Ancient Egypt along with much of the ancient world held that their present and past rulers were not merely men but gods.

The ancient Egyptians went further and had an enduring belief that it was possible to transfer to the image of a man, woman, animal, or any living creature, the soul of the being represented along with its traits, attributes and power. Thus, the statue of a god would contain the spirit and power of the god; the image or statue of the Pharaoh was the living spirit of the ruler which presupposed the physical presence; the authority, the influence, and supremacy of the Pharaoh.

That this philosophy had reached a state of absolute perfection throughout the ancient world can be attested to by two well-known events.

First: According to the Apocryphal Gospels when Jesus, Mary and Joseph arrived in Egypt, escaping Herod’s campaign of murder, there "was a movement and quaking throughout all the land and all the idols fell down from their pedestals and were broken in pieces."

This understandably unnerved the Egyptian priests and nobles who then inquired of a renowned priest with whom "a devil used to speak from out of the idol," the meaning of these sudden unexpected events. The priest then relates that the feet of the son of the "secret and hidden god" were on Egyptian soil. The Egyptian priests and nobles accepted the council and immediately manufactured a figure of this new god believing that in so doing they would harness at least a portion of the spirit of this very powerful "secret and hidden god" to come and dwell in it and be with them.

Second: When the Coptic Christians attacked the ancient temples and idols of Egypt they made every attempt to destroy the idols of the "pagan gods" reasoning that once shattered the spirits indwelling them would become homeless and more importantly powerless. This also accounts for much of the destruction of the ancient world’s religious literature, symbology, temples, and idols during the intervening ages, particularly in Greece, Rome and the Near East.

If one realizes that the ancient world’s "hierocracy" was the real power behind the ruling "hierarchy" and that the terms are interchangeable in describing the ruling class, one goes a long way to understanding what occurred in Rome at the end of the Republic.

Roman History Orientation

Rome Founded

753 BC

Roman Republic Established

509 BC

Revolutionary Era

133 BC to 31 BC

Roman Empire

31 BC to 235 AD

Military Lawlessness

235 AD to 284 AD

Totalitarian State to Western collapse

284 AD to 476 AD

The deification of the Roman emperor can be fully understood, as a political process using the only existing universal instrument (religion) that would promote the unification of the empire by producing a central, powerful, common god; conditions that cannot and will not exist among a people who are free to determine there own lives.

Whether the idea of deifying the Roman emperor was by design or chance can be hotly debated. There are some who state that the Romans were not given to deification of the ruler.

However, Louis Matthews Sweet in his historical work, Roman Emperor Worship, rightly states the obvious premise: "…[T]here is a sufficiency of positive evidence to show that the process of deifying men and of uniting gods and men in common life was as nearly native as anything Roman ever was. I adduce, first, the Trojan cycle, the presentation of which, in one way or another, forms the staple of Roman literature from beginning to end. The traditional founder of the Roman race was the son of Anchises and Venus Aphrodite. AEneas, therefore, was himself a demi-god, a divine-human being who is the reputed ancestor of a great Roman family, the Iulii. It is a fact, the significance of which can hardly be over-estimated, that Julius Caesar traced his lineage to the gods. My point here is that at the time when the Roman tradition was amalgamated with the early Greek, not absolutely primitive times so far as the Romans are concerned, but still very early, the tendency which expresses itself in deification was already in active operation. The impulse to claim kinship with the gods, to cross in one direction or the other the line which separates gods and men, was in the Roman blood as inheritors of the ancient Greek tradition."

Further, Dr. Sweet, points out that it would "be difficult to explain the rapid development and the ultimate magnitude of this system among the Romans were there not something in it inherently congenial to Roman thought and temper. We are not to forget, in this connection…that nowhere in all antiquity did the ruler-cult reach such power or attain so complete an organization, inner and outer, as among the Romans. All other studies of this cult are merely introductory and auxiliary to the supreme historic example of organized and systematic deification afforded by the Roman system. In this sense the cult is characteristically Roman."

As the individualism and independence of the Roman citizen came under assault by the growing Roman Empire, it left the population dazed, resulting in the destruction of self-reliance, self-determination and the self-confidence of a once free people. Even where similar deities were worshiped or where a fusion of differing belief systems with their individual gods had taken place, there was still confusion and lack of unification. However, most of the deities of the old Republic remained what they had always been, local and fixed.

What the Roman Empire needed was a means to unify the population and further destroy those fading pockets of individualism, bringing the whole empire into obedience as dutiful, subservient drones totally reliant on the state.

Out of the chaos of the Revolutionary period and into the emerging empire came the Roman legions deploying the emperor’s standards and coins bearing the emperor’s likeness, proclaiming the name, power and dignity of Rome’s master.

Every city, town and province elevated men to oversee the culture of the new worship with intricate rites, dazzling festal celebrations, public games, and somber sacrifices.

"The inevitable result was unification. The emperor’s name was carried throughout his vast dominions and his power known and felt everywhere. The center of this system is the imperial throne at Rome; it’s circumference the outermost boundaries of the empire, it’s radii, the countless major and minor officials who wear the livery and perform the rites of the deified emperor, and in so doing bind every community however remote and almost every individual, to the royal person by the two-fold bond of political loyalty and religious devotion. It is not too much to say that the only deity equally well-known in every locality of the Roman Empire was the emperor."

Even Augustus Caesar admits the power of this Roman cult when he wrote: "The senate decreed that vows be undertaken for my health by the consuls and priests every fifth year. In fulfillment of these vows they often celebrated games for my life; several times the four highest colleges of priests, several times the consuls. Also both privately and as a city all the citizens unanimously and continuously prayed at all the shrines for my health."

An added burden of being worshipped as a god was the emperor’s title of vicarious pater. Under Roman law the emperor was able to extend his godly authority and control over the Roman subjects as their substitute father. This enabled him to further tie the people to his will by supplying their every need, as Augustus again testifies: "From that year when Gnaeus and Publius Lentulus were consuls (18 BC), when the taxes fell short, I gave out contributions of grain and money from my granary and patrimony, sometimes to 100,000 men, sometimes to many more."

By the time of Emperor Domitian (81—96 AD) all pretense of the emperor being simply a man who was ruler was gone; as exhibited by Domitian who was renown for wearing a crown of gold on which was inscribed "Dominus et Deus" (Lord and God).

Emperor worship had accomplished its inevitable intent; it had destroyed the last vestige of Republican tradition which had once been so vibrant that for many years liberty could only intermittently be suppressed.

The days when writers could take it upon themselves to berate the ruling class as the poet Catullus did when attacking Julius Caesar, were replaced with complete editorial control.

The ruling class from which Julius Caesar came had lost the civility of Caesar. Those good manners of Caesar, as related by Suetonius in which "Caesar did not hide the fact that a permanent blot had been put on his name by the verses that Valerius Catullus had made about Mamurra. But when Catullus apologized, Caesar invited him to dinner that very day. And Caesar kept up his old friendship with Catullus’ father"; were replaced by the imposition of eternal exile or a slow, painful, agonizing death.

While it lasted, the period of the Roman Empire for the most part, was a grand economic bubble. In the case of the Roman Empire the great bubble ruptured in the second century when the divine emperor morphed into degenerate military despots. In the early part of the third century with plagues, earthquakes, inflation, economic collapse, a northern invasion and fifty years of social pandemonium, one gangster emperor followed another in rapid succession.

It was then that Rome became the totalitarian state of Diocletian, Constantine and their successors. The emperor cult died but it was a long, slow, protracted death which was accompanied by social uncertainty, torment, and injustice which culminated in the era of the dark-ages.

From the moment of the new president’s election we have been inundated with plates, coins and all sorts of "historical" memorabilia bearing the likeness of the new president; all reminiscent of a host of "modern" rulers who have constantly reminded their subjects, through printed, electronic, and poster media, who was at the helm of state.

Watching the inauguration last week, with the reverential adoration being heaped upon the new president, I couldn’t help but realize that we, like Rome, are facing the end of the American empire. Certainly the price tag that accompanied the last week’s inauguration and parties would have found acceptance in ancient Rome.

The rationale cannot be overlooked that where paganism exists, even among decadent monotheism, the state will spontaneously produce a deified emperor as witnessed by both the Lincoln and Martin Luther King cults of today.

America prides itself in electing a savior who proclaims "change," and "transparency" and who, like any supreme father, promises to unite the nation, cure the national ills while gladly supplying all the needs of poor dependent children in wanting; it occurs to me that many of the myths that accompanied the Emperor cult of ancient Rome are not far removed from the adulation many Americans have for their new president.

Nor will America escape that same disappointment felt when the Roman Empire had to face the grim realities of hyper-inflation, widespread poverty, and economic failure. The question is how much will we all have to suffer before the lesson is learned?

Catullus in his poem #30 asks a very pertinent question: "Do the deeds of deceivers please the gods above?"

My guess is we will soon learn the answer to both of these questions. As Charles Mackay stated, society will "recover their senses slowly and one by one." When it does another era of free, self-reliant, self-determined and self-confident people will begin.

That indeed is the way of history but the herd has to take a beating first.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

DIGG THIS

"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."

~ Robert A. Heinlein (1907—1988)

"The common man, finding himself in a world so excellent, technically and socially, believes it has been produced by nature, and never thinks of the personal efforts of highly endowed individuals which the creation of this new world presupposed. Still less will he admit the notion that all these facilities still require the support of certain difficult human virtues, the least failure of which would cause the rapid disappearance of the whole magnificent edifice."

~José Ortega y Gasset (1883—1955)

The glory years of Pax Romana can rightly be set as that period in Roman history from the beginning of Augustus’ reign in 27 BC to the end of stoic Emperor Marcus Aurelius’ reign in 180 AD.

The Christian apologist Tertullian (200 AD) gives us an excellent example for how Rome was viewed during this period: “Surely a glance at the world shows that it is daily being more cultivated and better peopled than before. All places are now accessible, well known, open to commerce. Delightful farms have now blotted out every trace of the dreadful wastes; cultivated fields have supplanted woods; flocks and herds have driven out wild beasts; sandy spots are sown; rocks and stones have been cleared away; bogs have been drained. Large towns now occupy lands hardly tenanted before by cottages. Islands are no longer dreaded [as the abode of pirates]; houses, people, civil rule, civilization are everywhere.”

However, even as the ancient world basked in the glory of the Roman civilization its very foundation was decaying. The causes for this decay and the eventual collapse of the Roman Empire have long been debated by historians and are generally attributed to one or more of the following:

1. Lack of Public Health which led to relatively short lives among the wealthy and debased living conditions among the lower classes and the poor.
2. A marked decline in the morals and ethics among all Roman social classes as witnessed by the gladiatorial games, rampant prostitution, gluttony of the ruling class and alcoholism among all classes. Certainly the wealth of the empire contributed to various forms of social and individual debauchery. As one author put it: "The Roman Empire couldn’t stand prosperity."
3. Excessive government with its accompanying political corruption which can be demonstrated through the Roman state’s use of the frumentarii or the Roman secret service. It was the frumentarii that Emperor Hadrian engaged, to collect the corn throughout Roman’s provinces. This brought them in contact with local politics, and as spies for the emperor they gathered a wealth of intelligence concerning the people and their thinking throughout the empire. This in turn earned those who spied for the emperor, the hatred of the people. The people feared and hated the frumentarii so much that when in the third century (217 AD) Macrinus appointed a former head of the frumentarii and prefect of the Praetorian Guard to the senate, he alienated a large portion of the Roman establishment against him, in effect signing his own death warrant which was summarily executed the next year. This is not to excuse the gangster rulers of the latter part of the 3rd century nor the totalitarian, socialist state created by Diocletian, Constantine, and their successors which not only aided but exacerbated the destruction of the Roman society.
4. Excessive military spending with corresponding government projects and social programs which led, in due course, to inflation and then hyperinflation.
5. Inflation, price controls, and the state’s attempt to completely regulate the Roman economy destroyed manufacturing along with the empire’s agricultural base. This swelled the unemployment rolls and sent large numbers of people to cities looking for either work or to get on the public dole. Such was the desperation of the empire that in 274 AD Emperor Aurelian extended the relief rolls by making government subsidy a right of heredity. He also replaced bread for the traditional wheat and added free pork, olive oil and salt to the rations, making the Roman state’s war on wealth even more pronounced.
6. Inferior Technology is not often thought of as a reason for the decline and eventual collapse of the Roman Empire. However, behind all the architectural grandeur that was Rome there was deadly lack of simple technology needed to advance, protect and sustain the Roman civilization. From the early part of the second century there were no technical improvements in industry. Roman tools were poor at best: men working in quarries, mines and construction were required to use brute force to make up for inadequate tools. The Romans never devised a practical harness or horseshoes which would have made their draught animals more productive. The Roman horse collar applied too much pressure to the animal’s windpipe, causing choking, and greatly reducing the animal’s ability to haul or do any heavy work. The Roman military’s inability to develop heavy cavalry to protect the empire was due to their failure to develop the simple stirrup, a failure that would haunt them in later years.
7. Civil war accompanied by external invasions.

Each of these points can be expanded or elaborated on to show their relationship to the ultimate collapse of the Roman Empire. Certainly no serious student of history would dare ignore any of these lines of reasoning in studying the fall of the Roman Empire. However, there is one further item that is rarely addressed but which should be of equal importance to understanding why great empires, like Rome, ultimately fail.

Whether we are talking about an autocracy, oligarchy, or democracy we are in the final analysis dealing with a coercive force which will become violent to attain its ends. As the state increases its power base and the demands upon its citizens, it will seek to have a domineering effect upon the human spirit. The result is the destruction of self-reliance, self-determination and self-confidence of free citizens and replacing them with a dutiful, subservient drone totally reliant on the state.

The pressure the state exerts on it subjects was not lost on Tacitus who bemoaned the servile mood of the Roman Senate under Tiberius in contrast to the character of the Senate during the building of the Empire. Even Tiberius is reported to have said in disgust of the Roman senators: "O men, ready for slavery!"

Three of the great writers of antiquity — Livy, Pliny the elder, and Tacitus — all recognized that the Roman society was becoming enslaved. Livy felt it was because of the wealth and Pliny concurred that the lack of intellectual interests was the result of the worship of wealth.

Tacitus, however, stated that "genius died by the same blow that ended public liberty" laying the blame directly at the feet of the rising tyranny of the Roman state.

However, it is the unknown philosopher of Longinus’ On The Sublime who pinpoints the cause when he says: "we of to-day, seem to have learnt in our childhood the lessons of a benignant despotism, to have been cradled in her habits and customs from the time when our minds were still tender, and never to have tasted the fairest and most fruitful fountain of eloquence, I mean liberty. Hence we develop nothing but a fine genius for flattery. This is the reason why, though all other faculties are consistent with the servile condition, no slave ever became an orator; because in him there is a dumb spirit which will not be kept down: his soul is chained: he is like one who has learnt to be ever expecting a blow. For, as Homer says — u2018the day of slavery takes half our manly worth away.’"

In Catiline’s War Gaius Sallustius Crispus opens his dissertation with this statement: "Every man who is anxious to surpass the lower animals should strive with all his power not to pass his life in obscurity like the brute beasts, which nature has made the groveling slaves of their bellies. Now our whole ability resides jointly in our mind and body. In the case of the mind it is its power of guidance, in the case of the body its obedient service that we rather use, sharing the former faculty with the gods, the latter with the brute creation…"

We may say then, without too much contradiction, that the real war between a free people and the state resides over who will control the mind: the individual or the state.

If it is the individual, society will continue to grow and flourish, while if the state wins control, the society rapidly decays, allowing the points often citied for the fall of the Roman Empire to occur.

What is reflected by these ancient authors is not merely loss of liberty but a mood of apathy. This lethargy was prevalent throughout the empire and it was strictly due to the severe paternalism of the Roman state; the result being the people had lost their will to succeed.

Curiosity was discouraged; the history of the Roman Republic which had been the foundation for the Empire was bastardized, forgotten or ignored. The accepted leaders of Roman cities were persecuted to the point they lost all their initiative and public spirit; their every thought being subject to the whims of Rome. For the general public the results were to suppress the entrepreneurial spirit, while in its place every effort was made, by the Roman citizen, to secure for himself and his family a docile and inactive life on a safe, if modest, income.

In short, almost every intellectual endeavor was discouraged, suppressed, or redirected, reducing the population to "groveling slaves of their bellies" and to the Roman Empire.

While history will judge when the American spirit of self-reliance, self-determination and self-confidence was destroyed we have an indication that its destruction is well advanced.

Recently I was sent an email asking me to take a civics quiz that was designed and issued by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute of Wilmington, Delaware.

