Chazz my son's band Sol Asunder! BIG TOUR!~ YAYYYY Chazz! Way to go!..musology
Nov 24 2008 2:22 PM -Metal Maniacs Presents-THE GRIND YOUR MIND TOURwithEMBRYONIC DEVOURMENTLECHEROUS NOCTURNESOL ASUNDER
2/27/09 Los Angeles, CA @ Black Castle
2/28/09 San Marcos, CA @ The Jumping Turtle
3/1/09 Tempe, AZ @ The Sets
3/2/09 Albuquerque, NM @ The Compound
3/3/09 El Paso, TX @ Chic's Billiards
3/4/09 Dallas, TX @ Reno's Chop Shop
3/5/09 Houston, TX @ Jet Lounge
3/6/09 New Orleans, LA @ Dragon's Den
3/7/09 Tampa, FL @ The Brass Mug
3/8/09 Orlando, FL @ The Dungeon
3/9/09 Atlanta, GA @ Lenny's Bar
3/10/09 Baltimore, MD @ The Talking Head
3/11/09 Philadelphia, PA @ The Khyber
3/12/09 Pittsburgh, PA @ The Smiling Moose
3/13/09 Indianapolis, IN @ Melody Inn
3/14/09 Chicago, IL @ Metal Shaker Lounge
3/15/09 St Paul, MN @ Big V's
3/16/09 Kansas City, MO @ The Riot Room
3/17/09 Denver, CO @ The Funhouse
3/18/09 Salt Lake City, UT @ Club Vegas
3/19/09 Boise, ID @ The Gusto Bar
3/20/09 Seattle, WA @ The Comet Tavern
3/21/09 Portland, OR @ The Red Room
Saturday, November 29, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Hope? Try Dispair
I am fortunate enough to have a libertarian newspaper in my town. This is the lastest op ed from our regional editor, Phil Lucas. I love reading his pieces...i hope he doesn't mind that I share it on my blog. ...musology
Hope? Try Dispair...Phil Lucas
We have done it. A nation of morons has finally elected a president of equal ability. A Zogby survey showed 57 percent of voters for Obama could not say which party controlled Congress. The other 43 percent just made a lucky guess.
I voted for Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party, who suffered the handicap of belonging to a party that had heard of the Constitution and perhaps read it, too. He got three votes in my county, so I represented a third of his support. If he is ever elected, this clout should land me the job as chairman of the Federal Reserve, at which time I will do my patriotic duty and torch it.
The Yes We Can president will not burn the boys. He extracted his new Treasury secretary from the bowels of the New York Fed. Incest being what it is, his chief economic adviser came from Treasury, having headed that gang in the Clinton regime, which blew up the dot com stock market bubble and laid the foundation of the housing bust.
That Fed and Treasury make a living plundering taxpayers for their friends. The first $125 billion of the Wall Street bailout went to buy preferred stock in Federal Reserve member banks so they can pay themselves bonuses. Banks' bonuses will consume better than 85 percent of that $125 billion.
The President for Change is packing his administration with Wall Street insiders and Clinton retreads. Everything they touch turns to ruin, but he says they offer "sound judgment and fresh thinking." Hahaha. You can't make this stuff up. What a fine job we have done. A reader sent this last week: "Americans got tired of the rest of the world thinking they were dumb, so they went to the polls and removed all doubt."
Time magazine had a cover with Obama in an FDR pose. Perfect. Obama admires Abe Lincoln. So, we have the man himself admiring the worst president in the nation's history and Time has him posing as the second worst. Neck and neck, going for third, are LBJ and George Bush, but Obama, in economic ignorance, is closing fast. He says he will create jobs. That requires money.
Government has two ways to get money. First, take it from the people in taxes. Second, counterfeit loot on the federale printing press. As for the first, taxing one citizen $1,000 to give to another creates nothing. By spending or investing, the plundered citizen could have created as many jobs with his money as the party who stole it. Further, after lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats take their cut, $1,000 shrinks to $350, meaning the beneficiary of the theft has less money to create jobs than the taxpayer who earned it. Taxation destroys jobs.
As for the second, monetary expansion via the printing press, this debases dollars in circulation, causing prices to rise. Purposeful attacks on the dollar's value is theft of the effort it takes to acquire them. Further, rising prices hurt us all, especially the poor. Inflation forces us to spend disproportionately on necessities, instead of on new cars or homes. Monetary inflation destroys buying power and the jobs that went with it.
