Beware The Co-Opt

My good friend Gray Kane has made a typically insightful observation about the ways in which mainstream forces co-opt and de-fuse rebelliousness via popular entertainment, notably film (e.g., Fight Club) and television (e.g., Ultimate Fighting).

This phenomenon occurs in the narrow political realm as well, most often by way of elections that offer the illusion of choice among pre-selected candidates and that lead people to think real change can be had by plodding to the polls to "throw the bums out." Political news strives to whet our appetites for this sham by mimicking the theatrical devices of Hollywood to manufacture an aura of excitement, intrigue, and solemnity -- not about any important questions concerning the role of government, mind you, but rather about the piddling details of the candidates' lives and mannerisms. As I've mentioned before, a prominent example of the electoral co-opt is playing out with the candidacy of Ron Paul, a decent but misguided man who clings to the belief that the Tumor can be made "better" with the advent of a single officeholder. Ron Paul's followers comprise an otherwise constructive group of free-thinkers whose awesome potential the system is gleefully gobbling up.

But even the time-tested ruse of elections is beginning to fray at the edges as more and more people announce a fundamental loss of faith in the system. While this certainly counts as a good thing, we must keep alert to the parlor tricks that the system will surely deploy to co-opt and de-fuse this growing discontent.

Chief among the system's emergency countermeasures -- and the most dangerous one imaginable -- is a Constitutional Convention, which the more "daring" thinkers such as author Gore Vidal and political-science professor Larry Sabato portray as a way out of America's multiplying woes. What makes this solution sinister is that modern political thinkers are, quite frankly, intellectual misfits unworthy to blacken the Founders' boots. Not one of today's luminaries believes in limited government; to a man they call for increasing the worst aspects of mobocracy and destroying what little remains of our unique heritage. Proposed revisions of the Constitution drive a stake through the heart of the already anemic doctrine of enumerated powers, not to mention that they strip the States even further of their presumptive, internal authority that the Supreme Court has already been urinating on for all living memory. Besides, even assuming that a modern political convocation could muster anything other than an affront to individual rights and dignity, there is absolutely no reason to suspect that a newly-hatched government would confine itself to its legal boundaries.

A milder version of systemic reform is the constitutional amendment process, which suffers the same defects albeit on a smaller scale. All three branches of the Tumor have already distorted and disregarded the Constitution out of existence, rendering amendments the equivalent of placing jewelry on a corpse.

The inescapable truth is that modern man has spurned the acquired wisdom of his ancestors as to the inherent flaws and limitations in human nature, and he has therefore become throughly infantilized -- in other words, incapable of rational self-government. No reservoir of erudition or moral authority remains among us to restrain the base impulses of democracy run amok, with its insatiable appetite for plundering, re-distributing, and commandeering the path towards a planned Heaven on Earth that will produce only Hell. If we truly wish to preserve liberty and justice, we must scatter the matches of political power so that the infants who govern us cannot unite to start a bonfire. Large centers of power are fracturing around the world and giving birth to more nation-states than ever witnessed, and if we pursue the same objective here, the resulting multitude of competing sovereignties will serve as the best bet for our futures. If you're not sure what such an effort might specifically entail, take a look here.

In short, beware the co-opt.

Parable

As I clean the house after a wonderful Thanksgiving reunion and begin decorating for our first Christmas here, my mind turns to that biblical device of instruction known as the "parable," or a fictional story that conveys a deeper truth. It is an inescapable fact that most humans cannot digest raw truth, but rather require that it be cooked and presented as narrative first. Being human, Americans remain largely unwilling to digest the distasteful truth about the unlawful government that prods them around like so many cattle, so I have "cooked" up a narrative of my own that I hope will make it through at least some people's mental esophagi.

A homeowners' association one day decided to hire a security company to guard the neighborhood entrances and to ensure the safe flow of traffic. The contract specified that the company had final say over how to implement these objectives, and to eliminate any possible confusion, the contract went on to declare that the homeowners retained authority on ALL other matters.

In the beginning, things seemed to work quite well: the company did a good job of keeping out vagrants and vandals; the roads were well maintained; and the community of homeowners began to grow as the neighborhood's reputation improved. Things turned a little sour, however, when a homeowner tried to receive a package from an ex-convict. The company refused to turn it over to the homeowner before opening it and inspecting it, even though the sender's crime had been perjury rather than any harm to property or person. Understandably upset, the homeowner in question argued that the company had no right under the contract to search his property. According to the company, though, it alone would be the judge of its own contractual powers, so the policy remained in place.