While most LRC readers will find the quiz easy if not simplistic I was stunned to see the results when the quiz was issued to a random sample of Americans. Testing their "knowledge of America’s founding principles and texts, core history, and enduring institutions" showed that of the 2,508 respondents only 21 could pass it with a score 90% or better; 66 with 80 to 89.9%; 185 with 70 to 79.9% and 445 with a "D" score of 60 to 69.9%. This left an unimaginable number (1,791) who were not able to pass this basic quiz. What is worse is that the mean score of all who took the test is 49%.

Now if that wasn’t bad enough the ISI broke the score down and found that elected officials taking the test scored 5% BELOW the mean with an average of 44%.

The politicians’ weakest points were the questions dealing with U.S.-Soviet Tension in 1962, the Declaration of Independence, Sputnik and not surprisingly the definition of Free Enterprise. This from those who believe they are supernaturally endowed to be the sole lord and arbiters of our private actions and property when they should be the brunt of our jokes and exiled from our midst.

I have often lamented that politicians always emanate from the dregs of society; the historical proofs now have modern confirmation.

It is always dangerous to lay current events at the door of history and say because it happened before under these circumstances it will happen here and now. But given the recent presidential campaign and the promise of "change" trumpeted by the president-elect I suspect that we are doomed to witness the destructive exploits of another Diocletian rather than the calming influence of an Augustus.

Given also that the society that elected the president-in-waiting is dominated by blind nationalism, trendy savior-worship, an unending ignorance of history, economics and philosophy and devoid of a critical thought process, I fear history will say of this moment, "the civilization of the modern world suffered final collapse."

The American author and revolutionary Thomas Gordon wrote: "…[I]t is that we everywhere find tyranny and imposture, ignorance and slavery, joined together…" one then wonders how long America can last.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

Tim Case Archives

DIGG THIS

"A very good case can be made, on moral as well as economic grounds, for a system in which the individual is required to stand on his own feet, not to lean on the state for handouts. Character, resourcefulness, capacity are formed and developed in struggle with obstacles, not in waiting passively for benefits from outside."

~ William Henry Chamberlin, Historian (1897—1969)

In the Ecclesiastical History of Salaminius Hermias Sozomenus, book IX we have this remarkable passage concerning Alaric and the Goth’s siege of Rome in 408 AD:

"…(T)the Western Empire fell prey to disorders, because many tyrants arose. After the death of Stilicho, Alaric, the leader of the Goths, sent an embassy to Honorius to treat of peace; but without avail. He advanced to Rome, and laid siege to it; and by posting a large army of barbarians on the banks of the Tiber, he effectually prevented the transmission of all provisions into the city from Portus. After the siege had lasted some time, and fearful ravages had been made in the city by famine and pestilence, many of the slaves, and most of the barbarians by race within the walls, deserted to Alaric…All persons of good sense were aware that the calamities which this siege entailed upon the Romans were indications of Divine wrath sent to chastise them for their luxury, their debauchery, and their manifold acts of injustice towards each other, as well as towards strangers…"

St. Jerome in his letter LX to Heliodorus echoes the same sentiments concerning the plight of Rome in its final years.

"It is our sins which make the barbarians strong; it is our vices which vanquish Rome’s soldiers: and, as if there were here too little material for carnage, civil wars have made almost greater havoc among us than the swords of foreign foes."

Whether we wish to attribute current events to divine retribution or not, the simple fact is that throughout history man has been his own worst enemy. The short history of mankind can be summed up as a continual trampling of every social and natural law that has proven to benefit man’s existence or aid him in his quest for peace and prosperity.

Recently, I have had an occasion to review the concepts surrounding what is known as the four horseman of the Apocalypse (Revelation 6:2—8) with some friends. Putting aside the religious dogma surrounding these passages I wonder if this text isn’t more of a historical road map of human folly rather than a prophetic utterance.

In the light of its possible historical significance let’s put aside the religious canon of this account in Revelation and examine the testimonial from a strictly chronological perspective.

The narrative begins: "And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer."

The first point of interest in the transcript is the white horse. This certainly is no aberration of political ultraconservativism, but does denote the canard of peaceful intent. In both the French and Russian Revolutions white symbolized support for a system or the principles of a monarchy.

As late as the 20th century, as governments of the European nations emerged from political chaos under strong leaders, even dictatorships, these leaders were often referred to as a man on a white horse. The symbology certainly was not lost on Hitler or many of the fascist rulers prior to WWII.

Without belaboring the point it doesn’t take much to realize that since its founding, America has ordained the president in much the same fashion; the purpose being to legitimize the authority of the state without the need for cumbersome, precise constitutions and mitigating social principles, like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which many hold as divisive.

Ensconced in the saddle of power it is axiomatic that there follows the summary trampling of the rule of law, pursued by the encumbrance of an autocracy through the expedient claims of "necessity" and national priorities, while donning the imperial cloak of "savior," "protector," and guardian of righteousness.

History attests to the fact that once endowed with the crown of power and having tranquilized its citizens with the opiate of national imperatives, the state sets "forth conquering, and to conquer" under the guise of purity, beauty, and virtue.

It is not long before those grandiose state slogans of all the "good" that will come about via the state, give way to the next horseman. "And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword."

History is not silent and reveals that the ideals of purity, and virtue sold by the state are soon replaced by the ugliness, and horror of mass murder; thus mankind is continually treated to acts of self-annihilation.

Of war Rear Admiral Gene R. LaRocque cuts to the core when he said: "I hate it when they say, u2018He gave his life for his country.’ Nobody gives their life for anything. We steal the lives of these kids. We take it away from them. They don’t die for the honor and glory of their country. We kill them."

As great an evil as mass carnage is, the American Historian Charles Tilly points to one of equal importance: "Almost any state that makes war finds that it cannot pay for the effort from its accumulated reserves and current revenues. Almost all war-making states borrow extensively, raise taxes, and seize the means of combat — including men — from reluctant citizens who have other uses for their resources."

This leads us to the third horse of John’s apocalyptic vision. "And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand…and I heard a voice…say, A quart of wheat for a denarius, and three quarts of barley for a denarius; and do not harm the oil and the wine."

At the time of John’s vision a denarius was the average Roman worker’s daily pay while the ancient quarts (Greek choinix) are nearly equal to 1/8th our peck. This would make the dry weight of a quart of wheat equal too 1 7/8 pounds or three quarts of barley equal too 4 pounds. The analogy portends a bleak future since in the ancient world these amounts were barely able to feed two adults for one day.

Certainly I am not suggesting the perilous condition we find our economy in today is due strictly to the American government’s ludicrous wars. There are far too many who can track the decay of the American economy better and more accurately than I, but I am equally sure that not one would leave war out of their analysis.

What I find of interest is the net effect that the failed U.S. economic and foreign polices are having on grain supplies and the price of grain, in particular wheat.

Prices have risen due to the world’s stocks of wheat being at a 30-year low, with export holdings down 29%. U.S. exports are up 54% over 2007 and with ten weeks left in the marketing year, supplies of wheat are deteriorating.

As import demands continue to explode, the world’s need for wheat (up 10 MMT over 2006/07) continues to drive prices sky ward. To bring relief some importers have begun removing import restrictions and are even beginning to subsidize consumption. In the mean time the Ukraine, Russia, and Argentina, whose supplies of grain are running low, are beginning to impose export restrictions.

In the U.S., winter wheat plantings are below expectations, with the exceptions of an increase in planting of Soft White (SW) in the Pacific NW along with Soft Red Winter (SRW) in the Midwest. However, Hard Red Winter (HRW) fell from last year due to entering dormancy under extremely dry conditions.

Of course there is the prolonged Federal government’s pressure for Biofuel production which continues to steal land from wheat production and place it into corn.

As the exchange rate of the dollar continue a free fall and fuel prices rise, ocean freight rates have reached records highs. Analysts are also reporting that at the beginning of the 2008/09 market season wheat stocks will be at "bin bottom"; some have even suggested that in 2008 the U.S. for the first time in its history could become an IMPORTER of wheat.

But the prophet had one more bit of information for us. "I looked, and behold, a pale horse. And the name of him who sat on it was Death, and Hades followed with him. And power was given to them over a fourth of the earth, to kill with sword, with hunger, with death, and by the beasts of the earth."

FAMINE is not a chapter heading from a dusty old history book dealing with the Roman Empire in the 3rd century AD; it describes the real human condition as a reflection of the world’s grain markets. However, it also might be the end result of state crimes that have taken men and women away from production and placed them on killing fields with massive borrowing to finance human carnage.

If famine comes to America, it will be the result of Stalinist bureaucrats who criminally refuse to allow land to be placed in production, pay farmers not to produce, and suck up to multinational agri-businesses; all the while lining their pockets with blood money for instituting regulations which force the small farmers off the their property and out of business.

The present outlook says it isn’t going to take much more to create severe food problems worldwide.

2007/08 global production of wheat was hurt by weather problems and weather will be a major factor again this year. The recent Arkansas flooding has damaged a large portion of that state’s annual production of 28.7 million bushels of wheat.

Consumption this year will continue to exceed production and with wheat stocks already tight they are expected to shrink even further. At present, the world’s grain stocks-to-use ratio stands at a historic low of 18%.

As wheat supplies continue to shrink so will exports, with some nations eventually shutting off exports all together. Canada, EU-27, Argentina, Black Sea and Australia have already reduced the amount of wheat they will allow to be exported.

Even with increased plantings around the world don’t expect supplies of wheat to substantially increase. U.S. exports are nearly tapped out and this has put further pressure on the world’s market.

The US population may not face famine but prices very well could reach unimaginable heights and world-wide social unrest does not bode well for U.S./world relations.

The ancient saying is that "hungry men are dangerous men" and indeed, hungry populations spell trouble for world leaders.

The absolute folly of unwavering devotion to the Roman Empire was a lesson learned by the citizens of Rome the hard way. It is a foregone conclusion that those who support U.S. imperialism will have to learn it in much the same manner. I also suspect that the evils that befall man are far less the result of divine retribution as they are of man’s undying, unthinking devotion to that malignant cancer, the state, of which Albert Jay Nock correctly said: "It can not even be said that the State has ever shown any disposition to suppress crime, but only to safeguard its own monopoly of crime."

Given the recent crop of criminals seeking the presidency I am not the least bit worried that the future holds any change for the better. On the contrary, none of them portend well for one quarter of the world’s population.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

DIGG THIS

"Go home and tell your master he has sent you on a fool’s errand and broken the peace of our Sabbath. What, do you think we were born in the woods, to be frightened by owls?"

~ Sarah Tarrant (1775)

Sarah Tarrant shouted these words to 240 British troops of the 64th Foot Regiment under the command of Colonel Alexander Leslie as they left Salem, Massachusetts in February 1775 after failing to confiscate cannon and munitions which had been stored in Salem by American rebels.

Her caustic words struck a chord because one angered British troop raised his weapon and took aim at Sarah Tarrant. Ms. Tarrant stood her ground and angrily retorted: "Fire, if you have the courage — but I doubt it!"

It was a sad state of affairs that would bring men and women of the revolutionary war period to display such exemplary fortitude. However, their defiance and anger was the result of years of British "abuses and usurpations" designed to "reduce them under absolute despotism" as the Declaration of Independence a year later would assert.

What concerned the people most, in early 1775, was that the British King, through General Thomas Gage, was attempting to disarm the American colonists and this was going to be resisted at all costs.

In many ways it is easy to empathize if not identify with our forefathers because like them we are increasingly subjected to government oversight, regulation, taxation, and continual loss of our privacy.

Now, with the Supreme Court "looking into" the question of the Second Amendment, Americans are once again faced with the real problem of what response will be appropriate to any threat of being disarmed by a government out of control.

The very idea that there is a question, as to the meaning of the Second Amendment or how it should be applied, now being "debated" by the Supreme Court is absurd. It only accentuates the mental illness and moral vacuum that exists at the highest levels of government while exposing our humanoid politicians as pusillanimous imitators of Fidel Castro.

What next? Are we to be forced to consume a daily diet of triumphalist slogans, embellished by groveling, imbecilic praise for the president?

If we believe that the Declaration of Independence is correct and we are "endowed" with "unalienable" rights, including the Second Amendment, then those rights come from a source beyond and superior to the state and as such can only be relinquished to the state by our own craven acts of mental and physical capitulation.

Now, before anyone gets on their high horse and writes me concerning how we are a "nation of laws," let’s get one thing straight. When the sapient knowledge contained in the highest law of the land (US Constitution) is open to debate, redefining, ignoring, or misuse at all levels of government then don’t tell me that the maniacal fiats that pass for law issued by nefarious bureaucratic megalomaniacs, makes us a nation of laws.

In the last months we have read time and time again how a new "revolution" has begun. This revolution, I believe, is correctly defined by Butler Shaffer as being "devoted to peace, liberty, and free markets" and it has proven to encompass a rather large spectrum of American culture. More importantly Mr. Shaffer points out; this "movement" is lead by those under forty who are "self-organizing, self-directed people taking orders from no one in a political hierarchy…"

Do you think this fact has been lost on the power elite? If it hasn’t, what do you think the power structure’s next move must be?

When faced with much the same dilemma in 1775 King George wrote the Earl of Sandwich on July 1:

"I am of the opinion that when once these rebels have felt a smart blow they will submit; and no situation can ever change my fixed resolution, either to bring the colonies to a due obedience to the legislature of the mother country or to cast them off!"

I have been wondering lately if King George’s sentiments aren’t precisely why the privileged cabal, under the guise of the Supreme Court, is now taking up the question of the Second Amendment.

Is anyone so duped as to believe that a state, like the US government, which is committed to a police-state structure, mass murder, torture, illegal imprisonment, foreign wars, and the annihilation of world economies, foremost being our own, is going to roll over and acquiesce to a social order of peace, liberty, and free markets?

If so, they are expecting what has never occurred in the history of man. Political power feeds the elite’s greed. This gluttony thrives at the expense of our personal freedoms and their human decency. The recent events surrounding the bailout of Bear Stearns should have made this perfectly clear.

As the economy has worsened there has been an interesting event occurring under much of the media’s radar. That is, that weapon sales are increasing. It seems that for the moment some are thinking outside the box and preparing for the worst.

The events of 1775 are in many ways analogous to our situation today. Anyone who has been in combat, been shot at, or had friends die due to hostile fire prays they will never have to face that chaos again, especially in their home country, by having to take up arms against their own.

While peace is always preferable, reality says armed conflict cannot always be avoided; especially when the state participates in secret state agreements, or due to deteriorating economies which would produce food riots. Then there is the real threat of martial law resulting from an angry world which will increasingly seek retribution for the unmitigated disasters perpetuated by the US government’s vile activities; laughingly called "foreign policy."

In the wake of Lexington and Concord a woman whose name has been lost to history wrote a British officer she deemed a friend concerning the American rebel’s preparedness for conflict:

"All ranks of men amongst us are in arms. Nothing is heard now in our streets but the trumpet and the drum; and the universal cry is u2018Americans, to arms!’ We are making powder fast and do not want for ammunition… The God of mercy will, I hope, open the eyes of our king that he may see, while in seeking our destruction, he will go near to complete his own."

I echo the lady’s closing sentiments; as do many others I am sure. However, they cannot be realized without an unwavering commitment to freedom and preparation for conflict.

Before you write these thoughts off as too radical, consider these questions. Why hasn’t the Federal government through its alphabet agencies shut down and arrested the various criminal gangs operating in this country? Could it possibly be because of the allegiance each member has to the gang coupled with the gang’s commitment and ability to resist with extreme force?

Every revolutionary family had personal weapons in 1775. This didn’t concern the British as much as their growing supply of munitions, which included cannons. It is the supply of munitions that allow for a protracted conflict; a weapon without ammunition is an expensive club, at best.

During the years I was involved in the firearms industry I witnessed, more than once, people who would buy a weapon for protection but would rarely purchase any more than a minimal supply of ammunition. I often wondered how they expected to defend themselves when the four major components of defense with a weapon (weapon familiarity, controlled fire, accuracy and self/unit confidence) can only be achieved by repeated practice.

Military officers who have witnessed unit disintegration during combat know exactly what I am talking about. For those who have no first-hand knowledge of that unpleasant event, a study of Custer’s left flank on Calhoun Hill at the Battle of the Little Bighorn will make the point crystal clear.

Indian warrior’s testimony after the battle said that members of the 7th Cavalry "were crying like babies, shooting wildly in the air, feigning death and acting as if they were drunk." A Sioux warrior called Runs-the-Enemy described the flight of troopers from their defensive picket positions as "a buffalo stampede."