The Man of Hope will continue funneling money into the wasteland of failed enterprises, rewarding failure and punishing success. Banks and businesses that did not loan or invest foolishly will pay those that did otherwise. Solid citizens who meet their obligations will be bled for the reckless and ignorant. Hope? Hardly. Try dispair, as producers, the backbone of the nation, are broken.
Obama is right. We can do better. He might start with himself.
Hope? Try Dispair...Phil Lucas
We have done it. A nation of morons has finally elected a president of equal ability. A Zogby survey showed 57 percent of voters for Obama could not say which party controlled Congress. The other 43 percent just made a lucky guess.
I voted for Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party, who suffered the handicap of belonging to a party that had heard of the Constitution and perhaps read it, too. He got three votes in my county, so I represented a third of his support. If he is ever elected, this clout should land me the job as chairman of the Federal Reserve, at which time I will do my patriotic duty and torch it.
The Yes We Can president will not burn the boys. He extracted his new Treasury secretary from the bowels of the New York Fed. Incest being what it is, his chief economic adviser came from Treasury, having headed that gang in the Clinton regime, which blew up the dot com stock market bubble and laid the foundation of the housing bust.
That Fed and Treasury make a living plundering taxpayers for their friends. The first $125 billion of the Wall Street bailout went to buy preferred stock in Federal Reserve member banks so they can pay themselves bonuses. Banks' bonuses will consume better than 85 percent of that $125 billion.
The President for Change is packing his administration with Wall Street insiders and Clinton retreads. Everything they touch turns to ruin, but he says they offer "sound judgment and fresh thinking." Hahaha. You can't make this stuff up. What a fine job we have done. A reader sent this last week: "Americans got tired of the rest of the world thinking they were dumb, so they went to the polls and removed all doubt."
Time magazine had a cover with Obama in an FDR pose. Perfect. Obama admires Abe Lincoln. So, we have the man himself admiring the worst president in the nation's history and Time has him posing as the second worst. Neck and neck, going for third, are LBJ and George Bush, but Obama, in economic ignorance, is closing fast. He says he will create jobs. That requires money.
Government has two ways to get money. First, take it from the people in taxes. Second, counterfeit loot on the federale printing press. As for the first, taxing one citizen $1,000 to give to another creates nothing. By spending or investing, the plundered citizen could have created as many jobs with his money as the party who stole it. Further, after lobbyists, politicians and bureaucrats take their cut, $1,000 shrinks to $350, meaning the beneficiary of the theft has less money to create jobs than the taxpayer who earned it. Taxation destroys jobs.
As for the second, monetary expansion via the printing press, this debases dollars in circulation, causing prices to rise. Purposeful attacks on the dollar's value is theft of the effort it takes to acquire them. Further, rising prices hurt us all, especially the poor. Inflation forces us to spend disproportionately on necessities, instead of on new cars or homes. Monetary inflation destroys buying power and the jobs that went with it.
The Man of Hope will continue funneling money into the wasteland of failed enterprises, rewarding failure and punishing success. Banks and businesses that did not loan or invest foolishly will pay those that did otherwise. Solid citizens who meet their obligations will be bled for the reckless and ignorant. Hope? Hardly. Try dispair, as producers, the backbone of the nation, are broken.
Obama is right. We can do better. He might start with himself.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Controlled Opposition
In the effort to establish a singular global government, the powers that be recognized that opposition to their plan would be evident and unavoidable. These opposition forces must certainly be neutralized and their voices squelched, if the socialists' plans to conquer the world were to be rendered successful. How can one keep leaders from arising out of the teaming masses to speak out against the plan in favor of freedom? The diabolical would-be dictators understood the only way to accomplish this, was to create the perception that someone was already fighting the battle of liberty for them. Someone who both supported the plan, yet spoke out against it. Someone who would gain the trust of the masses, then employ diversionary tactics, leading them into tyranny. These are the controlled opposition. They come in many different forms, and organizations, and purport to stand for various causes. Some fill pulpits, others occupy public offices. Several are broadcasters. All are deceivers. All are players of a manipulation process called the Hegelian Dialectic. They hammer at issues, are vocal about matters that appeal to Christians and conservatives, and even do some good deeds. But their efforts always fail to mobilize their supporters to take the right action, leading the majority who never see through their scheme to ask, "Who silenced the outcry?"