Disturbing episodes like this began multiplying, and it soon became apparent that wealthy homeowners had far greater influence with the security company and received favorable treatment as a result -- for example, the wealthy homeowners received packages and guests without any scrutiny from the company, while the guests of other homeowners had to obtain specific permission each and every time. Wealthy homeowners also persuaded the security company to snoop around individual houses to ensure compliance with the neighborhood's aesthetic standards.

As assessments continued rising to pay for these increased activities, a group of homeowners finally decided that enough was enough, so they mounted a petition to cancel the company's contract. While that petition gathered steam, the same homeowners hired a new security company that was not beholden to the wealthy neighbors. Things came to a head when one of the new security guards spotted a guard from the original company on a homeowner's property. The new security guard told him to vacate the premises immediately, but the other guard refused, at which point the confrontation became physical and the new guard knocked the old guard on his behind. With their passions inflamed, guards from the old security company swept through the neighborhood -- damaging private property in the process -- to intimidate and assault the guards from the new security company, who eventually gave up and left. After that, the petition fell into obscurity, and all talk of canceling the contract was shouted down as disruptive to neighborhood safety and harmony.

Back in the driver's seat, the wealthy homeowners and the security company tightened the screws by announcing a policy of random household searches for guns, drugs, or underage drinking. Moreover, it became forbidden for homeowners to deny entrance to any of their neighbors -- dinner parties or holiday gatherings had to be open to all, or the security company would shut them down. Years went by this way, with the security company growing ever more involved in the internal workings of neighborhood life, and with the cost for the company's "services" always keeping pace.

When a newly-arrived homeowner spoke up at the association meeting to ask why the security company was operating far beyond the scope of its contract, everyone simply laughed. They knew full well that security touches on all aspects of neighborhood existence, and that it is impossible to turn back the clock to simpler times. When the upstart persisted by noting that the contract vested him with all powers not specifically designated to the security company, someone shouted, "If you don't like it, move out!"

Musharraf Is Now Legit . . . Right?

Well, well, well! It appears that Pakistan's Supreme Court has justified the repressive policies of the Musharraf government. Recall how the good professor Farber at Berkeley law school strained to argue that the evil Musharraf could not be compared to the saintly Abraham Lincoln, primarily on the basis that Lincoln had acted "legally" in the belated opinion of the rubber-stamping Supreme Court. As I remarked at the time (half in jest), such a turn of events in Pakistan requires Farber to retract his criticism of Musharraf immediately. I won't hold my breath. While this may strike some of you as a petty point to get hung up on, I submit that it encapsulates the central dilemma of American life and the unlawful government we confront. Does might make right (today's prevailing view), or does the rule of law constrain the mighty (the view of the Founding Fathers)?

News Roundup

Things have been hectic lately, but at a bare minimum I can provide a quick synopsis of some recent news items. As we shall see, it's business as usual in latter-day America.

First, Congress is currently debating whether to throw a cloak of immunity over various telecom companies that collaborated in domestic spying and, as a result, violated their customers' privacy. No one has paused to consider that Congress -- while it can limit the scope of liability under federal law -- lacks authority to alter the scope of relief under the law of the several States. If a company violates the legal rights of a citizen of a given State, that citizen may file a private lawsuit pursuant to that State's law, and the Tumor has no legitimate role to play in that analysis.

Second, an advocacy group has undertaken to send a torrent of copies of the Constitution to the White House, illustrating again the deeply-rooted fallacy that we must appeal to the corrupt political class to resuscitate the rule of law. The Tumor is operating ultra vires -- completely beyond the law -- so disregarding it is far more appropriate (and effective) than dialoguing with it.

In related news, a poll reveals most Americans believe that President Bush has committed impeachable offenses. This is very shocking, except of course to those of us who recognize that most presidents in the twentieth century committed high crimes and misdemeanors worthy of impeachment as well. In keeping with that tradition, the recent revelations about Rudolph Giuliani's shady past show him to be even more qualified than ever for the Oval Office.

Last but not least, the United Arab Emirates has joined the growing chorus of nations considering de-linking their currency from the U.S. dollar. The time when the Tumor could hide its massive debt and fraud in a second, "unofficial" set of books is drawing to a close.

Happy Armistice Day

On the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month, the guns of August finally fell silent, bringing an end to the bloodiest war the world had ever known. Today marks the 89th anniversary of the armistice ending the Great War, a conflagration that unfortunately would come to be known as World War One. Precious few veterans from that apocalypse remain with us, but they bore witness to a fundamental change in human affairs that haunts us still. Civilized order fell apart; chivalry vanished from the battlefield; the gentleman went extinct; the rule of law lay in shambles; Bolshevism was unleashed; and in America, the ground had been laid for government to run on a permanent wartime footing. The emergency bureaucracies and controls that had sprung forth blazed a trail for the future welfare state and its cousin, the military-industrial complex, eventually transforming America from a free and noble Republic into a thralled and vulgar Democracy.