The simple fact is that combat in any form is extremely stressful for all involved. It is only because of tough, relevant, prolonged, and progressive training resulting in competence, confidence, and cohesion, which gives one a chance to survive. Anything less spells disaster.

Now, before going any further, understand that there is a huge difference between a personal act of self-defense with a weapon and a protracted campaign as was undertaken during the Revolutionary War or that we may face.

Personal self-defense with a weapon is often called a gunfight and has the following components.

First, 95% of all gunfights occur when the opponents are within 0—21 feet of each other. Of these, 20% find that the opponents are 10 to 21 feet apart, 20% when the opponents are 5 to 10 feet from each other, and 55% of the time gunfire occurs when the combatants are within 5 feet of each other.

Second, a man with a knife can cover the distance of 21 feet in 1.5 seconds or less while the average time it takes to draw a handgun from a concealed location by a trained person is closer to 2.0 seconds.

Third, most gunfights transpire in low light or minimal light conditions and last between 3 and 5 seconds.

Fourth, during those 3 to 5 seconds of the gunfight only 3 or 4 shots will be fired on average and of those shots fired only 1 in 4 will strike either one of the combatants.

One can readily construct any number of scenarios around the previous statistics and each will prove the absolute necessity of being trained and proficient with a weapon.

However, in the case of an armed revolution there may be gunfights but the bulk of the fighting will take the form of a firefight and probably urban firefights. Some of the differences being, prolonged time, increased distance, weapons in service, rounds expended, available cover, target acquisition, tactical movements and personnel involved during the fighting.

The French called what could very well take place in this country la petite guerre or "little war" which relies heavily on surprise raids and guerilla tactics for the purpose of tying down large groups of the opponent’s men and resources.

Unfortunately, there is one major problem facings civilians versus a standing military. That is resupply of ammunition. In a civilian force there will likely be little standardization of weapons thus, a "unit" (in whatever size or form) may have within its ranks various calibers of weapons ranging from 22 rimfires, and 223′s to 30-30′s, 30-06′s, 270′s all the way up to a number of belted magnums.

Unless the weapons used are capable of firing ammunition that is common to the conflict, the overall problem of resupply is self-evident.

It should be a foregone conclusion that if the Supreme Court rules against the Second Amendment the Federal government, like the British in 1775, will seek to cut off the availability of manufactured ammunition to the US public.

This leaves only two options at the moment. First: to stock up with factory manufactured ammunition for the weapons owned or Second: invest in the machinery and components needed to reload our own ammunition.

Neither of these options will be inexpensive. However, of the two the second will give you the greatest chance of survival since ammunition components (primers, brass casings, powder, and bullets) can be traded if not needed.

The machinery includes the bullet press, caliber dies, powder scales, bullet puller, trim dies (for each caliber), powder dispenser, brass tumbler, cleaning media, case lube, lube pad, case trimmer, and deburring tool; all with reasonable care last for years. Also, most manufactures of dies have standardized their threads so their dies can be used in a number of presses.

There are a number of excellent reloading systems in the market place, which have been designed to fit just about any pocket book. The real trick is safety and that starts with knowing what you are getting into. So buy a reloading book from one of the bullet manufactures and study it closely before you jump into reloading. It is not a hard process but it does require meticulous attention to detail.

If reloading doesn’t fit your lifestyle, buy the manufactured ammunition, but do something now. We very well could be the generation that experiences what our founding ancestors went through.

It is a fact that the future of this country remains in the hands of those mental descendants of King George III, about whom the British historian J.H. Plumb said:

"Had he been born in different circumstances, it is unlikely that he could have earned a living except as an unskilled laborer."

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

DIGG THIS

"Most of the harm in the world is done by good people, and not by accident, lapse, or omission. It is the result of their deliberate actions, long persevered in, which they hold to be motivated by high ideals toward virtuous ends."

~ Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine

Too often history is viewed through the blinders of what ruler made what decision, or what war occurred, on what date. This had led to many not understanding the effects the state and its leadership could or will have on their lives.

This, I believe, also leads to one of the reasons for a continuing admiration, if not adoration, of the state and the state leadership.

We don’t know or aren’t told what effect such and such ruler’s decisions had on the masses of people and their lives. What did they feel or think? How did it change their lives? What was the people’s response; was it flight, fright, or fight? Let me give you an extreme, but not uncommon example.

Preceding the U.S. entry into WWI, America’s president, Woodrow Wilson, set the stage for one (of many) of the Federal government’s most profane periods in American history.

While still "neutral" President Woodrow Wilson in his State of the Union address on December 7, 1915, said in part:

"There are citizens of the United States, I blush to admit, born under other flags, but welcomed under our generous naturalization laws to the full freedom and opportunity of America, who have poured the poison of disloyalty into the very arteries of our national life; who have sought to bring the authority and good name of our Government into contempt… necessary that we should promptly make use of processes of law by which we may be purged of their corrupt distempers… I am urging you to do nothing less than save the honor and self-respect of the nation… disloyalty, and anarchy must be crushed out… I need not suggest the terms in which they may be dealt with."

He was speaking of the German-Americans and many who heard or read his speech took it as a directive to attack German ideas and beliefs. Whole communities went so far as to suspect anyone who spoke German of treason to the U.S. government while being loyal to the German Kaiser.

California Congressman Julius Kahn went even further when speaking of the German people living in America:

“I hope that we shall have a few prompt hangings and the sooner the better. We have got to make an example of a few of these people, and we have got to do it quickly.”

The hatred that was being garnered against these American citizens is exemplified by the New York Times headlines of April 6, 1918: “Senators favor shooting traitors,” then six days later by the Chicago Tribune’s headlines “Cure treason and disloyalty by firing squad.”

In 1918 my grandmother, who was of German heritage, was 22 years old. Many years later I asked her why she wouldn’t speak German, even though I knew she could speak it fluently. What she told me was chilling.

She related to me, with tears in her eyes, that during 1915 to 1918 she was so frightened that she would be arrested, shot or hung by the federal government, for speaking her native language that she swore she would never speak German again. She never did and she forbad me from ever leaning German as a second language!

Was my grandmother an isolated example? No, there were many among the loyal German communities that lived in fear and were dehumanized by being called "Huns" or worse.

It is easy to see then how the perception of history may change when we can show the consequences of government policy on people’s lives, along with the dates and events.

While some may think of the events of the early 1900′s as being recent history, it is still history. Furthermore with history, regardless of the era, we are dealing ultimately with the lives of real men, women and children who lived it, suffered through it, and struggled to cope with the events that were overtaking them.

The same is true of those who lived, worked, and supported the Roman Empire.

When Augustus Caesar took the throne in 27 BC, at the age of 36, it marked the end of almost a century of revolution, civil wars, civil disturbances, confiscations of property, and prohibitions. Tacitus tells us that the whole world was exhausted and was thrilled to acquiesce to the Roman Empire just to have peace.

One of Augustus’ first acts was to reform the tax system. Next he again standardized the silver coin of the realm, the denarius, at 84 to the pound and the realm’s gold coin, the aureus, at 40 to 42 to the pound.

This had a calming effect on the Romans and restored the unity, pride and material affluence of the people (in fact only about 10% of the population would actually benefit from the prosperity) in the Roman Empire which also solidified Augustus’ reign as emperor.

During the early days of the republic the Romans had lived comfortably with a modest tax which can be rightfully called a wealth tax. However, by the time of Augustus the Roman people were saddled with a progressive tax and a system of tax collection that was fraught with repression and criminal extortion.

Augustus’ idea was to set a flat tax based on wealth and population. This new tax was modeled on the ancient tax system of the early republic and was based on both population and individual wealth. This is probably what he meant when he said of himself:

"I restored many traditions of the ancestors, which were falling into disuse in our age, and myself I handed on precedents of many things to be imitated in later generations."

The effect of Augustus’ new tax system was that it standardized the amount of revenue the Roman state would receive yearly and stopped the brutal progressiveness of the older tax system.

This placed the citizens of Roman Empire in a unique position, because now they knew each year what their tax liability was but more importantly they knew that anything they earned above the required tax was theirs, no matter how much their income increased.

The obvious result of such a tax system was that there was now a major incentive to become producers, especially since the marginal tax rate above the required tax was zero. Never mind that the wealth earned this year would be assessed and taxed next year; they now had a full year to use their money to increase their income before their wealth was reassessed.

The Forum Romanum called by the Romans Forum Magnum or just the Forum, was the center of Roman life; as such it was the Roman heart of commerce and banking along with being the location for the administration of justice.

The importance of the Forum made the streets leading to and from it prime locations for businesses which supported many bookshops, shoe shops, the finest spice shops and the daily needs of Rome’s citizens.

Augustus’ pro-growth tax system brought about the lowest interest rates in Roman history. This is turn led to people borrowing investment capital for new businesses or speculating in commodities.

Business ventures require loans, and loan contracts were quickly standardized throughout the empire.

Julius Alexander, the lender, required a promise in good faith that the loan of 60 denarii of genuine and sound coin would be duly settled on the day he requested it. Alexander, son of Cariccius, the borrower, promised in good faith that it would be so settled, and declared that he had received the sixty denarii mentioned above, in cash, as a loan, and that he owed them. Julius Alexander required a promise in good faith that the interest on this principal from this day would be one percent per thirty days and would be paid to Julius Alexander or to whomever it might in the future concern. Alexander, son of Cariccius, promised in good faith that it would be so paid. Titius Primitius stood surety for the due and proper payment of the principal mentioned above and of the interest.

Transacted at Alburnus Maior, October 20, in the consulship of Rusticus (his second consulship) and Aquilinus.

We have no way of knowing what this gentleman wanted to use the 60 denarii for, but consider for a moment the timing of this loan which closed on October 20th.

In ancient Rome wheat was the staple of the people, which made its supply critical. Estimates of the yearly market need in Rome for wheat range from 20 to 40 million modii; where a modii is approximately 15 pounds or bushel of wheat. This means that the average consumption of wheat in ancient Rome was 30 million modii — 450,000,000 pounds — annually.

Given that at this time the population of Rome was in the neighborhood of 5,000,000 we find the average need per person, annually was 6 modii: 90 pounds — 1 bushels. Of course these totals are going to be greater or lesser based on gender, age, ability to pay and doesn’t take into account the state’s grain welfare program.

However, it shows that Rome required vast amounts of wheat, and highlights its tenuous position.

Something happened to the grain shipments in 18 BC because Augustus Caesar wrote:

From that year when Gnaeus and Publius Lentulus were consuls, when the taxes fell short, I gave out contributions of grain and money from my granary and patrimony, sometimes to 100,000 men, sometimes to many more.

There are many things that could hinder the flow of wheat to Rome but the one thing that not even the might of Rome could change was the weather on the Mediterranean Sea.

The transporting of goods overland was cost prohibitive except for short distances and that left shipping via the Mediterranean Sea to bring the majority of goods to Rome. That is until November of each year when the storms on the Mediterranean closed it to trade until March of the following year. Even during October and April it would be dangerous to sail the Mediterranean, due to sudden storms, so we can assume that wheat imports would begin to taper off in October of each year and would not resume again until sometime in April.

The five plus months when the wheat ceased to arrive must have caused the price to rise based on the simple laws of supply and demand since this law was the controlling factor in Rome’s economy.

If Alexander, son of Cariccius took out the loan because he was a baker and wanted a hedge against wheat shortages for the five months that the Mediterranean was closed to shipping; he would have been able to purchase 120 modii — 30 bushels, 1800 pounds — of wheat.

Many have called the era from Caesar Augustus until the death of Emperor Marcus Aurelius, in 180 AD, the golden years of the Roman Empire. In some ways it was. Augustus’ sweeping reforms dealt with all aspects of the Roman life and set the stage for a very successful period in Roman history. Gibbon even goes so far as to call this period the time when the "human race was most prosperous and happy."

What is missed in all the jubilation is that Caesar Augustus was ahead of his time. His Fabian socialist ideals were the firm foundations upon which the misery of countless generations would eventually rest.

The Roman people loved their emperor and the peace that came with Augustus’ programs. They were caught up in their success and daily life; raising their children, paying their bills along with the myriad of things that just living entails.

Like the sirens of Greek mythology whose sweet singing lured mariners to destruction on the rocks, so is the promise of the state; regardless of the age.

The Romans were simply people, and being human they either didn’t see or refused to believe the destruction that was overtaking them even as the producers in their society started becoming insolvent then dejected due to the heavy controls that the state was imposing on their lives.

By 192 AD the tax base began to fail; as tax revenues decreased the Roman state began to micromanage the economy, which bound farmers to their farms and craftsmen to their workbenches. All businesses soon became de facto organs of the state; it was business at the point of a sword which tried to control and direct all aspects of the markets. The Roman state’s efforts were to no avail, commerce continued to deteriorate due to the tax burden.

The Roman state’s answer was to exacerbate the problem by increasing the money supply, so denarii with less silver content were issued.

As inflation raged prices sky rocketed (at one point inflation reached an estimated 15,000%), people began to put aside and hide the older, high silver content coins and pay their taxes in the newly issued coins of less value. International trade soon slowed to a crawl. The "real" value of the state’s revenues, as expected, was proportionally reduced.

It wasn’t long before the Roman state began requisitioning cattle and food directly from the farmers, and other producers were simply robbed, as needs arose, by the army. The result was social chaos ensuing from state terrorism which some have christened “permanent terrorism.”

The Roman state even went so far as to demand that state permission be given before anyone could change their residence or occupation. The state fixed prices and wages which eventually led to a complete failure of the visible market, since there was no work there was nothing to buy or sell so the people resorted to food riots, lawlessness and city flight.

The same creeping socialism that affected the Roman Empire has been at work in America since the adoption of the Constitution over the Articles of Confederation, and like those ancient people of Rome we are caught in its trap. Was it the love of the state or our foolishness that resulted in our not seeing what is now overtaking us? Future historians will have to decide.

For the present we will continue to put up with TSA theft of private property, special travel ID’s, threats from Homeland security that permission will be needed for employment and government regulations designed to "monitor" commerce.

As our civilization continues its slide into the socialistic abyss of monetary suicide and as the real possibility of famine lurks on the horizon, let’s at least not allow the words of the Roman poet, satirist, and literary critic, Horace to be a vision of our future.

Time corrupts all. What has it not made worse?
Our grandfathers sired feebler children; theirs
Were weaker still — ourselves; and now our curse
Must be to breed even more degenerate heirs.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

DIGG THIS

"The budget should be balanced. Public debt should be reduced. The arrogance of officialdom should be tempered, and assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed, lest Rome become bankrupt."

~ Marcus Tullius Cicero (106—43 B.C.)

In a recent conversation among friends concerning the present crop of presidential candidates, a close friend emphatically stated that if Ron Paul wasn’t the Republican candidate then, "I will vote for the worst possible candidate with the hope he/she will speed up the implosion of this unconstitutional government…"

While I don’t ascribe to this voting philosophy I do understand his feelings and empathize with his frustration.

It wasn’t until later that I realized that the Roman senator Marcus Tullius Cicero must have had much the same feeling when he chose to support the frail, sickly, orator Gaius Octavius (when no else in the senate would) over Marcus Antonius (Marc Antony) after Julius Caesar’s death in 44 BC.

Cicero was a stanch Republican and he had supported the ideals of the Roman republic even against Julius Caesar. He believed in “Senatus populusque Romanus,” the senate and the Roman people as the core of Roman Republic, and that meant he believed in the Republic. Most of Cicero’s life had been lived under the Roman republic and he had prospered because of it.

It was his defense of the senate in 63 BC, against a potential violent uprising, which brought him acclaim from a powerful leader of the senate — Marcus Cato — who proclaimed Cicero "pater patriae" (father of his country). Cicero’s stinging condemnation of empire attests to his sentiments.

Cicero wrote concerning liberty: "Only in states in which the power of the people is supreme has liberty any abode." While against the tyranny of the state he said: "Peace is liberty in tranquility. Servitude is the worst of all evils, to be resisted not only by war, but even by death."

So why would Cicero choose to support Julius Caesar’s heir; Octavian? If Cicero hadn’t been murdered by agents of Marcus Antonius in 43 BC would he have continued his support after Julius Caesar’s deification in 42 BC; at which time Octavian insisted he was no longer to be addressed as "Octavian" but now was to be called "Caesar" and saw his true status as divi filius — "son of the deified"?

I believe he would have. Cicero’s choices boiled down to the devil he knew (Marcus Antonius) versus the devil he hoped he could use to destroy the empire (Octavian). If anything, Cicero wished to restore the prosperity that the Romans had enjoyed during the period of the Roman republic; plus he was fully aware of Rome’s history and Rome’s current situation.