ACLU FOR Civil Liberties? Look again.
2The ACLU enjoys the reputation of being a defender of civil liberties. In keeping with that image, it has spoken against
the Patriot Act and other legislation that denies civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.
So far, so good, but there
is a difference between speaking out on a topic and actually doing something about it. When it comes to applying its
legal and financial resources, the ACLU moves in other directions. At the time of this writing, the Executive Director of
the ACLU is Anthony Romero, a member of the CFR. Previously, he had been in charge of the Ford Foundation’s grant
program where he channeled approximately $90 million to organizations promoting “crisis” messages that frighten the
public into accepting bigger government, which means into accepting laws like the Patriot Act.
For example, The Ford
Foundation has funded studies and groups promoting the concepts of environmental crisis and population-growth crisis
and then calling for vast new government powers as the only way to head off global catastrophe. The Foundation has
been a major source of funding for MALDEF, LaRaza, and other Hispanic separatist groups, which means it finances
those who call for breaking away parts of California and Texas and giving them to Mexico. It also has funded the
American Indian Movement, which has a similar separatist agenda for parts of the U.S. where American Indian
populations are prominent. It is not likely that either movement would ever succeed; but if enough revolutionaries can
be funded and mobilized into the streets with violent demonstrations and riots, peaceful citizens are expected to
gratefully accept martial law and internationalization of these areas as acceptable alternatives to violence.
In all of these
cases, the role played by the Ford Foundation is to fan the flames of fear, to frighten us into accepting a police state at
home, comfortably merged with other police states at the UN, in a world government based on the model of
collectivism.
The ACLU supports these causes strongly and speaks against their consequences softly.
This is a classic
case of controlling one’s own opposition to insure that it does not succeed. It is an extension of the strategy described to
Norman Dodd in 1954 by Ford Foundation President, Rowan Gaither when he explained that war – and the dread of war
– was the most effective way to bring people to accept a rapid shift in society toward collectivism. Dread of war is still
the most powerful motivator, but collectivists have discovered that dread of terrorism, dread of environmental
catastrophe, and dread of overpopulation are also useful for this purpose. For that part of the story, see chapter twentyfour,
“Doomsday Mechanisms,” in The Creature from Jekyll Island; A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.
the Patriot Act and other legislation that denies civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.
So far, so good, but there
is a difference between speaking out on a topic and actually doing something about it. When it comes to applying its
legal and financial resources, the ACLU moves in other directions. At the time of this writing, the Executive Director of
the ACLU is Anthony Romero, a member of the CFR. Previously, he had been in charge of the Ford Foundation’s grant
program where he channeled approximately $90 million to organizations promoting “crisis” messages that frighten the
public into accepting bigger government, which means into accepting laws like the Patriot Act.
For example, The Ford
Foundation has funded studies and groups promoting the concepts of environmental crisis and population-growth crisis
and then calling for vast new government powers as the only way to head off global catastrophe. The Foundation has
been a major source of funding for MALDEF, LaRaza, and other Hispanic separatist groups, which means it finances
those who call for breaking away parts of California and Texas and giving them to Mexico. It also has funded the
American Indian Movement, which has a similar separatist agenda for parts of the U.S. where American Indian
populations are prominent. It is not likely that either movement would ever succeed; but if enough revolutionaries can
be funded and mobilized into the streets with violent demonstrations and riots, peaceful citizens are expected to
gratefully accept martial law and internationalization of these areas as acceptable alternatives to violence.
In all of these
cases, the role played by the Ford Foundation is to fan the flames of fear, to frighten us into accepting a police state at
home, comfortably merged with other police states at the UN, in a world government based on the model of
collectivism.
The ACLU supports these causes strongly and speaks against their consequences softly.
This is a classic
case of controlling one’s own opposition to insure that it does not succeed. It is an extension of the strategy described to
Norman Dodd in 1954 by Ford Foundation President, Rowan Gaither when he explained that war – and the dread of war
– was the most effective way to bring people to accept a rapid shift in society toward collectivism. Dread of war is still
the most powerful motivator, but collectivists have discovered that dread of terrorism, dread of environmental
catastrophe, and dread of overpopulation are also useful for this purpose. For that part of the story, see chapter twentyfour,
“Doomsday Mechanisms,” in The Creature from Jekyll Island; A Second Look at the Federal Reserve.