But Americans did gain a brief respite after Johnny came marching home, as they demanded a return to tranquility and rejected President Wilson's call for perpetual entanglement in other nations' affairs. (We were not so lucky after World War Two). The ones who lived through those precious few years were the last to experience America as the land of the free. Stop and see the world through their eyes at that wonderful moment when the Great War had ended; when peace and plenty reigned; and when the promise of America stretched far into the horizon. With that image emblazoned on my mind, I can pierce through the fog of the present and proclaim with true joy, Happy Armistice Day!

Arnold's Still Not Getting It

California's Governator has sued the Tumor for permission to enact environmentalist legislation. Hey, Arnold, if you honestly believe that your legislation is vital to the future of California (or perhaps even that of the human race), "Do it nowww!" Set an example by not going cap in hand to the feds, begging to do what your State retains presumptive authority to do (i.e., everything the Constitution does not specifically prohibit).

Granted, I am no fan of global-warming hysteria, and I am currently writing a chapter on this mass psychosis in my second book, Unlawful Government: The Gathering Threat Of Global Hegemony. But anything that spurs States to challenge the Tumor is close enough for government work, I guess.

Musharraf Understands Us Better Than We Do

In the midst of repressing the growing civil unrest in Pakistan, head-of-state Pervez Musharraf recently issued a statement comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln by virtue of the fact that both men felt compelled to violate the law in order to preserve order. Musharraf's statement rings quite true: Lincoln admitted that he was willing to violate the Constitution in order to preserve the Union, and subsequent scholarship amply confirms that he meant it.

Of course, the Tumor cannot allow any such comparisons to go unchallenged, since the vast and corrupt political system of today owes its existence to Lincoln's blood-drenched assault on secession -- an assault which the Founders would have found horrid, and which guaranteed forever after that the Tumor would act as the final arbiter of its own powers. Enter Berkeley law professor Daniel Farber, a typical establishment eunuch who rushes to scorn Musharraf and who refuses to admit that Lincoln broke the law. Farber papers over any serious analysis by claiming that the Supreme Court blessed Lincoln's actions after the fact, so if Musharraf should one day secure a judicial indulgence of this kind, Farber will undoubtedly drop his objections to Musharraf immediately . . . right? Ideological damage control like this is precisely why NPR earned its moniker of "National Propaganda Radio."

Oddly enough, a case can be made that Musharraf has even more justification for his actions than Lincoln did, since Musharraf confronts an effort to seize control of the nation, whereas Lincoln confronted a distinct society that wanted only to go its separate way. And consider for a moment the type of government that Musharraf's agitators want to adopt -- a democracy. Our Founders rejected democracy as a system of legitimized theft, and however rotten Musharraf may be, democracy would be even worse. At least with a military dictatorship, the citizens all know who the bad guy is and what they can get away with; under a democracy, however, citizens are deluded into believing they are free simply because they choose their jailers.

Mississippi Marital Maelstrom Says A Lot About The Modern Constitution

A Mississippi woman cheated on her husband; conceived a child with another man; and then dumped her husband for the other man (who is conveniently a millionaire). Preparing to settle into domestic bliss, this execrable couple was hit with a lawsuit by the cuckolded husband, who took advantage of a longstanding legal theory that remains a part of Mississippi (and some other States') jurisprudence: "alienation of affections." Advancing this theory, the husband successfully argued that the other man had inflicted intentional injury by stealing his wife and should therefore be called to account, and the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the husband's damages award. Men across America secretly pumped our fists.

Now the woman and her tortfeasing sugar-daddy want the Consitution to come to their rescue. The lawyer whom they have hired is as much of a pimp and prostitute as his clients, since he believes that the Constitution silently changes over time to keep pace with society's declining moral standards, thereby erasing the sovereign discretion of Mississippi to retain a semblance of sanity. While it looks uncertain whether this argument will succeed, it nonetheless stands as a classic example of what passes for constitutional jurisprudence these days: amendments are unnecessary, since the Supreme Court reigns as a Supreme Legislature that can unilaterally determine and enforce "society's wishes" -- whatever the hell that means.

Under a truly lawful government composed of individuals who kept their oaths and obeyed the Constitution (as we were misinformed in elementary school), the Supreme Court would automatically reject this brand of argument whenever it popped up, ruling that the States keep all powers that they did not specifically surrender within the four corners of the Constitution. "Society's wishes" would be left to each State's citizens to puzzle out on their own, while the federal government would concern itself with fighting off hostile foreigners and delivering the mail.