The Roman republic had been established after the abolition of monarchy in 510 BC and Rome had come to be a dominating power under the res publica meaning "the constitution of the state."

It is to this period of Roman history Virgil addresses in his Aeneid: "Others will hammer out bronzes so gracefully that you would think that their statues breathed, and bring out the living features of a face from stone. They will plead cases better; better trace out the wanderings of the heavens with a compass and name the rising stars. But you, Roman, remember, these are your skills: to govern the peoples with power and to establish the habit of peace; to be sparing of the vanquished and to crush the arrogant in war."

You may find Virgil’s statement overly sentimental, and strangely reminiscent of the current neocon attitude towards U.S. military adventures, starting with the Spanish American war, and particularly in the last eight years. However, the fact remains that Rome’s rise to power was due to its military prowess, but what is forgotten is that Rome had help.

It was toward the middle of the third century BC that the Hellenistic world began its collapse and there began to arise a sharp contrast between the economies of Egypt and Greece with that of the free Romans living under an enforced constitution.

In both Egypt and Greece the economies were becoming more and more nationalized to the point of being socialistic. The results were that the peoples of Greece and Egypt were strictly controlled; deprived of the freedom to pursue personal profit in either production or trade; burdened with devastating progressive taxes, and forced to work in state-controlled collectives where they had little more status than an American 18th-century southern plantation slave.

The results of these socialist policies were the same on these ancient cultures as they are on modern societies. Hans-Hermann Hoppe explains:

"…(E)veryone’s inclination toward laziness and negligence is systematically encouraged. Hence, an inferior quality and/or quantity of goods will be produced and permanent capital consumption will ensue." Democracy: The God That Failed, p. 123

These nationalistic policies also resulted in weak, ineffective leadership throughout the Mediterranean and in particular in Egypt and Greece, producing the consequences of constant warfare; uncontrolled piracy, the Mediterranean Sea almost closed to trade, followed by economic stagflation.

The Roman armies marched into the weakened Mediterranean states, rarely or seriously opposed, and in much in the same manner as the U.S. military became the "policemen of the world" after the collapse of the Soviet Union on December 31, 1991. The Romans were accordingly positioned so that by the first century BC Rome could claim to be the undisputed master of the Mediterranean.

Rome’s victories should have insured peace but peace was all but snuffed out by civil wars.

Continual wars were wearing on the Romans who found that after 146 BC there were no more conquests that supplied unlimited riches. Wars in Spain, Gaul, along with the slave revolts at home were not profitable.

Civil unrest was beginning to show its ugly head. Italians who had served Rome faithfully wanted as many rights as any Roman citizen.

Small farmers who were the backbone of Rome’s military were being displaced due to economic change and continuous military deployment which had resulted in their losing their farms. This sent many of them into the cities looking for work. The effect was a shortage in military enlistment because there was no incentive in fighting slaves or Spanish rebels.

It was during this time that Rome embarked on a welfare policy that would dog her until her final days.

In the ancient world, just as today, wild fluctuations in grain prices or even famine could be caused by many things but chief among these causes in the ancient world was the transportation of grain to market.

Thus, in 123 BC the Roman tribune, Gaius Gracchus, instituted a policy in which the state would procure a sufficient supply of wheat to be sold to all who were willing to stand in line at one of the public granaries for his monthly allotment. The grain was to be sold at a price below the normal market price and was to be fixed by the Roman state.

Gaius was not seeking to establish a welfare subsidy. He was trying to stabilize the seasonal fluctuations in the grain prices. Gaius hoped to insure that the Roman citizens would be paying the same price for grain throughout the year.

As with all state policies, the good intentions of the statists involved soon deteriorated into a monstrosity of Biblical proportions.

In about 90 BC the grain subsidies were abolished under the dictatorship of Lucius Sulla but by 73 BC the Roman state was once again providing grain at a fixed price to the Roman "poor."

It was in 58 BC that the tribune of the people and common thug, Publius Clodius Pulcher, Cicero’s arch enemy, abolished the charge on grain and threw open Rome’s granaries to the public. The outcome of this action was that the rural poor flooded into the city of Rome while slave holders freed their own slaves putting them on the public dole thus cutting their cost of feeding the "help."

It is doubtful that there is a coincidence in the fact that 58 BC is also the year Rome made inroads into controlling Egypt and it grain harvests when Ptolemy XI sought Roman aid through Pompey to regain his throne.

The supply of grain had always been important but now it was critical, due to the political necessity of keeping the population of Rome happy and fed at the state’s expense. From here on Rome would expend vast amounts of time, energy and resources devoted to securing Rome’s grain supply; even to the degree that grants of citizenship and duty exemptions, were extended to ship-owners who signed exclusive contracts to convey grain to the city of Rome.

Rome had traditionally received its grain from various elements of Italy most notably southern Italy on the Tyrrhenian Sea and from the provinces of Sicily and North Africa. Now, Egypt took on a new and important role in Rome’s survival.

When Julius Caesar took the reigns of power there were about 320,000 men receiving free grain (which he would ultimately cut to around 150,000) and the system was out of control. Therefore there is a strong likelihood that there was far more involved than Julius Caesar’s libido when he took up with the Egyptian femme fatale Cleopatra VII.

You would think Rome’s grain give-a-way would have a drastic, negative effect on the free market. It didn’t, although it did have a negative effect on the Roman citizen’s taxes.

The reason is probably twofold. First, Rome’s free grain was not obtainable by women, children, slaves, government officials, foreigners, or any outsider who was not a citizen of Rome. Second, the ration of grain was not sufficient to live on. It was left to a large, healthy, and private free market to supply the vast needs of Rome.

What isn’t in dispute is that the reason Egypt retained its Hellenistic economic system and was not allowed to share in the generally profitable freedom of the Roman Empire was that Egypt was now Rome’s main source of grain. Safeguarding of this grain source was critical to Rome’s survival and so Egypt always was to remain exclusively in the ownership of the Roman emperor.

It should also go without question that Egypt’s importance to Rome’s well-being was not lost on either Marc Antony or Cleopatra.

What had happened is that the Roman Republic in Cicero’s day lay in ruins. What once had been the nobility and upper classes had been devastated by years of war. The once guiding "constitution" of the Republic had been changed, circumvented, redefined, or ignored for so long and in such strange ways that it was almost impossible to remember what the original Republic actually was like.

Rome’s economy was on the verge of being reduced to rubble, the food supplies were in peril, while hundreds of thousands of people were either homeless or displaced.

This is the Roman world Cicero faced. Is it any wonder he longed for the old days of the Republic? His choices were simple; absolute evil (Marcus Antonius) or the lesser of the two evils (Gaius Octavius). Cicero chose Octavius and in so doing launched a blistering attack against Marc Antony in his Phillipics against evil and for the Roman Republic.

It was too much for Marc Antony and in 43 BC Cicero was declared a criminal then eventually murdered by one of Antony’s goon squads. After Cicero’s death Antony had Cicero’s head and right hand removed then placed in the rostrum where Cicero had made his speeches; the warning did not go without notice.

Here in 2008 Americans are faced with selecting their next president. Given the choice between McCain, Obama, or Clinton they can only hope a civil war doesn’t settle the issue because it is a forgone conclusion that every other problem America faces will be either ignored or exacerbated.

One thing is certain: in 2100 years the bulk of the human race hasn’t learned a blessed thing!

For me the choice between evil and evil is still evil and so I’ll be content to sit, watch and prepare for the worst. I know the American public is going to select a devil that can’t be controlled.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

DIGG THIS

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep man in everlasting ignorance — that principle is contempt prior to investigation"

~ Herbert Spencer (1820—1903)

Just who is it that determines whether ancient information is to be considered as "valid" history or relegated to the files of myth? Isn’t this determination left almost solely in the hands of government-funded, propaganda-generating "established experts" who haunt the halls of academia and ooze from the pores of the anthropological, religious and "scientific" establishment?

Isn’t it these who are always careful to follow the party line so that they won’t be chastised and lose their place on the public money teat? So they practice fraud by hiding or ignoring ancient written records, oral traditions, and surviving artifacts. Thus never allowing these to supersede their doctrinaire system of explaining and dating the ancient world through inane periods called "stone age," "bronze age" and "iron age" all the while fondling and fawning over ancient pieces of broken pottery.

The reasonable mind should ask some pertinent questions. At any point in time was there only one manufacturer of pottery in the ancient world, within a given geographic area, city state, tribal location, or family unit?

Was collectivism so rampant that there was no divergence in style, thickness, glazing techniques or decoration of pottery in any one/month/year/age due to the individualism of the producer or buyer? Was there no "copying" of a popular style from an originating culture within divergent cultures?

Was the general public of the ancient world so wealthy that they too could purchase the pottery of the elite, ruling class, or priesthood? Were special prized pieces of pottery handed down through family units, tribes, or other social units as heirlooms accounting for the movement of these artifacts through time? Could pottery have been an emblem or badge of authority or right of leadership?

What effect did regional economies, migration, wars, social unrest, droughts, extended cold, availability of raw material and trade restrictions have on the pottery in any given area or any given month/year?

The hubris of the "established experts" boggles the mind. Even when faced with a megalithic structure, like the Great Pyramid of Giza, these elites want us to believe that this edifice to man’s ingenuity was accomplished with stone tools, and without the use of the wheel.

That the ancient Egyptians had advanced mathematics can be seen in the very word "pyramid" which is reported to literally mean "measure of light." I doubt there is a coincidence in the fact that "the vertical height of the Great Pyramid, when the structure was intact, was 483 grid feet, which is the square of the reciprocal of the angular velocity of light." Nor should we assume that random chance resulted in pi (π) being the quotient of twice the length of one side, divided by the vertical height of the Great Pyramid; which again was 483 feet.

Should we really believe that a nation like Egypt which prior to 1700 BC and as early as 2600 BC had advanced knowledge concerning the relationship between the human nervous system and limb paralysis wasn’t capable of constructing durable tools or a wheel?

Are we really so malleable as to perpetuate such an illogical state of mental vacuity for the sake of appeasement? It certainly seems that the greatest part of society prefers "going along to get along" over reasoned thought or questioning the "experts."

Perhaps we should rejoice that these same priestly experts aren’t still pronouncing that there will be no further debate: the earth is flat and is the center of the universe. Both ideas were rejected by many ancient civilizations in their maps and records, long before Nicolas Copernicus was "foolish" enough to publish his "heretical" De revolutionibus orbium coelestium declaring the sun, not the earth was the center of our planetary system.

After my last article I had a gentleman write to me asking if the "civilized" world would suffer another dark age. In this enlightened age of supercilious edicts and Pavlovian obedience are we really that far removed from the dark age of the 15th century? How can we possibly learn from history when pertinent, useful, instructive historical facts are unscrupulously and systematically stolen, hidden from us, or cast aside as myth?

One case will suffice to make the point.

A couple of years ago I wrote concerning the archeological find of the 20th century at Tell Mardikh and the ancient city of Ebla.

What made the finding of this ancient city remarkable was the retrieval of Ebla’s archives, in 1975, which dated to the 3rd millennium BC. The ancient library of records was found practically undamaged and in the order in which documents had once been stored. The now collapsed shelving revealed more than 17,000 clay cuneiform tablets and fragments, offering an unmatched source of information regarding Ebla’s economy; along with the peoples these ancient Syrian’s traded amongst, lived in proximity to and shared histories with.

It has now been over 30 years since the library at Ebla was discovered and yet little real or relevant information has been published. The reason for this suppression of information is due almost exclusively to political, religious, cultural and scientific canon that would be called into question if it were published.

This is a crime paramount to the loss of the Library at Alexandria regardless of whether the latter is ascribed to Julius Caesar’s invasion in 48 BC; the attack of the Roman emperor Aurelian in the 3rd century AD; or the Muslim conquest in 642 AD.

However, occasionally there are essentials of everyday life in the ancient world, which break through the mist giving us a more accurate picture.

One such group of records comes to us from the ancient Babylonian astronomers and is called the Astronomical diaries. While these ancient records deal with a host of daily information concerning the movement of the planets, the rising and setting of the moon, weather, and the level of the all important Euphrates River to name a few; they also contain the prices of six commodities that had a direct effect on the everyday life of the people of Babylon: barley, dates, "mustard?", "cress?" sesame and wool.

The records go as far back as 651 BC. However, information is spotty until we reach 385 BC. It is from 385 BC until 61 BC that the information concerning the prices of barley, dates, "mustard?", "cress?" sesame and wool are more or less complete.

We will be looking at a snapshot of these records through the lives of the elders of a small town which has been lost to history, but that may well have existed just a few miles south of Babylon on the Euphrates river.

We will hear men speaking of prices but we need to remember they lived in a barter system and as such money (in this case a silver shekel) was always the constant while the quantity of what was to be purchased was always variable. This enabled the seller to account for the "exchange rate" of the shekel due to varying amounts of silver contained in different nation’s shekel.

We view "a deal" as purchasing one item for less money. Thus if a pack of gum costs $1.00 but we can purchase that pack of gum for $.50 we received "a deal"

Notice what we wish to purchase remains constant — one pack of gum; while the amount of money (coinage) we paid was variable — $1.00 vs. $.50.

This is not how the ancients saw the problem. They knew they were going to part with $1.00. The question was how many packs of gum they could get for their $1.00. Thus, they received "a deal" when they walked away with two packs of gum, instead of one, for their $1.00.

The reason for this is because at this time in Babylonian history there was no denomination in the coinage smaller than a shekel. The quantity, weight or the volume of what was being purchased had to be adjusted to equal the value of one silver shekel. Just think of it this way, the ancient buyers were always looking to get as much as they could for their shekel. The opposite is true of ancient sellers they wanted to give up as little as they could for the same shekel.

So, if you will come with me to just outside the ancient city of Babylon we will take just a little literary license and eavesdrop on a gathering of village men; some who raise barley and sesame, others who have date orchards, while still others are shepherds. Then hopefully we will all have some insight into history that would never be found in the "official" history books.

The date is February 10, 300 BC and the day is coming to a close. The evening is cool enough to wear a light coat but there is a hint that as the evening progresses the night air will bring a chill. All agree that with the clear evening sky and no moon a large fire would be in order to keep the elders and everyone else more comfortable.

Someone notices and remarks that the planet Uranus (the emasculated one) is high in the western sky and another replied that he hoped this was a sign that the elders would have good news. Still another observes with more than a little hesitation that the planet Uranus was in the Lion (Leo) and Marduk (the planet Jupiter) was not visible. This brought a collective groan to all that were gathered preparing the fire for the elders.

Regardless, there is still an air of excitement. The village elders had made the trip to the city of Babylon for the express purpose of learning what the current market prices were for the products that the village produced. However and just as importantly they also would know what the exchange rates would be for the items the villagers would need and so all were anxious for the elders’ knowledge upon their arrival at the village meeting.

As the crowd grows, side tables begin to fill with liters of sweet date beer (the wine of the Romans and Greeks). These are placed next to liters of barley beer which are scattered among platters brimming with sweet date cakes, dried dates and bread cooked in sesame oil. After all, this is an occasion of some importance and the communal life demanded the sharing of refreshments.

The whole village has now gathered and there can be heard the din of greetings, and idle chatter which suddenly subsides as the elders move through the gathering, greeting friends and relatives on their trek to the now warm glowing fire.

As the elders take their seats one remains standing and addresses the young people present.

"We are a rich and ancient people," he begins "but we must never forget that it was not that long ago we allowed rulers to anger the gods. There was a time when Babylon (555 BC) came under the control of an evil king. His name was Nabonidus and his loyalty was not to us and our ancient traditions but to himself and a strange god called u2018sin.’"

"King Nabonidus angered the great god Marduk when he left his throne in the hands of his son Belshazzar. Both these kings treated our priests with disrespect and our fathers lived in misery."

The elder fell silent for a moment while a murmur of agreement rustled through the gathering as they remembered this lesson so often taught by their elders.

"But the god Marduk…;" the elder’s voice trailed off as he waited for the crowd to again be silent enough for all to hear. "But the great god Marduk had not forgotten our fathers and he sent them the great and noble king Cyrus from Persia to save them. Our fathers welcomed King Cyrus, they did not fight him (Babylon fell to Cyrus 539 BC) and because of that our fathers had justice, peace, and prosperity for many years."

The crowd now enthused by what the elder has said politely but vigorously acknowledges him as he sits down.

Immediately the next elder stands up. In his hands he holds a series of cruciform tablets which contain the village records concerning the historical price of barley.

This is the first of three moments the villagers have been waiting for and they know it will be repeated in exactly the same fashion each time.