G. Edward Griffin - Love/Hate Between Leninists and Fabians
LOVE-HATE BETWEEN FABIANS AND LENINISTS
Fabians and Marxists are in agreement over their mutual goal of collectivism, but
they differ over style and sometimes tactics. When Marxism became fused with Leninism
and made its first conquest in Russia, these differences became the center of debate between
the two groups. Karl Marx said the world was divided into two camps eternally at war with
each other. One was the working class, which he called the proletariat, and the other was the
wealthy class, those who owned the land and the means of production. This class he called
the bourgeoisie.
Fabians were never enthusiastic over this class-conflict view, probably because most
of them were bourgeoisie, but Lenin and Stalin embraced it wholeheartedly. Lenin described
the Communist Party as the “vanguard of the proletariat,” and it became a mechanism for
total and ruthless war against anyone who even remotely could be considered bourgeoisie.
In the final paragraph of The Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote: “The Communists disdain
to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only
through the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” When the Bolsheviks came
to power in Russia, landowners and shopkeepers were slaughtered by the tens of thousands,
a process that continued well into the 1990s and eventually claimed the lives of over 100
million people murdered by their own government.
This brutality offended the sensibilities of the genteel Fabians, especially since most
of them were landowners or shopkeepers. It’s not that Fabians are opposed to force and
violence to accomplish their goals, it’s just that they prefer to use it as a last resort, whereas
the Leninists were running amuck in Russia implementing a plan of deliberate terror and
brutality. Fabians admired the Soviet system because it was based on collectivism but they
were shocked at what they considered to be needless bloodshed. It was a disagreement
primarily over style. When Lenin became the master of Russia, many of the Fabians joined
the Communist Party thinking that it would become the vanguard of world Socialism. They
likely would have stayed there if it hadn’t been for the brutality of the regime.
To understand the love-hate relationship between these two groups we must never
lose sight of the fact that Leninism and Fabianism are merely variants of collectivism. Their
similarities are much greater than their differences. That is why their members often move
from one group to the other – or why some of them are actually members of both groups at
the same time. Leninists and Fabians are usually friendly with each other. They may
disagree intensely over theoretical issues and style, but never over goals.
Margaret Cole was the Chairman of the Fabian Society in 1955 and ‘56. Her father,
G.D.H. Cole, was one of the early leaders of the organization dating back to 1937. In her
book, The Story of Fabian Socialism, she describes the common bond that binds
collectivists together. She says:
4
It plainly emerges that the basic similarities were much greater than the
differences, that the basic Fabian aims of the abolition of poverty, through legislation
and administration; of the communal control of production and social life …, were
pursued with unabated energy by people trained in Fabian traditions, whether at the
moment of time they called themselves Fabians or loudly repudiated the name….
The fundamental likeness is attested by the fact that, after the storms produced first
by Syndicalism1 and then by the Russian Revolution in its early days had died down,
those “rebel Fabians” who had not joined the Communist Party … found no mental
difficulty in entering the revived Fabian Society of 1939 –nor did the surviving
faithful find any difficulty with collaborating with them.2
Fabians are, according to their own symbolism, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and that
explains why their style is more effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are
well established and where people expect to have a voice in their own political destiny.
Leninists, on the other hand, tend to be wolves in wolf’s clothing, and their style is more
effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are weak and where people are used to
dictatorships anyway.
In countries where parliamentary traditions are strong, the primary tactic for both of
these groups is to send their agents into the power centers of society to capture control from
the inside. Power centers are those organizations and institutions that represent all the
politically influential segments of society. These include labor unions, political parties,
church organizations, segments of the media, educational institutions, civic organizations,
financial institutions, and industrial corporations, to name just a few. In a moment, I am
going to provide a partial list of members of an organization called the Council on Foreign
Relations, and you will recognize that the power centers these people control are classic
examples of this strategy. The combined influence of all these entities adds up to the total
political power of the nation. To capture control of a nation, all that is required is to control
its power centers, and that has been the strategy of Leninists and Fabians alike.
They may disagree over style; they may compete over which of them will dominant
the coming New World Order, over who will hold the highest positions in the pyramid of
power; they may even send opposing armies into battle to establish territorial preeminence
over portions of the globe, but they never quarrel over goals. Through it all, they are blood
brothers, and they will always unite against their common enemy, which is any opposition
to collectivism. It is impossible to understand what is unfolding in the War on Terrorism
today without being aware of that reality.
Fabians and Marxists are in agreement over their mutual goal of collectivism, but
they differ over style and sometimes tactics. When Marxism became fused with Leninism
and made its first conquest in Russia, these differences became the center of debate between
the two groups. Karl Marx said the world was divided into two camps eternally at war with
each other. One was the working class, which he called the proletariat, and the other was the
wealthy class, those who owned the land and the means of production. This class he called
the bourgeoisie.
Fabians were never enthusiastic over this class-conflict view, probably because most
of them were bourgeoisie, but Lenin and Stalin embraced it wholeheartedly. Lenin described
the Communist Party as the “vanguard of the proletariat,” and it became a mechanism for
total and ruthless war against anyone who even remotely could be considered bourgeoisie.
In the final paragraph of The Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote: “The Communists disdain
to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only
through the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.” When the Bolsheviks came
to power in Russia, landowners and shopkeepers were slaughtered by the tens of thousands,
a process that continued well into the 1990s and eventually claimed the lives of over 100
million people murdered by their own government.
This brutality offended the sensibilities of the genteel Fabians, especially since most
of them were landowners or shopkeepers. It’s not that Fabians are opposed to force and
violence to accomplish their goals, it’s just that they prefer to use it as a last resort, whereas
the Leninists were running amuck in Russia implementing a plan of deliberate terror and
brutality. Fabians admired the Soviet system because it was based on collectivism but they
were shocked at what they considered to be needless bloodshed. It was a disagreement
primarily over style. When Lenin became the master of Russia, many of the Fabians joined
the Communist Party thinking that it would become the vanguard of world Socialism. They
likely would have stayed there if it hadn’t been for the brutality of the regime.
To understand the love-hate relationship between these two groups we must never
lose sight of the fact that Leninism and Fabianism are merely variants of collectivism. Their
similarities are much greater than their differences. That is why their members often move
from one group to the other – or why some of them are actually members of both groups at
the same time. Leninists and Fabians are usually friendly with each other. They may
disagree intensely over theoretical issues and style, but never over goals.
Margaret Cole was the Chairman of the Fabian Society in 1955 and ‘56. Her father,
G.D.H. Cole, was one of the early leaders of the organization dating back to 1937. In her
book, The Story of Fabian Socialism, she describes the common bond that binds
collectivists together. She says:
4
It plainly emerges that the basic similarities were much greater than the
differences, that the basic Fabian aims of the abolition of poverty, through legislation
and administration; of the communal control of production and social life …, were
pursued with unabated energy by people trained in Fabian traditions, whether at the
moment of time they called themselves Fabians or loudly repudiated the name….
The fundamental likeness is attested by the fact that, after the storms produced first
by Syndicalism1 and then by the Russian Revolution in its early days had died down,
those “rebel Fabians” who had not joined the Communist Party … found no mental
difficulty in entering the revived Fabian Society of 1939 –nor did the surviving
faithful find any difficulty with collaborating with them.2
Fabians are, according to their own symbolism, wolves in sheep’s clothing, and that
explains why their style is more effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are
well established and where people expect to have a voice in their own political destiny.
Leninists, on the other hand, tend to be wolves in wolf’s clothing, and their style is more
effective in countries where parliamentary traditions are weak and where people are used to
dictatorships anyway.
In countries where parliamentary traditions are strong, the primary tactic for both of
these groups is to send their agents into the power centers of society to capture control from
the inside. Power centers are those organizations and institutions that represent all the
politically influential segments of society. These include labor unions, political parties,
church organizations, segments of the media, educational institutions, civic organizations,
financial institutions, and industrial corporations, to name just a few. In a moment, I am
going to provide a partial list of members of an organization called the Council on Foreign
Relations, and you will recognize that the power centers these people control are classic
examples of this strategy. The combined influence of all these entities adds up to the total
political power of the nation. To capture control of a nation, all that is required is to control
its power centers, and that has been the strategy of Leninists and Fabians alike.