An almost tangible hush falls over the people present; no one drinks, or takes another bite of the sweet bread they are holding. Even the children sense the importance of the moment and sit quietly all eyes focused on the elder.

This elder, a man in his mid-fifties, begins to speak with some authority but in a fatherly tone; a tone one would use while giving instruction to a child learning a difficult task.

"My family," he commences, "I remember well the times I watched my father stand here and heard him give this report. We all know that he, like all of us, recognized that there are always two sides to the price of barley." A collective but respective "hmmm" of acknowledgement passes through the crowd.

"We must always remember that when we had to give little of our barley we prospered more than most, but when we had to give much we helped those who had little, to buy food and other necessities of life." Again the group expresses approval.

"We remember then those years when we lived well which are recorded here," the elder’s voice is emphatic as he raises the tablet above his head.

"My grandfather’s life was almost over (385 BC to 381 BC) when this village saw great profits because we only gave 27 to 44 (liters of barley per shekel). During my father’s life this village did not profit as greatly but we did well."

(From 381 BC to 335 BC the records [although incomplete] show the average price of barley fell by almost 50% to just over 72 liters per shekel. The highest price was in 372 BC at 24 liters per shekel but in March of 446 BC it had sunk to an astounding 120 liters per shekel. But let’s return to the group for the elder is still speaking.)

"It was during the time when the gods of Macedonia warred with the gods of the world and the great king Alexander celebrated the New Year’s Festival in honor of our god Marduk that we suffered greatly, but we survived."

(It is strange that during Alexander’s campaigns against the Persian Empire that barley was more than plentiful. Starting in late September 333 BC the price had fallen to 138 liters per shekel and by November 17, 330 BC, after Alexander had been crowned “King of Babylon, King of Asia, King of the Four Quarters of the World," the price had fallen even further to 150 liters per shekel.)

"We all remember when King Alexander died," the elder concluded…

(Alexander the Great moved to Babylon in the spring of 323 BC and died in Babylon June 2nd of that year. It is interesting to note that between May 12th of 325 BC and June 2nd of 323 BC barley prices were constantly fluctuating between a high of 26 and a low of 46 liters per shekel. However, on June 23, 323 BC just 21 days after Alexander’s death they plummeted to 60 liters per shekel before recovering in the middle of July at 30 liters per shekel.)

"…but do we remember those days when our harvests brought us great wealth?"

(After the death of Alexander the barley prices continued up until January of 322 BC when they reached a high of 12 liters per shekel and remained constant until another high of 7.50 liters per shekel in April of 309 BC.)

"Now my friends we have seen good times and bad times and we have survived so do not fear today’s barley is 56 liters (per shekel)."

No one said a word and now in rapid succession each remaining elder stood and gave the price of their commodity.

"Dates — 60 liters" (per shekel)

"Wool — 2.33 lbs" (per shekel)

"Sesame — 18 liters" (per shekel)

All the prices were low. Lower than most had seen in years. The bad news had been given, now it was time to enjoy friends and family so all retired to the refreshment tables where soon the din of lively conversations and laughter filled the evening air.

Was this what occurred among villages in ancient Babylonia? Probably not. Could it have occurred this way? Yes.

That however, is not the point. The point is these ancient people were not concerned so much with the "price" of their commodity but were more concerned with where the starting point was and what the exchange rate was.

They knew each family needed a standard monthly ration of barley that amounted to 60 liters for an adult male, 30 liters for each adult woman and 10 to 25 liters for each child depending on their age.

You see their money was REAL: it had inherent value. They could eat it, wear it, or trade it for other needed goods or services. As long as they had enough for their family, everything else could be "spent," they just needed to know where to begin the bartering process. Thus the shekel became nothing more than the standard, an example of worth not the absolute value of a product.

They now knew that 56 liters of barley had the same TRADING value as 60 liters of dates, 18 liters of sesame seeds, and 2 1/3 lbs of wool.

History is far too often confined to investigating some goofy ruler, the tactics of a military genius, or how many people were slaughtered in some particular war. History, however, is the story of civilization and its survival of all those insane rulers, wars, and empires. It is the story of human endurance, people who survived because they understood the use of items of exchange, which still have real value.

Will the "civilized" world of today suffer another dark age? How can it not when so many are marching to their doom, enamored with the "modern progressive" myths of civilization and wealth, while being force-fed incoherent history?

It is prideful arrogance that places modern man at the pinnacle of information and achievement while pretending that everything that has gone before somehow is of lesser value. They had the tools for survival, can we say the same?

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

DIGG THIS

"A great manufacturing country is peculiarly exposed to temporary reverses and contingencies, produced by the removal of capital from one employment to another. The demands for the produce of agriculture are uniform; they are not under the influence of fashion, prejudice, or caprice. To sustain life, food is necessary, and the demand for food must continue in all ages, and in all countries."

~ David Ricardo (1772—1823), English Economist

History, if nothing else, is the story of civilizations and their use or abuse of creation. We all intrinsically know it but few have verbalized it.

No matter where we look the first prerequisite for any of mankind’s endeavors is to secure that which is needed from nature’s abundance. There are no exceptions! Civilizations or empires — whether evil or just — rise and fall totally depending on the abundance or scarcity of creation’s bounty.

It is no wonder then that the human priority is for a continuous supply of food, and clothing. For without these necessities every other human desire becomes unthinkable and unachievable.

The majority of civilizations have been dependent on agriculture to supply these needs.

However, to be successful man must obey the immutable — if not inviolable — laws that govern agricultural production, otherwise all his efforts are doomed.

For the purpose of this article we need to understand two such laws; one which governs animal husbandry and the other intrinsic to crop production. Both of these laws have had a profound effect on and an important role in history.

The law of animal husbandry is known as "carrying capacity." It is generally defined as the number of AU’s (Animal Units) a particular piece of land is capable of sustaining over a year (AUY). Horses, sheep, goats, bulls, and mother cows are assigned a number called an animal unit equivalent (AUE) which is based on the daily forage in dry matter consumed by various kinds and classes of animals.

For our discussion say that a particular piece of land is capable of supporting 100 AU’s and those animal units are mother cows with their calves.

This means that the feed, water, and facilities of the land will sustain, unaided, 100 cow/calve pairs for 12 continuous months. Now, for some reason, maybe greed or conquest, we have acquired another 100 cow/calve pairs, doubling our herd to 200 mother cows.

What will happen? You may be thinking that only 100 cows with their calves are going to starve to death but you are wrong. In a herd of 200 cows each individual will eat to satisfy their daily needs every day for 6 months. All 200 cows with their calves will grow fat and look very healthy. Then starting on the seventh month all the feed will be depleted and the WHOLE herd will begin to starve.

It is a simple equation. Instead of the land being able to support the needs of the herd for 12 months we now have a herd consuming twice as much feed thus, the land can only sustain our herd of 200 mother cows for 6 months.

Now, let’s take this one step further using our original herd of 100 mother cows. What happens if our land can sustain 100 mother cows for 12 months under normal conditions but then we are faced with a period of time when it can’t produce the feed we need due to draught or extended winters?

As we have seen, our animals will feed as a unit and consume their daily requirement of feed for as long as the feed is available. After the feed is gone the herd will again starve en masse.

In each case our options are limited. We either have to acquire more land to sustain the herd at its present size or reduce the herd size to a level that the land will support.

Animals have given much to man and civilization but they feed on vegetation and that vegetation comes from seed; which bring us to our second law.

Regardless of what seed you sow there are four environmental requirements for seed germination. These requirements are water, light, oxygen and OPTIMUM soil temperature which is species dependent.

Water, light and oxygen are self-evident, but every farmer will tell you that around planting time, if the weather becomes problematic, between placing the seed in the ground and germination of that seed, it will have a disastrous effect on crop production, which in turn will directly affect the farm’s profit.

Here is why. In the spring when the weather turns nice we all get the urge to be outside: to prepare the garden, start mowing the lawn, or just to bask in the warmth of the spring sun.

Those beautiful warm days are nice but they have little effect on soil temperature and it is soil temperature that is critical to seed germination. Only when the days and nights both stay warm for an extended period of time will the soil temperature start to rise. If the soil temperature is not warm enough for the variety of seed planted, then the seed will often rot in the ground before it has a chance to germinate, resulting in crop failure.

Popular vegetable varieties will suffice as an example:

Variety

Optimum Soil Temperature for Germination

Days to Germinate at Optimum Soil Temperature

Corn

75 to 85 degrees F

7 to 10 days

Pea

65 to 70 degrees F

7 to 14 days

What is immediately apparent is that the soil temperature must remain constant for between one week and two weeks for the seed to germinate. What happens if there is an extended period of cooling resulting in longer winters and shorter growing periods?

This might not be a problem for crops that can be harvested in 60 to 70 days from germination. However, the staple of society, corn, rarely reaches maturity in less than 85 to 120 days after germination.

Then there is barley which reaches maturity 70 to 80 days after germination: spring wheat takes 80 to 90 days: flax which takes 90 to 100 days and soybeans require 105 to 120 days to reach maturity.

If many of these crops cannot be planted until late June or early July harvest cannot take place until late August in the case of some varieties of corn and barley. However, other crops wouldn’t be ready for harvest until the middle of October or the first of November and perhaps not at all due to the colder temperatures encountered with the changing seasons.

It is painfully obvious what the consequence would be on a society as centralized and complex as the United States. Food prices would rise, poverty would increase and starvation on a massive scale could become a frightening reality.

If we look at history we find some very interesting events surrounding temperature change and agriculture during the last years of the Roman Empire.

For much of the history of the Roman Empire, ca. 500 BC until the Empire fell apart just prior to 500 AD the Roman Empire (including England) flourished owing to mild weather conditions. Warm weather allowed grapes and olives to be grown further north, and good rains allowed the Romans to buy abundant crops of grain from across the Mediterranean and in North Africa.

The three most important agricultural products traded in the Roman world — grain, wine and olive oil — were abundant and they created a very wealthy class of merchants. Great care was also taken to secure the routes needed to maintain a constant supply of corn from Egypt and Africa to feed the population of Rome.

However, by the close of the second century AD and early part of the third century, the Empire’s monetary policies were playing havoc with the Empire’s agriculture production. These monetary problems were nothing compared to what transpired when weather became a factor after 235 AD and the end of Severan dynasty.

The period from 235 AD to 284 AD was a half-century of unmatched calamity which nearly brought the Roman Empire crashing down on itself and was the result of constant unrepressed statism which had matured on the corpse of individualism and self-reliance with the passing of the Roman Republic.

The rigidity of the Roman psyche at this time, would not allow anything to exist in Roman territory that didn’t fit the Roman ideal of the Empire’s status quo. So when the Franks, Jutes, and Germanic Alemanni crossed the Rhine River and began to move back onto their ancient lands, and the Vandals, with the Goths, crossed the Danube River settling in the empire’s northeastern providences, there was nothing the Roman State could do but "suppress the uprisings." The question is; were these migrations really uprisings against a failing Roman Empire or was something else the cause of these migrations?

There is a growing body of evidence that suggests the third century AD was the beginning of one of the coldest periods in European history. If the data is correct then it would go a long way toward explaining those migrations from the north that the Romans ineptly called uprisings.

Indeed, temperatures have a complex effect on weather and patterns of rainfall; only a few degrees difference are required to produce dramatic results. We have only to remember the two laws stated above and the events which occurred in Africa in the 1970′s and 1980′s to make the point that disaster can result from even short-term fluctuations in climate patterns.

However, in the case of the Roman Empire during the late third century we have more than a short-term fluctuation in temperature, we have what very well could be described as a calamity of four centuries duration.

Historical evidence points to the fact that those first migrating northern people did not plague the Roman Empire as invading armies but rather as desperate peoples seeking land. It is far more likely that widespread droughts, short growing seasons, storms, and cold weather north of Danube and Rhine Rives resulted in hunger which in turn drove the first northern European peoples south to assault the granaries of the failing Roman Empire.

Migration due to harsh weather conditions could also be the reason such varied peoples as the Attacotti, Franks, Vandals, Alans and the Visigoths (western Goths) were willing partakers in the Roman foederati. These peoples and tribes normally would have been enemies, but since they found life easier because of Roman subsidies, which took the form of money, foods, and eventually even land, were willing to put aside their differences and fight to preserve the Roman Empire.

There is no doubt that the fourth century AD saw the prevailing weather patterns of Europe change for the worse. People of the south watched as their crops failed for the lack of rain while in the north there was too much rain and long cold snowy winters.

Recent studies have confirmed that from about 100 AD until 500 AD the mean temperature in northern China was dropping from 35.2 F° (1.75 C° ) to 32.5 F° (.25 C° ). These changes in the climate of Eurasia appear to have played a major role in the waves of conquering horsemen who rode out of the plains of central Asia into China and Europe called the Huns.

Of the external forces that aided in the disintegration of the Roman Empire we have to place the Huns at the top of the list.

The Huns arrived in southeastern Europe around 370 AD with an army of an estimated 300,000 to 700,000 light cavalry.

We don’t know much about the Huns, prior to their arrival in Europe, but what we do know is that they came from the Eurasian Steppes.

The western Eurasian Steppes are temperate, short grass plains which offer feeding grounds for pastoral animals (such as sheep and goats) and are easy to traverse on horseback. However, being a temperate grassland means it only has two seasons: a growing season and a dormant season. Anytime the weather becomes too cold the grasses go dormant and cease to grow.

The same is true of the eastern steppes of Mongolia and Siberia where grass is less abundant due to the harsher climate.

Here we need to remember the law of "carrying capacity" mentioned earlier. Using very conservative figures for a Hun cavalry along with the goats and sheep to feed and clothe just the army (excluding women and children) would require approximately 3,293,000 tons of feed yearly. Given that this is the steppes and feed would be very limited per acre, even in the best of times, a conservative estimate of the acres needed to supply this army would be 2,634,424 or just over 4,116.25 square miles yearly.

It is easy to understand then that if the weather remained cold for an extended period of time and the grasses of steppes weren’t producing the feed needed, that it wouldn’t be long before the Huns would have to find new grasslands to feed their stock and maintain their standard of living.

Thus as this large group of people began moving south and west they would push weaker groups ahead of them in a domino effect. The net result being that the northwestern providences of the Roman Empire were quickly overrun with migrating peoples. (See Map)

The Roman Empire, which had been built by warfare and sustained by welfare, was now battling the effects of colder weather and it was too much; nothing could save the empire. By the beginning of the fifth century AD as much as one third of the cultivated land which had sustained the empire was lost to trees and deserted fields of abandoned estates left by fleeing wealthy Roman land owners.

In the west, the Roman Empire began to shrink as its borders from the Black Sea to the North Sea were inundated with migrating, fleeing and dislocated peoples due to the continuing advance of the Huns from the northeast.

The result was the Roman Empire of antiquity passed into history.

Both history and science inform us that a warmer planet is beneficial to civilization. Warmer days result in longer growing seasons, and increased rainfall. The greatest benefit of warmer weather comes in milder winters and in springs when there are fewer crop-killing frosts.

However, scientists are now issuing a warning of changing weather patterns that could bring extended a period of colder winters, with shorter summers and even another ice age.

We have just seen that colder weather does not bode well for a warfare/welfare state.

Another Little Ice Age, like the one that subjected Europe and North America to bitterly cold winters from about 1250 to 1850, in today’s societies, would decimate populations through hunger, and disease.

It has happened before and it is a warning that should be heeded.

Disclaimer: No dim-witted politician or spurious give-a-way program was harmed during the writing of this article.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

DIGG THIS

"The so-called Christian virtues of humility, love, charity, personal freedom, the strong prohibitions against violence, murder, stealing, lying, cruelty — all these are washed away by war…"

~ John T. Flynn (1882—1964) American Journalist and Author

Far too often the state is viewed through the eyes of Augustine of Hippo, who defined the state as nothing more than “a multitude of rational creatures associated in common agreement as to the things which it loves” (De Civitate Dei 19. 24). As such the state’s existence is neither moral nor immoral; thus the very concept of governance, by a select few, is cradled in the benign idea that the state is just "worldly."

However, if the state is “worldly” then it is relegated to the temporal and systematically divorced from religion in subject matter, form, or use; a mistake of diabolical proportions.

To the ancient world the state was a logical extension of their religion which was rooted in the idea that there was an evil entity that had taken over man and creation and as such was the enemy of man, while being the cause of all of man’s misery.

To Christians this is no mystery and has its roots in the book of Genesis and the evil genius of Lucifer.

The ancient’s solution to the problem was to make this evil power their gods and goddesses, but to do so meant there had to be a means of intercession between the gods and themselves. This was accomplished by the respective priesthoods delivering the adherents to a priestly King who stood as the mediator between the gods and man. Thus the birth of the state!

It then became the duty of the High priest/King, through sacrifice and ritual, to appease the gods, and in so doing preserve the king’s reign, keep the people from harm, keep foreign enemies at bay and assure good crops and harvests. All of which were the responsibility of the gods when properly worshipped. Have you ever questioned why so many "politicians" frequently use the declaration: "God Bless America?"

You see, every evil that befell the state was attributed to the "gods" not having been honored in the proper way, or being neglected by the head of state. When the Medes/Persians conquered Babylon in 570 BCE, the Persian King, Cyrus, proclaimed:

"… I am Cyrus. King of the world. When I entered Babylon… I did not allow anyone to terrorize the land… I kept in view the needs of people and all its sanctuaries to promote their well-being… I put an end to their misfortune. The Great God has delivered all the lands into my hand; the lands that I have made to dwell in a peaceful habitation…"

So universal was this thinking that as nation/state conquered nation/state, the ruling class would change but rarely would there be any change in the people’s religion. As a matter of fact the acceptance of other’s religions was universally acknowledged. All that was required of the conquered priesthood was to assure the people’s acquiescence to the demands of the new priest-king.

The best evidence of this is in Cyrus’ conquests which eventually brought the Cilicians, the Syrians, the Paphlagonians, the Cappadocians, the Phygians, the Lydians, the Carians, the Phenicians, the Arabians, the Assyrians, the Bactrians, the Sacae, and the Maryandines under Persian rule.

As with the Persians and Greeks, Roman conquests resulted in plunder and were not prosecuted from any religious fervor. The Romans, like all the empires before them, were not interested in persecuting other religions before the 2nd century AD, or proselytizing the worship of Jupiter.

The reason for this universal tolerance of other’s religion was simple. The names of the gods changed but their rituals, symbols, and attributes remained relatively constant as well as being familiar.

However, by the end of the 2nd century AD all this was to change.

After Marcus Aurelius’s death (A.D. 180) Rome was to be ruled by progressively weak Emperors as illustrated by the stupefying cruelty, bloodlust, vanity and megalomania of Commodus.

To add to Rome’s problems the small farms, that had once been the backbone of Rome, were being taken over by large, wealthy estates, sending former owners, workers and slaves scurrying to the cities in hopes of finding work. Agricultural production was further eroded when the irrigation systems were left in disrepair due to the lack of workers. Soil erosion, the by-product of poor farming techniques, over-use and deforestation further exasperated Rome’s food woes.

The lack of harvest, in turn, brought mobs into the streets demanding bread and entertainment to relieve their hunger and dull their minds against the spiraling economic problems the empire faced.

In an effort to keep the empire together the state tried to appease the anger of the mobs with more public welfare and gladiatorial games, all from an exhausted treasury.

With deepening recession, scarcity of food staples and lack of work the population of the empire began to flee Italy. The state reaction was predictable. In 212 AD Caracalla, in his edict Constitutio Antoniniana, extended Roman citizenship to anyone in the empire, with the exception of slaves, thus increasing his tax base.

Not only did the edict Constitutio Antoniniana increase the tax base, it provided an extended base from which military enlistees could be drawn. The expansion of the military was needed because Persia was moving against the empire through ancient Syria. Adding to the emergency, Rome’s northern borders on the Rhine-Danube frontier saw the barbarians still in rebellion.

It was only natural that the Roman people would begin to ask: Why is this happening? Are the ancient gods of Rome angry? Of course the Roman priesthood and elite leadership would answer: Yes, the gods are angry. The problem was who or what had made the gods angry?

The preceding two centuries had seen the rise of a group of people who the Romans called Christians. These people and their religious beliefs had once been deemed a superstition by Pliny the Younger, during the reign of Trajan (98u2014117 AD), but now they had come out from the shadow of Judaism and were seen as a real threat to the Roman Empire.

What the Romans found most distasteful were the Christian beliefs that:

1. They were citizens of Jesus’ Kingdom first and Roman citizens second.
2. They were not to personally seek public office but if it was thrust upon them to serve willingly and honestly.
3. The decaying Roman Empire, like all governments, was the product of the evil one.
4. The state religion was as evil as the Empire.
5. The Emperor was not worthy of being called "god," "lord," "savior," or "king" or to be worshipped in any manner.
6. That military service would put them in opposition to Jesus’ teaching by killing another human (called state murder) and so was to be refused; even under the penalty of death.
7. They didn’t owe Caesar anything including taxes (when they could avoid paying them).
8. The state was not to be the source of their daily bread.
9. They were to deal honestly with all men at all times but especially in their businesses.
10. They were to tell the truth even if meant it cost them their lives.

To these the Romans added:

1. The Christian religion was an illegal religion because it undermined the Roman society and the religious mores of all societies in which Christianity was practiced.
2. Since Christianity didn’t recognize the pagan gods, including the emperor, as god therefore Christians were atheists.
3. Christians were immoral because they meet in secret and were said to practice child cannibalism, incest and obscene sexual rites.
4. Christians were “the enemy of mankind” because they taught against and didn’t hold to Rome’s nor the ancient world’s religious standards.

What the Romans hated and feared most was:

5. The Christians held that killing was wrong and therefore they wouldn’t serve in Rome’s military, thus they were unpatriotic, and traitors to the state.

The results of adhering to the teaching of Jesus was that by the time Decius became Emperor in 249 AD the Christian community was one the wealthiest groups in the whole of the Roman Empire. In fact it was the dominating force in Roman society.

William Marina explains how this occurred.

"…Christianity came to dominate, before its own unfortunate co-optation by the State, because it developed a superior ethic based upon natural law and a superior voluntary social organization which, in true interstices fashion, simply bypassed the inefficient State. The viability of that institutional structure was a reflection of the legitimacy with which its value system came to be regarded…"

"…Christian intersticism dealt with the affairs of this world. In a period of inflation it invested capital in people. In plagues and rioting it was the only group capable of providing burial for the dead and organizing food supplies for the living. Christian philanthropy was supporting 1500 poor and widows in Rome by the year 250(AD) and large sums were contributed to ransom captives from the barbarians. Several generations earlier the State had already confessed its inability to cope with such problems. u2018Plainly, to be a Christian in 250(AD) brought more protection from one’s fellows than to be a civis romanus.’"

The Christian community was not lost on Emperor Decius who was certain that the Empire’s problems were due to the anger of her gods and that their anger was owing to the Christian influences upon Roman society. Thus began one of the greatest persecutions of Christianity in Roman history.

Decius desperately wanted to unite the Empire again under one religion so in 250 AD he ordered that ALL Roman citizens were to worship the old state gods. Failure to do so would result in the penalty of death. At the point of the sword the Roman military began to force everyone into Roman temples to worship ancient gods. In return for bowing to Baal the adherents were given a certificate called a libellus which proved their loyalty to Rome, Rome’s gods, and the Emperor.

Decius’ persecution only lasted a short two years until his death at the hands of the Goths in the providence of Moesia.

Decius’ successors were first Gallus then Valerian both of whom it may be said made a half-hearted attempt to continue Decius’ policies. However, by 257 AD Rome’s financial problems had the Empire staggering like a drunken sailor. It was during this time that Rome did what Rome had always done best and that was to plunder and steal. Thus, Christian wealth and property became the means to make Rome financially healthy and it evidentially worked.

However, what the Christians had lost to Roman thievery in 257 had been regained by the time Diocletian took the specter of power in 284 AD.

The Christians already had a reputation as subversive because they refused to participate in state sacrifices and prayers. After problems at imperial ceremonies, Diocletian purged Christians from civil service and the military in 298. He went after churches and clergy in 303, and decreed in 304 that all Christians were to offer sacrifice to the emperor and the Roman gods on pain of death. This last great persecution of the church by the Roman was spurred on by Diocletian’s heir, Galienus.

The Christians had recovered from the hardships imposed on them by Diocletian when Constantine took the imperial throne in 307 AD. But Constantine was no fool; he knew that he needed the Christian community and its wealth for Rome and his reign to survive. So for the first time in Church history the state legitimatized Christianity and Christianity voluntarily saved the state: all in direct opposition to Christianity’s founding teachings and beliefs.

In the grand tradition of the pagan priesthoods, the Christian hierarchy had delivered it’s adherents into the hands of the state and the results were immediate.

The persecution of the Christians by Diocletian had produced a split in the Christian ranks. The Donatists of Africa were furious with the Christians of Rome who agreed with the pope that the Church should forgive those who had bowed to Diocletian as a god and who had sacrificed to the ancient Roman gods.

These African Christians elected Donatus, who had endured nine rackings during the persecutions, as a rogue bishop of Carthage. Widespread riots broke out when Constantine summoned two councils in 313 and 314 and backed their decisions against the Donatists. Constantine ordered the Donatists suppressed in 314, but gave up the persecution in 321 in frustration. Nothing was going to stop what occurred; Christians were now killing Christians over matters of doctrine.

The final blow came to the original Christian ideals in 380 AD when co-emperors Theodosius of the Eastern Empire and Gratianus of the West issued a joint edict making Christianity the official mandatory state religion.

The metamorphous of Christianity from a religion of peace into a mob of bloodletting goons was complete while in the tradition of their pagan ancestors the state and its perpetual need for war was not endangered again.

If you look closely you will see that the ideas Congressman Paul talks about in many ways closely mirror those adhered to by those Christians of the 1st through 3rd centuries. Is it any wonder then that statists hate Congressman Ron Paul or those of us who support him?

Maybe it’s time we start judging the justness of our ideals not by how many accept them but by how much the state, and its accompanying priesthood hates us. The time to rejoice is when the elite and their mouthpieces in the press slander us.

The lesson of history is clear. If you want to stop war then starve the state, the military and their accompanying religious priesthoods.

"The devil is the author of all war," wrote Justin Martyr (approx. 138 AD) and if we don’t come to our senses quickly we are going to have hell to pay.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

DIGG THIS

“Safety of the state is the highest law.”
~ Roman Emperor Justinian (c. AD 482—565)

"Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?!"
~ Hillary Clinton — From the book The Survivor, by John Harris, p. 382

When you study history it doesn’t take long before you find a particular period, or personages which hold you captive. That doesn’t mean you lose interest in other historical times or the people who shaped world events, rather there is a special time to which you return because it seems to characterize and encapsulate human trials.

For me one such period is the history of the Roman Empire from 325 AD and the rule of Emperor Constantine until Emperor Justinian’s death in 565 AD. It is Emperor Justinian we will briefly discuss in this article.

In discussing Emperor Justinian we need to have a rudimentary understanding of the events that occurred after the death of Emperor Constantine.

With the death of Emperor Constantine, in 337 AD, his maxim of "one ruler, one Empire, one creed" dissolved into the western and eastern empires, with three rulers who were Constantine’s sons, and many creeds both ancient and Christian.

The resulting years of chaos, broken agreements and inept rulers lead to the Huns invading Italy in 452 AD, and the vandals sacking the city of Rome, the second time, in 455 AD. Then in 476 AD, Odoacer, a Roman mercenary and leader of the Germanic soldiers in the Roman army, dethrones the western emperor, 16-year-old Roulus Augustulus, which terminates the western empire.

In 488 AD the eastern Emperor Zeno commissions the Ostrogoths, lead by Theodoric, to retake Italy which he completes in 493 AD. Theodoric is thus made Zeno’s representative in the west which in effect amounted to being the king of Italy.

By 500 AD the city of Rome, that jewel of the empire, was practically deserted, having gone from a population of over 1,000,000 at the height of the empire to now a meager 100,000 occupants, this would further decrease to less than 30,000 by 554 AD. Most of those who had fled Rome had also fled the western empire, settling where they hoped they were free of the increasing taxes, inflation, wars, barbarians, and excesses of those who claimed power.

Those who fled to the east seeking sanctuary under the control of the Eastern empire where now to be treated to a ruler by the name of Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Justiniānus, known to us as Emperor Justinian.

Justinian was the nephew of Emperor Justin, of whom Roman historians say: Justin ascended the throne when "he was an old man on the verge of the grave, and so illiterate that he could neither read nor write: which never before could have been said of a Roman ruler."

As such, "Justin was able to do his subjects neither harm nor good. For he was simple, unable to carry on a conversation or make a speech, and utterly bucolic."

The very incompetence of Justin made Justinian the real power behind the throne until, in 527 AD, Justinian assumed the full power and title of Emperor.

Now, if I were to read to you a modern historian’s comments concerning Justinian’s rule it would likely sound much the same as a FOX reporter fawning over the adulterous, I saved New York on 9-11, Rudy Giuliani.

Yes, as emperor, Justinian codified Roman law into the work called Corpus iuris civilis ("The complete civil law") which laid the foundation of Western law. He most certainly was a great church-builder, the chief memorial of his reign being the church of Hagia Sophia (built in 532—7 AD) in Constantinople, and stands a supreme masterpiece of Byzantine architecture.

However, those accomplishments, along with a few others, are not enough to warrant describing Justinian in angelic terms.

No, if we want to know the real emperor Justinian we must read what historians’ contemporary to Justinian had to say about what they witnessed. One of the best witnesses to the reign of Justinian is Procopius of Caesarea who in his introduction to his work "The Secret History" wrote:

"You see, it was not possible, during the life of certain persons, to write the truth of what they did, as a historian should. If I had, their hordes of spies would have found out about it, and they would have put me to a most horrible death. I could not even trust my nearest relatives. That is why I was compelled to hide the real explanation of many matters glossed over in my previous books."

Ancient historians describe Justinian as being average height — about 5’6 or 7" — plump and not fat with fair facial features and good color. Procopius goes even further and says that Justinian "resembled Domitian, Vespasian’s son."

Now, describing Justinian as resembling Domitian, should remind those who have studied Roman history that Domitian was one of the most hated emperors in Roman history.

Domitian was so hated that upon his death, in 96 AD, the people tore his body into pieces, blotted his name off every public building, destroyed his image wherever it was found, and forced the Senate to decree that the name of Domitian should never be written.

All because Domitian brought the empire to a financial crisis by spending money Rome didn’t have then with sweeping administrative reforms stole the wealth of successful citizens. He also implemented policies which caused runaway inflation, currency problems, and added layers of massive tax and tribute legislation bringing the Roman people to the state of serfdom. Other than that he was a peach of a guy.

However, the history of another emperor shouldn’t be the guiding light by which Justinian is judged so Procopius says of Justinian:

"(B)ut his character was something I could not fully describe. For he was at once villainous and amenable; as people say colloquially, a moron. He was never truthful with anyone, but always guileful in what he said and did, yet easily hoodwinked by any who wanted to deceive him. His nature was an unnatural mixture of folly and wickedness."

"This Emperor…was deceitful, devious, false, hypocritical, two-faced, cruel, skilled in dissembling his thought, never moved to tears by either joy or pain, though he could summon them artfully at will when the occasion demanded, a liar always, not only offhand, but in writing, and when he swore sacred oaths to his subjects in their very hearing. Then he would immediately break his agreements and pledges, like the vilest of slaves, whom indeed only the fear of torture drives to confess their perjury. A faithless friend, he was a treacherous enemy, insane for murder and plunder, quarrelsome and revolutionary, easily led to anything evil, but never willing to listen to good counsel, quick to plan mischief and carry it out, but finding even the hearing of anything good distasteful to his ears."

Justinian’s foreign policy could be written as one of today’s lead stories:

"Without hesitation he wrote decrees for the plundering of countries, sacking of cities, and slavery of whole nations, for no cause whatever. So that if one wished to take all the calamities which had befallen the Romans before this time and weigh them against his crimes, I think it would be found that more men had been murdered by this single man than in all previous history."

Justinian’s domestic policy, concerning personal property, certainly bespeaks a commonality with today’s political thinking and monetary policies.

"He had no scruples about appropriating other people’s property, and did not even think any excuse necessary, legal or illegal, for confiscating what did not belong to him. And when it was his, he was more than ready to squander it in insane display, or give it as an unnecessary bribe to the barbarians. In short, he neither held on to any money himself nor let anyone else keep any: as if his reason were not avarice, but jealousy of those who had riches. Driving all wealth from the country of the Romans in this manner, he became the cause of universal poverty."

Under Justinian religious orders and public officials became common thieves, certainly reminiscent of recent events.

"There remained, while he ruled the Romans, no sure faith in God, no hope in religion, no defense in law, no security in business, no trust in a contract. When his officials were given any affair to handle for him, if they killed many of their victims and robbed the rest, they were looked upon by the Emperor with high favor, and given honorable mention for carrying out so perfectly his instructions."