They may disagree over style; they may compete over which of them will dominant
the coming New World Order, over who will hold the highest positions in the pyramid of
power; they may even send opposing armies into battle to establish territorial preeminence
over portions of the globe, but they never quarrel over goals. Through it all, they are blood
brothers, and they will always unite against their common enemy, which is any opposition
to collectivism. It is impossible to understand what is unfolding in the War on Terrorism
today without being aware of that reality.
G. Edward Griffin - The Fabian Society
THE FABIAN SOCIETY
But there was another movement coming to birth at about this same time that
eventually gave competition to the hard-core Marxists. Some of the more erudite members
of the wealthy and intellectual classes of England formed an organization to perpetuate the
concept of collectivism but not exactly according to Marx. It was called the Fabian Society.
The name is significant, because it was in honor of Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus,
the Roman general who, in the second century B.C., kept Hannibal at bay by wearing down
his army with delaying tactics, endless maneuvering, and avoiding confrontation wherever
possible. Unlike the Marxists who were in a hurry to come to power through direct
confrontation with established governments, the Fabians were willing to take their time, to
come to power without direct confrontation, working quietly and patiently from inside the
target governments. To emphasize this strategy, and to separate themselves from the
Marxists, they adopted the turtle as their symbol. And their official shield portrays an image
of a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Those two images perfectly summarize their strategy.
It is now 1884, and we find ourselves in Surrey, England observing a small group of
these Fabians, sitting around a table in the stylish home of two of their more prominent
members, Sydney and Beatrice Webb. The Webbs later would be known world wide as the
founders of the London School of Economics. Their home eventually was donated to the
Fabian Society and became its official headquarters. Around the table are such well-known
figures as George Bernard Shaw, Arnold Toynbee, H.G. Wells, and numerous others of
similar caliber. By the way, the Fabian Society still exists, and many prominent people are
members, not the least of which is England’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
H.G. Wells wrote a book to serve as a guide showing how collectivism can be
embedded into society without arousing alarm or serious opposition. It was called The Open
Conspiracy, and the plan was spelled out in minute detail. His fervor was intense. He said
that the old religions of the world must give way to the new religion of collectivism. The
new religion should be the state, he said, and the state should take charge of all human
activity with, of course, elitists such as himself in control. On the very first page, he says:
“This book states as plainly and clearly as possible the essential ideas of my life, the
perspective of my world…. This is my religion. Here are my directive aims and the criteria
of all I do.”1
When he said that collectivism was his religion, he was serious. Like many
collectivists, he felt that traditional religion is a barrier to the acceptance of state power. It is
a competitor for man’s loyalties. Collectivists see religion as a device by which the clerics
keep the downtrodden masses content by offering a vision of something better in the next
world. If your goal is to bring about change, contentment is not what you want. You want
discontentment. That’s why Marx called religion the opiate of the masses.2 It gets in the way
of revolutionary change. Wells said that collectivism should become the new opiate, that it
should become the vision for better things in the next world.
The new order must be built on
the concept that individuals are nothing compared to the long continuum of society, and that
only by serving society do we become connected to eternity. He was very serious.
The blueprint in The Open Conspiracy has been followed in all the British
dependencies and the United Sates. As a result, today’s world is very close to the vision of
H.G. Wells. A worship of the god called society has become a new religion. No matter what
insult to our dignity or liberty, we are told it’s necessary for the advancement of society, and
that has become the basis for contentment under the hardships of collectivism. The greater
good for the greater number has become the opiate of the masses.
G. Edward Griffin- The Political Spectrum
G. Edward Griffin-The Political Spectrum
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
We hear a lot today about right-wingers versus left-wingers, but what do those terms
really mean? For example, we are told that communists and socialists are at the extreme
left, and the Nazis and Fascists are on the extreme right. Here we have the image of two
powerful ideological adversaries pitted against each other, and the impression is that,
somehow, they are opposites. But, what is the difference? They are not opposites at all.
They are the same. The insignias may be different, but when you analyze communism and
Nazism, they both embody the principles of socialism. Communists make no bones about
socialism being their ideal, and the Nazi movement in Germany was actually called the
National Socialist Party. Communists believe in international socialism, whereas Nazis
advocate national socialism. Communists promote class hatred and class conflict to
motivate the loyalty and blind obedience of their followers, whereas the Nazis use race
conflict and race hatred to accomplish the same objective. Other than that, there is no
difference between communism and Nazism. They are both the epitome of collectivism, and
yet we are told they are, supposedly, at opposite ends of the spectrum!