Nor was the judiciary exempt from the corruption of the state and its leadership.

"Under this reign of violence nothing was stable, but the balance of justice revolved in a circle, inclining to whichever side was able to weight it with the heavier amount of gold. Publicly in the Forum, and under the management of palace officials, the selling of court decisions and legislative actions was carried on."

The above quotes stand as witness that the safety of the state is singularly defined as the sanctioning of murder and theft by the state.

Nor, is it a stretch to say that what occurred at the end of Roman history is also the established norm within the sphere of influence of the United States among all levels of government.

We are now faced with a bevy of presidential candidates who, save one, like Justinian can best be described as resembling "… the silly ass, which follows, only shaking its ears, when one drags it by the bridle." For which one of the candidates, other than Dr. Ron Paul, has even offered a means of rectifying the injustices that occur in the name of the state?

The problem with history is that it is not linear but rather cyclical and the cycle of history is the story of immoral idiots who think they can rectify all social ills by the continued looting of the producers.

It is also the sad fact that bottom feeders always feel they are destined to rule so they pretend to rise above the decaying corpses of history and the muddy sludge of statolatry — their real religion — to try and convince the masses that this time their failed dogma will really change everything.

Just listen to the ramblings coming from this cluster of presidential candidates; each claiming that it is not policy which failed it is only that the right people were not in charge. With the exception of Congressman Paul, each seeks to further the maniacal illusion found in Justinian’s statement: “Safety of the state is the highest law.”

For thousands of years, from every civilization, scribes, teachers, prophets, poets and historians have warned there is a direct correlation between the misery of the people and the pestiferous edicts of those bottom feeders who rule.

We are just beginning to see the quagmire that such malversation in public office can produce. However, it can get worse; much worse for Procopius lived it:

"Of the plundering of property or the murder of men, no weariness ever overtook him (Justinian). As soon as he had looted all the houses of the wealthy, he looked around for others; meanwhile throwing away the spoils of his previous robberies in subsidies to barbarians or senseless building extravagances. And when he had ruined perhaps myriads in this mad looting, he immediately sat down to plan how he could do likewise to others in even greater number… he devoted the full strength of his nature to the ruin of the Romans, and succeeded in razing the state to its foundation. For his constant wakefulness, his privations and his labors were undergone for no other reason than to contrive each day ever more exaggerated calamities for his people. For he was, as I said, unusually keen at inventing and quick at accomplishing unholy acts, so that even the good in him transpired to be answerable for the downfall of his subjects."

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

DIGG THIS

"There are many things the government can’t do, many good purposes it must renounce. It must leave them to the enterprise of others. It cannot feed the people. It cannot enrich the people. It cannot teach the people. It cannot convert the people."

~ Lord Acton (1834—1902)

In the west, as a general rule, the harvest is in. Millions of tons of cereal grains, carrots, beans, peas, corn, beets, sugar beets, squash, fruits, nuts along with various other produce have been delivered to the granaries, processing plants, and packing plants.

Those of us that are lucky to be associated with agriculture have seen sunrises which dazzled the eyes, worked under a sun whose heat was unrelenting and unforgiving, enjoyed sunsets which left us speechless, and continued to work under a moon so bright that artificial lights were rendered useless.

We have spent hundreds of man-hours pulling semi-trucks, loaded to over 100,000 pounds, from wet fields, out of unseen depressions or down rain-soaked mud roads. Even more man-hours have been spent up to our elbows in hydraulic fluid trying to find that small hole in the lines or replacing pumps, fittings, and couplings which failed. Then there were the hours being covered in grease, from head to toe, working to replace that broken 20-dollar part — you know the part that NEVER fails but just did — which rendered a half million dollars worth of machinery unusable; all the while wondering about the sanity of the engineer who designed the system and why anyone in their right mind would place that little part in such an inaccessible place!

Along the way we have seen the ducks and geese begin their migrations and watched as they started to return, landing once again in harvested fields to glean what was dropped or left behind. Some have had the long hours rewarded with the sighting of herds of elk, deer in abundance, cougars, bear, coyote, mountain sheep, mountain goats and the occasional wolf.

Although the hours have been long and work continued for weeks without a day off, there have been moments of unbridled humor and times of heart-rending sorrow. After cautiously passing a lady who had retrieved her errant mule and was slowly taking the animal home tied to the mirror of her pickup, one trucker was heard to quip: "Well that is one way to get your ass down the road!"

Others who were new to the agriculture industry have learned: that a truck driver never forgets to turn off his turn signal, he is just moving electrons from one side of the truck to the other to balance the truck and load; "back hauling a load of motorcycle doors" only denotes that the truck and trailers are returning to the fields empty; a late night rendezvous with the back of a combine to "water the tire" has nothing to do with adding water to the tires; and when "on the scales with thousands and thousands of little orange things that follow you everywhere you go" suggests only that you are on the scales with 30-plus tons of carrots.

Through it all the ledger sheet has never been far from anyone’s thoughts. We have watched as the cost of diesel has steadily risen from $2.89 to $3.71 during the season, a staggering increase of 78%. This price increase added to the ineptness of state road construction techniques causing pass closures; the foolish policies that emanate from BLM and the maudlin sentiments of the Federal landlord which enervate our forests forcing road closures as forest fires ran out of control; then just the quirks of nature have increased by thousands of miles the distance trucks had to cover to deliver the product, adding thousands of dollars to the cost of the harvest and eventually to the price the consumer will pay to eat.

What is most disturbing is the continuing mantra that there are worldwide shortages in crude oil which are driving the price of oil towards uncharted territory when the real culprit is the flood of money the Fed continues to pour into a failing economy. An act which in and of itself is malum in se and will result in our loss of buying power due to hyperinflation.

As the American economy approaches the abyss of hyperinflation it is strangely reminiscent of the economy in ancient Rome as it spun out of control. The results of all criminal economic policies are purely predictable but they are generally ignored.

Rome, like the US, was in decline so it began a process of devaluing the denarius. In a short period of time the once pure silver coin became a mixture of silver and copper. With this came the rising prices due to inflation while wages started to stagnate and the privileges of freedom and what it meant to be a citizen of Rome continued to evaporate.

Emperor Trajan had already instituted a program called alimenta to try and save the Roman economy. Alimenta used public funds to subsidize education along with food for Rome’s needy. It was funded by wealthy landowners who pledged portions of their estates as collateral for government loans. The interest these landowners paid to Rome on their loans funded the alimenta.

As emperors came and went the empire continued its free fall and by 284 AD the denarius was solid copper, the gladiatorial games were being offered for more than 150 days out of the year, and food had become a “right,” supplied by the state, for the Roman citizenry.

Nothing any emperor tried would save the Roman economy; the die was cast and the Roman Empire was doomed.

However, this is not the end of the story. As the empire continued its decline the common people went about their daily routines. The crops were planted and then harvested, business were started and then failed.

Families strived to pay their rents or mortgage, clothe and educate their children, pay their bills, and put food on the table. With few exceptions the desires and daily routines of the Roman people were pretty much the same as we experience today. No, they didn’t have "modern" means of travel, or harvesting crops that we employ, but they did enjoy the gifts that nature offered and they too experienced the hum-drum of their daily routines.

They too laughed, cried, and labored to keep machinery working. They also looked at creation with wonder and joy.

That is until the day came when the common Roman could no longer afford a daily meal.

You see the crops have been harvested this year but the real questions remain. How long will the American public be able to buy the food they have come to expect and need? How long will they accept the criminal actions of those few which doom their futures, life styles and literally take the food out of mouths of their children? Most importantly was this the last harvest that will feed a once great nation?

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

DIGG THIS

"Coercion cannot but result in chaos in the end."
~ Mahatma Gandhi (1869—1948)

While watching President Bush’s January 11th "Surge Speech" I bristled when he emphasized himself in his statement: "The situation in Iraq is unacceptable to the American people — and it is unacceptable to me." However, by the end of his diatribe I was sure that George Bush no longer thought of himself in any terms other than those of a god.

Indeed, my suspicion seems to be confirmed when just today (January 15, 2007) George Bush decreed that he is going to send more troops to Iraq regardless of Congress,’ or for that matter, the American public’s insistence otherwise.

Observing President Bush, as the false god of state, bumble foreign affairs, devastate economies, feign the security of nations, preach his canard of freedom, ululate the canon of democracy, and mock moral law with the shameless torridity of a street prostitute, one has to wonder if the American empire isn’t about to revisit the chaos that accompanied Rome in the 3rd century AD.

Certainly, there are some parallels to be drawn between Rome in the 3rd century and what has occurred or is on America’s horizon.

Beginning in about 235 AD and lasting for about 50 years, Rome was racked with a failing economy which quite literally brought Rome to the brink of extinction. This was partly due to the excesses of emperors of the first and second century and the resulting inflation: by now what had once been "silver" coins were for all intense and purpose entirely bronze.

However, natural disasters soon added to the empire’s misery. Earthquakes left whole regions of the empire unproductive and in some cases uninhabited. Following the devastation of the earthquakes were plagues which resulted in disease. A further result of these plagues was that the foundation of society, agriculture, collapsed bringing on famine. With the people no longer able to buy or grow food, food riots resulted, and the army was no longer paid.

Adding to the Rome’s despair, in the northwest, the Franks, Jutes, and Germanic Alemanni crossed the Rhine River and began taking back their ancient lands. In the mean time the pressure continued from the Vandal and Goths who invaded the empire from the Danube River in the empire’s northeastern providences. However, the greatest and most present threat to Rome was from the east and the ancient empire of the Persians.

As the Roman legions began to suffer, they mirrored the people’s frustration concerning the impotence of the state to "solve" the empire’s problems. This grew into massive unrest among the Roman military and ushered in a group of Roman emperors known as the "Barrack emperors."

From late 235 AD until Diocletian took the title of emperor, November 20, 284 AD, Rome saw at least 23 emperors rise and fall. Of these flash-in-the-pan emperors, 13 were murdered, mostly by their own troops; 4 died in combat; 1 committed suicide; 2 died of natural causes including the plague; 1 died of unknown causes; 1 was struck by lightning; and 1 died a prisoner of the Persians.

Valerian on coin

It is the emperor, Valerian, who died as a Persian prisoner that has some relevancy to George Bush’s ambitions of empire and his much vaunted "war on terror."

Like GW, Valerian was born into privilege and social status as a member of an old Roman senatorial family. Also, as with GW, Valerian made his name via family ties with the state and his appointment to government positions.

However, unlike GW, Valerian in 253 AD was commanding legions in Raetia [the Roman province that included present-day eastern Switzerland and western Austria] and Noricum [the Roman Empire south of the Danube River in present-day Austria west of Vienna] when he was ordered to bring his troops to Italy for a fight against the forces of Emperor Aemilianus.

The whole argument was somewhat analogous to the hanging chad problem GW had in 2000 but instead of the problem being "settled" by legions of lawyers, and a decree of a supreme court, the Roman’s during this period counted military legions and hanging swords. There wasn’t a fight. The decree of supremacy came from the point of a sword. Thus, Emperor Aemilianus’ troops murdered him when they saw they could not defeat Valerian and his legions.

As a side note don’t think for one moment that the 2000 court cases between Bush and Gore weren’t about who could muster enough federal and state weapons to become president. Not much has really changed in the affairs of "choosing" which denizen of the fiery abyss will be elevated to a position of leadership.

Having killed their commander, Aemilianus’ legions joined Valerian’s forces and together they crowned Valerian as Rome’s newest emperor.

Weak and irresolute, Valerian’s abilities were unequal to the difficulties Rome faced at this critical time. Like GW, Valerian saw the world in black and white, holding a civilized or barbarian view of all those who were either Roman or not. Thus, while the Persian threat was minimal to Rome, the fact that more barbarians were infringing on the Roman world was not to be tolerated.

Valerian undoubtedly saw the threat to Rome’s empire being from his "axis of evil" with, like GW, the kingpin being that great boogeyman Persia the same as GW’s Iran.

As mentioned earlier, the Persians were more than a little fed-up with the Roman occupation of ancient Persian lands and since about 252 AD they had made insurgencies into Roman territory having conquered and plundered Antioch in Syria in either 253 or 256 AD.

Valerian saw his answer in a troop surge that was designed to stop this blatant disregard for civilization and to free the world of barbaric acts of terrorism. So Valerian marshaled his army but unlike GW, Valerian led his armies eastward to fight the last dynasty of Persian kings, the Sassanid.

Initially Valerian’s armies met with success, even recapturing some of the lost Syrian provinces. With his success Valerian saw a chance to finally solve his "eastern" problem once and for all, so he marched to Carrhae [the ancient Mesopotamian city of Haran] and Edessa where he hoped to defeat the Persian army under the command of King Shapur I.

While history doesn’t give us a record of the battle we do know the following. In 259 AD, Valerian’s army numbered 70,000 including the elite Praetorian Guard. This superior Roman force was facing a Persian force of nearly half its size of about 40,000 Persians led by King Shapur I.

When the fight was over the Romans had suffered heavy losses including the capture of the Roman Emperor, and a host of high-ranking Roman officials. It was a humiliation the like of which Rome would not see again until Rome was sacked by the Goths towards the end of the 5th century AD.

Emperor Valerian had sealed his fate with a war against the Persians. His armies decimated, the once proud Pontiff Maximus of Rome was reduced to serving as a foot-stool for the king of Persia as he mounted his horse. Upon his death this Roman "god" was used to further humiliate Rome, for Lactantius says that Valerian was skinned, then stuffed with manure to produce a trophy which hung in a Persian temple as an example of Roman submission.

Will a failing economy, further adventures in Iraq, weather, and natural disasters bring the American empire to its knees with chaos on the magnitude that ancient Rome experienced?

It is certainly a possibility given recent history and the folly of our "leadership." There is certainly a strong probability that this "surge" of troops the President will insert into the Iraq debacle will exacerbate the unrest of the American population and very well could be the catalyst for a war with Iran.

In his recent article Paul Craig Roberts makes a chilling analysis of the President’s sending more troops to Iraq. He states: "If Bush is unable to orchestrate war with Iran directly, he will orchestrate war indirectly by having US troops attack Iraqi Shi’ite militias. Bush has already given orders for US troops to attack the Iraqi Shi’ite militias, who oppose the Sunnis and have not been part of the insurgency. Obviously, once Bush can get US troops in open warfare with Iraqi Shi’ites, the situation for US troops in Iraq will quickly go down hill. Bush will be able to blame Iranian Shi’ites for arming Iraqi Shi’ites that he can say are killing US troops."

I pray Mr. Roberts is wrong but I fear he is correct.

Of two things we may be certain.

First, President Bush although much younger will never have the backbone that the 69-year-old Emperor Valerian had when he accompanied his troops to fight the Persians.

Second, as long as the state continues to coerce, manipulate, force, bully, or intimidate peoples we will stand on the razor edge that separates social chaos from social order.

The only question left is what will tip the scales and plunge the American society into chaos?

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

DIGG THIS

"How can anyone, finding himself surrounded by a rising tide of evil, fail to do his utmost to fight against it?"

~ "On Resisting Evil" by Murray N. Rothbard

I suppose anyone who has exposed their thoughts, beliefs, knowledge or common sense, concerning the evils of the state, in the public arena, has been subjected to accusations of treason and heresy by more than a few in the readership. Given the present political and religious climate I am sure this is especially true of those who write for Lew Rockwell.com.

I don’t have to imagine what venomous email awaits Lew Rockwell, Karen Kwiatkowski, Butler Shaffer, Gray North, Laurence M. Vance or a host of others who dare to show that the state, with its declarations of inviolate legitimacy, is nothing more than a profane, temporal delusion foisted on a weak-minded and terrified general population.

What dismays me is how those who declare any resistance to the illegal, immoral acts of the state are so quickly labeled, "traitor", while the very act of supporting the state, either on religious or political grounds, is in itself a supremely decadent choice. Indeed, it is the most depraved, reprobate and vicious decision one can make against his neighbors and family.

We have a wonderful example of this dichotomy that comes to us from Roman history.

The year is 9 AD; Rome is firmly in the grip of Augustus Caesar and has been for almost 36 years. The Roman Empire is in full bloom but its wealth relies almost totally on the military and its campaigns against the "barbarians" on Rome’s frontiers.

With Augustus, the ancient Roman law of treason had been distorted from the tried and true idea of high crimes against the Roman public or as Tacitus says, "[when] the majesty of the Roman people was debased," to anything that threatened the emperor or which the emperor deemed on a whim to be a threat.