There’s only one thing that makes sense in constructing a political spectrum and that
is to put zero government at one end of the line and 100% at the other. Now we have
something we can comprehend. Those who believe in zero government are the anarchists,
and those who believe in total government are the totalitarians. With that definition, we find
that communism and Nazism are together at the same end. They are both totalitarian. Why?
Because they are both based on the model of collectivism. Communism, Nazism, Fascism
and socialism all gravitate toward bigger and bigger government, because that is the logical
extension of their common ideology. Under collectivism, all problems are the responsibility
of the state and must be solved by the state. The more problems there are, the more powerful
the state must become. Once you get on that slippery slope, there is no place to stop until
you reach all the way to the end of the scale, which is total government. Regardless of what
name you give it, regardless of how you re-label it to make it seem new or different,
collectivism is totalitarianism.
Actually, the straight-line concept of a political spectrum is somewhat misleading. It is
really a circle. You can take that straight line with 100% government at one end and zero at
the other, bend it around, and touch the ends at the top. Now it’s a circle because, under
anarchy, where there is no government, you have absolute rule by those with the biggest
fists and the most powerful weapons. So, you jump from zero government to totalitarianism
in a flash. They meet at the top. We are really dealing with a circle, and the only logical
place for us to be is somewhere in the middle of the extremes. We need social and political
organization, of course, but it must be built on individualism, an ideology with an affinity to
that part of the spectrum with the least amount of government possible instead of
collectivism with an affinity to the other end of the spectrum with the most amount of
government possible. That government is best which governs least.
THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
We hear a lot today about right-wingers versus left-wingers, but what do those terms
really mean? For example, we are told that communists and socialists are at the extreme
left, and the Nazis and Fascists are on the extreme right. Here we have the image of two
powerful ideological adversaries pitted against each other, and the impression is that,
somehow, they are opposites. But, what is the difference? They are not opposites at all.
They are the same. The insignias may be different, but when you analyze communism and
Nazism, they both embody the principles of socialism. Communists make no bones about
socialism being their ideal, and the Nazi movement in Germany was actually called the
National Socialist Party. Communists believe in international socialism, whereas Nazis
advocate national socialism. Communists promote class hatred and class conflict to
motivate the loyalty and blind obedience of their followers, whereas the Nazis use race
conflict and race hatred to accomplish the same objective. Other than that, there is no
difference between communism and Nazism. They are both the epitome of collectivism, and
yet we are told they are, supposedly, at opposite ends of the spectrum!
There’s only one thing that makes sense in constructing a political spectrum and that
is to put zero government at one end of the line and 100% at the other. Now we have
something we can comprehend. Those who believe in zero government are the anarchists,
and those who believe in total government are the totalitarians. With that definition, we find
that communism and Nazism are together at the same end. They are both totalitarian. Why?
Because they are both based on the model of collectivism. Communism, Nazism, Fascism
and socialism all gravitate toward bigger and bigger government, because that is the logical
extension of their common ideology. Under collectivism, all problems are the responsibility
of the state and must be solved by the state. The more problems there are, the more powerful
the state must become. Once you get on that slippery slope, there is no place to stop until
you reach all the way to the end of the scale, which is total government. Regardless of what
name you give it, regardless of how you re-label it to make it seem new or different,
collectivism is totalitarianism.
Actually, the straight-line concept of a political spectrum is somewhat misleading. It is
really a circle. You can take that straight line with 100% government at one end and zero at
the other, bend it around, and touch the ends at the top. Now it’s a circle because, under
anarchy, where there is no government, you have absolute rule by those with the biggest
fists and the most powerful weapons. So, you jump from zero government to totalitarianism
in a flash. They meet at the top. We are really dealing with a circle, and the only logical
place for us to be is somewhere in the middle of the extremes. We need social and political
organization, of course, but it must be built on individualism, an ideology with an affinity to
that part of the spectrum with the least amount of government possible instead of
collectivism with an affinity to the other end of the spectrum with the most amount of
government possible. That government is best which governs least.
The Wisdom of G. Edward Griffin
I frequently read the writings of G. Edward Griffin. If you want to know what has happened to our Republic...please read his works.