So complete was the bastardizing of the law of treason that Tacitus writes:

"In that sense of this law the Emperors were the criminals; they who had enslaved the Senate and people, usurped and destroyed the state. But they had got the power of interpreting laws, or of directing those who did, and consequently became the law-makers. As laws observed had defended liberty; laws wrested secured the usurpers. Hence the old law of treason was degraded and perverted to involve in its penalties the authors of Lampoons and Pasquinades… In truth, Augustus could have no other view in this, than the suppressing of that freedom of speech which was an effect of the freedom of the ancient government, and inconsistent with his usurpation."

If redefining the law of treason to include words had a chilling effect on a Roman’s right of self-expression, it was nothing compared to how the law was used next.

Tacitus again explains: "The deification of Augustus and his usurping even in his life-time the attributes and prerogatives of a deity, was another snare for power and crimes. Henceforth every offence offered to this new deity was high treason against the gods; for he was a god as well as the best of them, and indeed more to be dreaded than all of them. It became a high crime to swear falsely by his name, the same as if the name of Jupiter had been falsified; nay, to sell his Statue in the sale of a house or gardens; and the citizens of Cyzicus, notwithstanding their faithful adherence and strenuous services to the Romans in the Mithridatic War, were bereft of their freedom for neglecting the worship of the deified Augustus… Varilia, in the opinion of Tiberius, deserved to be condemned, if she had uttered aught irreligiously concerning the deified Augustus; for this was treason and blasphemy. Such was the awe and reverence paid to this fresh Deity; and such care had he taken to tie up the tongues of men from censuring him living or dead; he was instar omnium deorum, (the image and equal of every one of the gods); you might say what you would of other gods, but beware of injuring a deified Emperor. He had done more mischief, committed higher oppressions, spilt more human blood than all the men in the world, and was made a Deity!"

On the northern frontier an act of treason against Rome was playing out in a more direct and traditional manner.

Publius Quintilius Varus

The XVII, XVIII, and XIX Roman legions along with six cohorts and three squadrons of cavalry under the command of Publius Quintilius Varus were prepared to "keep the peace" among the Germanic tribes. However, more importantly, this Roman force was to see to it that those Germanic tribes East of the Rhine paid the taxes due Rome for Roman protection.

Varus had been governor of Syria and it is said that when he became Syria’s governor he was a pauper but by the time he became governor of Germania he was a very wealthy man.

Varus undoubtedly felt that what had worked in Syria would also work in Germania east of the Rhine. But first he had to drive these pesky German tribes into towns and villages where they could be more easily controlled but more importantly taxes could be almost effortlessly collected.

The results of this policy lead to the killing of Roman tax collectors by the Germanic tribesmen.

What Varus was up against were a people which had a long history of independence and they saw no reason to sacrifice their freedom or wealth on Rome’s altar.

More importantly the German Cherusci tribes which inhabited the northern Rhine valley along the plains and forests of northwestern Germany (between modern Osnabrück and Hanover) had a long history and well developed system of trade. There is even evidence that they had long traded with Rome.

Like so many of the ancient people of Europe we now know that the European people, which the Roman’s called barbarians, were not the backward, ignorant, dirty people that the Romans had presented them to be. Rather they were every bit as cultured, civilized and capable as the Romans and in some ways more so. They traded in metals, in particular, iron, gold and copper and many say that the iron work of the Europeans rivaled that of any culture and was superior to most.

It was not the desire to "civilize" the barbarian that brought Rome’s army to the homeland of neither the Germanic tribes, nor any other of the European peoples Rome had conquered. Rather, it was the wealth these people had accumulated through trade that Rome sought and needed to feed the beast of empire.

Thus, Publius Quintilius Varus was intent not to just feed the coffers of Rome but to also line his own pockets with a portion of all the riches which were just east of the Rhine River waiting to be taken. After all, no one could oppose the will of Rome and Varus represented Rome.

All that stood in Varus’ way was a 27 year old German whom the Romans had educated and named Arminius (a name that is commonly accepted to mean “hammer” in Latin).

Arminius’ early career was typical of those who had been sent to Rome to be "civilized." He had served in the Roman army from 1 to 6 AD; he had studied Roman military techniques, and for his loyalty to Rome had earned Roman citizenship.

However, on Arminius’ return to Germania, in 7 AD, he found his people oppressed, angry, and suffering under the inept governorship of Rome’s representative: Publius Quintilius Varus.

It must have been an anguishing time for Arminius. Here he was a new Roman citizen who had swore allegiance not only to Rome but also to Rome’s emperor; Augustus Caesar. Yet, here were his people suffering and about to be crushed under the weight of Rome’s military might.

He had to have known that any decision he made would be an act of treason; he knew Roman law. The question that Arminius must have grappled with was to whom would he be loyal and to whom would he be a traitor? On the one hand were his friends, family and heritage and on the other was the greatest power the world had, to that time, known.

We don’t know what occurred in Arminius’ life between 7 AD and 9 AD but one thing we do know is that by the late summer of 9 AD he made his decision and it was in favor of his family, friends, and heritage.

Thus, Arminius used his military knowledge, and leadership skills to gather a formable force to oppose the Romans.

His plan was simple. He reported to Varus that there were a number of uprisings by the Germanic tribes that needed Varus’ immediate attention before the insurrection spread. Arminius pledged his loyalty and that of his Cherusci allies to help Varus round up and put to the sword those barbarian trouble makers. Varus had no reason to doubt this Romanized Germanic prince and commander of an auxiliary cavalry unit.

However, Arminius claimed that he could not join Varus’ legions until they had enlisted the help of additional Cherusci warriors. This was the truth and exactly what Arminius did. For three days as the Roman legions marched deeper and deeper into enemy territory the Cherusci and their allies used classic guerrilla tactics making hit and run raids on the advancing Roman columns.

When the Romans finally arrived at what is known as the Teutoburger Wald they fell into Arminius’ ambush. Although Arminius and his troops were out numbered he had chosen his battlefield terrain well and this more than compensated for the superior numbers of the Roman legions.

It took three days of horrific fighting and when it was over almost 20,000 Roman troops lay rotting in the bogs and woods of Germany. The Roman dead of XVII, XVIII, and XIX Roman legions along with the six cohorts and three squadrons of cavalry represent 1/10th of Rome’s military foreign policy.

On the third day when Varus saw that defeat was certain and he took his own life. The victors cut off his head and sent it to Rome as a warning. Augustus had it buried in his family mausoleum.

So great was the Roman defeat that it shook the very pillars of Roman society. The Roman historian Suetonius in his classical work The Twelve Caesars reports that when Augustus heard the news he flew into a deep depression and beating his head against a wall wailed, “Quintili Vare, legiones redde!” (‘Quintilius Varus, give me back my legions!’).

All should be aware that the U.S. Empire has implemented laws that could, and eventually will, be used against all those who are seen as unfaithful to the new agenda. The only question left to answer is: What degree of disloyalty will be tolerated?

Too often there are hidden meaning to words that are used by officials who fear that the consent of the population will not always be there to sustain them. It is already clear what the Federal government is planning for those who are not deemed sufficiently loyal to their criminal programs and the solution is very expensive.

Empire requires more and more revenue and like Rome it won’t be long before there is no appreciable difference between the military and the tax collector. All that is needed is an excuse which is germinated by the right "peace time crises."

What is not often seen is that behind the expansion of the state and the jubilant shouts of nationalism there is produced a fifth column of criminals. Rome said they controlled the world but they could not keep their own streets safe.

So it is with the U.S. Empire. As the state has grown in power the streets have become less and less safe. Ask yourself why it is that the terror that so many live with in our cities is never the focus of those who profess to be waging a war on terrorism.

I won’t presume to speak for others but if speaking out is to be labeled traitorous by the state then perhaps the title is a badge of honor. It is far preferable than to have to live with the shame of cowardliness resulting from silence, which is married to the knowledge of betrayal and destruction of all that is held dear.

Arminius, clearly understanding the dilemma in speaking out against Segestes, also a noble of the Germanic tribe of the Cherusci, who favored peace with, and the lordship of Rome, said in part: u201C…Other nations, unacquainted with the domination of Rome, had neither felt her punishments nor known her extortions…If they loved their country, their parents, their ancient ways, better than despots and new colonies, then let them follow Arminius to glory and freedom rather Segestes to shame and slavery!u201D

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D

~ Sir Isaiah Berlin (1909—1997)

I suppose the recent reports showing that less than 2 out of 5 of America’s young adults (ages 18—24) are capable of locating Iraq on an unlabeled map of the Middle East, shouldn’t be too surprising. However, it should become alarming when the same study shows only 1 out of 4 young adults is able to find either Iran or Israel on the same map, while only slightly more than 1 out of 10 can properly identify Afghanistan.

The results of the study caused John Fahey, president of the National Geographic Society to reason: “I’m not sure how important it is that young adults can find Afghanistan on a map. But … that is symptomatic of the bigger issue, and that’s (U.S. young adults) not having a sense that things around the world really matter that much.”

Indeed the study confirmed John Fahey’s darkest suspicion for a nearly 1 out of 5 respondents said it was "not important" to know where countries in the news are located.

Moreover, earlier studies have shown a full 50 percent of students at four-year schools and more than 75 percent at two-year colleges lacked the skills to perform complex literacy tasks. Meaning, as the report concludes, students "could not interpret a table about exercise and blood pressure, understand the arguments of newspaper editorials, compare credit card offers with different interest rates and annual fees, or summarize results of a survey about parental involvement in school."

Less than 1 in 5 students attending a four-year college have basic quantitative or qualitative skills. As an example the students were incapable of estimating if their automobile had enough gas to get to the next fuel station.

However, it gets worse; of students attending a two-year college less that 1 in 3 had basic math skills. Thus for over 2/3 of students Algebra I, Algebra II, Trigonometry and counting out change properly will be forever a mystery only to be equaled by the phases of the moon.

Given the above information it is too much to hope that history with its warnings will be learned or heeded.

Now the reasons for this appalling display of ignorance are many and varied and I am sure there are those far more qualified to address the causes than I. That is not the subject of this article.

What I wish to address is the historical perspective of the coming dark ages.

Too often we miss that history is an aggregate of its parts and so we think of history as a linear progression rather that what it really is: that being a cyclical event.

Linear progression was recently expressed in an email to me this way: “No, no no! It’s CAVE man to CLEVER man. And you and I are the peak of evolution — clever man and woman. You and I are so much cleverer than our ancestors.”

We live in a world of cycles. No one disputes the lunar cycles, yearly solar cycle which we divide into spring, summer, fall and winter or even the cycle of life from birth to death. Our ladies during their childbearing years go through a monthly cycle preparing them for reproduction of the species and motherhood. Even empires are not exempt from the historical cycle leading to their demise.

Yet somehow when we think of modern man we think that he is the result of a linear sequence from the primitive state to the latest and greatest modern model.

Maybe history has another lesson.

No matter how you think man came into being there two unassailable facts and these are that civilization appears suddenly, lacking any slow but steady development and furthermore the deeper archeologists dig the more advanced the civilizations become.

Zecharia Sitchin, in his work The Twelfth Planet points out that these facts are elucidated by such eminent and illustrious archeologists as "H. Frankfort (Tell Uqair) [who] called it u2018astonishing.’ Pierre Amiet (Elam) termed it u2018extraordinary.’ A. Parrot (Sumer) described it as u2018a flame which blazed up so suddenly.’ Leo Oppenheim (Ancient Mesopotamia) stressed u2018the astonishingly short period’ within which the civilization had arisen. Joseph Campbell (The Masks of God) summed it up this way: u2018With stunning abruptness . . . there appears in this little Sumerian mud garden . . . the whole cultural syndrome that has since constituted the germinal unit of all the high civilizations of the world.’"

It should not be surprising then that the Mayan calendar begins at approximately the same time (ca. 3000 B.C.) as the emergence of the Egyptian, Sumerian, Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro, the great centers of the Indus Valley civilization, Central America, and other centers worldwide including China and North America.

As I have discussed before something occurred quickly and without warning early during the third millennium B.C. which had the earmarks of a nuclear holocaust, having left little time for the survivors to do anything but take what they could and moved away from many of these early centers of civilization.

Whatever form this catastrophic event took one thing is for certain; the destruction of these great empires and centers of civilization took with it the advanced technical knowledge of the ancient world. In so doing the outlying centers were no longer able to continue without the specialized knowledge of the applied arts and sciences which had emanated from the destroyed support centers.

The loss of these ancient centers can only be described as the first technical dark-age.

So great was the loss that objects, including oral traditions or written records from the period of the 2500 BC found in the 19th century AD, were left unclassified or relegated to the realm of myth until the 20th century when they were finally identified. In some cases modern man has just recently pulled the written information of these ancient people from the clutches of myth and fantasy. In many areas modern man has been stunned by their advancements and accuracy.

One such loss is described in the written records from India which speak of a "gem" that would illuminate the body and so reveal the nature of the malady. In China records tell of a "precious mirror that illuminates the bones of the body.” This mirror was rectangular (4 by 5-3/4 feet) and gave off a strange light on both sides. The view of the organs of the body that the mirror gave could not be obstructed by any obstacle.

If man is anything he is resilient and it was not long before those who had survived the great conflagration of the third millennium were again establishing magnificent centers of civilization but in a greatly diminished capacity. They became the founders of the earliest known centers of agriculture in northeastern China, southeastern Asia, northeastern Mexico, Peru and Venezuela.

It is during the time from the catastrophe of the 3rd Millennium until 1100 BC that we see the rise of the most ancient Egyptian civilization along with the Hittites of modern Turkey and central Asia, Sumerians, Chaldeans, Minoans, Mycenaeans and the Phrygians; the culture of Troy and the Trojans.

Achilles bandages the arm of his friend Patroclus.

During this era the ancient poets write of the great personages of antiquity such as Heracles (Roman Hercules) the supposed ruler of Mycenae, Midas the great king of Phrygia; who befriended Silenus, the oldest of the satyrs, causing Dionysus to grant him the power to turn everything he touched into gold. Then there is Achilles the hero of Homer’s Iliad, and Paris of Troy who loved Helen. It is during this epoch of history that King Hammurabi wrote what are thought to be the earliest known examples of written social laws.

It is a time marked by some of the most stunning art and breath-taking architecture which speaks to the human brilliance and love of beauty.

However, this period is also marked by brutal wars with a continuing display of man’s inhumanity to man. All of which culminate with the 10-year Trojan War and the invasion of the Dorians into Greece.

It is after Troy was conquered (ca. 1200 BC) that archeology shows the civilizations of the eastern Mediterranean also collapsed. The magnificent cities and palaces of the Myceneans were destroyed or abandoned along with the Hittite civilization.

All this ushered in what is known, by historians, as the Greek dark ages; a period lasting from about 1100 BC to 800 BC.

A technical darkness began to settle over the Mediterranean area as the Greek language ceased to be written. Once beautifully decorated pottery was now adorned with simple dull geometric designs lacking imagination.

People of the Mediterranean ceased to live in large cities and began to gather in small settlements suggesting widespread famine and depopulation. All indications are that international trade came to an abrupt end or at least was substantially reduced.

In time kings began to rule little fiefdoms which gave way to aristocracies as families sought to prove their linage through the bloodlines of those heroes of the Trojan War or the god men of an even earlier period.

With the rediscovery of iron, warfare moved from the expensive cavalry to the cheaper and more numerous infantry. Thus minor warlords were able to amass great armies and establish the empires of the new epoch.

These empires are generally agreed to be the Babylonian empire (625 BC to 538 BC), the empire of the Mede-Persians (559 BC to 333 BC) followed by the Greeks (332 BC to around 100 BC) and finally the Roman Empire (100 BC to 500 AD).

With the fall of Rome, man was once again thrust into an era of ignorance, superstition, and social chaos lasting for nearly 500 years.

History, as cyclical event, suggests that every 1500 to 1600 years there needs to be a cleansing of man’s folly and his admiration of the state and empire. Do these dark ages affect all mankind throughout the world? Probably, but to a greater or lesser degree the further a society is from the epicenter of the empire(s).

It may or may not be significant that the Mayan calendar says the world will end in 2012/13 and just over 1500 years after the fall of Rome. Did they mean the physical world or the end of another of man’s eras? Time will tell.

What is meaningful is that the present empire state with its invasion of rights, the free market and schooling, seems to have given us a leg up on the probability of another Dark Age, in that "most young people were able to locate a port city on a fictitious map, but one-third would have gone in the wrong direction in the event of an evacuation." It is not unexpected then to see history pointing to man’s unnatural lust for empire as having been the wrong direction since the beginning of recorded time.

Tim Case [send him mail] is a 30-year student of the ancient histories who agrees with the first-century stoic Epictetus on this one point: u201COnly the educated are free.u201D