A STRATEGY TO CONTROL THE TEACHING OF HISTORY
The question that arises in Mr. Dodd’s mind is: How would it be possible for anyone
to think that they could alter life in the United States so it could be comfortably merged with
the Soviet Union and, by implication, with other nations of the world? What an absurd
thought that would be – especially in 1954. That would require the abandonment of
American concepts of justice, traditions of liberty, national sovereignty, cultural identity,
constitutional protections, and political independence, to name just a few. Yet, these men
were deadly serious about it. They were not focused on the question of if this could be done.
Their only question was how to do it? What would it take to change American attitudes?
What would it take to convince them to abandon their heritage in exchange for global
union?
The answer was provided by another powerful and prestigious tax-exempt
foundation, the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace. When Dodd visited that
organization and began asking about their activities, the President said, “Mr. Dodd, you
have a lot of questions. It would be very tedious and time consuming for us to answer them
all, so I have a counter proposal. Why don’t you send a member of your staff to our
facilities, and we will open our minute books from the very first meeting of the Carnegie
Fund, and your staff can go through them and copy whatever you find there. Then you will
know everything we are doing.”
Again, Mr. Dodd was totally amazed. He observed that the President was newly
appointed and probably had never actually read the minutes himself. So Dodd accepted the
4
offer and sent a member of his staff to the Carnegie Endowment facilities. Her name was
Mrs. Catherine Casey who, by the way, was hostile to the activity of the Congressional
Committee. Political opponents of the Committee had placed her on the staff to be a
watchdog and a damper on the operation. Her attitude was: “What could possibly be wrong
with tax-exempt foundations? They do so much good.” So, that was the view of Mrs. Casey
when she went to the boardroom of the Carnegie Foundation. She took her Dictaphone
machine with her (they used mechanically inscribed belts in those days) and recorded, word
for word, many of the key passages from the minutes of this organization, starting with the
very first meeting. What she found was so shocking, Mr. Dodd said she almost lost her
mind. She became ineffective in her work after that and had to be given another assignment.
This is what those minutes revealed: From the very beginning, the members of the
board discussed how to alter life in the United States; how to change the attitudes of
Americans to give up their traditional principles and concepts of government and be more
receptive to what they call the collectivist model of society. I will talk more about what the
word collectivist means in a moment, but those who wrote the documents we will be quoting
use that word often and they have a clear understanding of what it means. At the Carnegie
Foundation board meetings, they discussed this question in a very scholarly fashion. After
many months of deliberation, they came to the conclusion that, out of all of the options
available for altering political and social attitudes, there was only one that was historically
dependable. That option was war. In times of war, they reasoned, only then would people be
willing to give up things they cherish in return for the desperate need and desire for security
against a deadly enemy. And so the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace
declared in its minutes that it must do whatever it can to bring the United States into war.
They also said there were other actions needed, and these were their exact words:
“We must control education in the United States.” They realized that was a pretty big order,
so they teamed up with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation to pool
their financial resources to control education in America – in particular, to control the
teaching of history. They assigned those areas of responsibility that involved issues relating
to domestic affairs to the Rockefeller Foundation, and those issues relating to international
affairs were taken on as the responsibility of the Carnegie Endowment.
Their first goal was to rewrite the history books, and they discussed at great length
how to do that. They approached some of the more prominent historians of the time and
presented to them the proposal that they rewrite history to favor the concept of collectivism,
but they were turned down flat. Then they decided – and, again, these are their own words,
“We must create our own stable of historians.”
They selected twenty candidates at the university level who were seeking doctorates
in American History. Then they went to the Guggenheim Foundation and said, “Would you
grant fellowships to candidates selected by us, who are of the right frame of mind, those
who see the value of collectivism as we do? Would you help them to obtain their doctorates
so we can then propel them into positions of prominence and leadership in the academic
world?” And the answer was “Yes.”
So they gathered a list of young men who were seeking their doctorate degrees. They
interviewed them, analyzed their attitudes, and chose the twenty they thought were best
suited for their purpose. They sent them to London for a briefing. (In a moment I will
explain why London is so significant.) At this meeting, they were told what would be
5
expected if and when they win the doctorates they were seeking. They were told they would
have to view history, write history, and teach history from the perspective that collectivism
was a positive force in the world and was the wave of the future.
Now lets go to the words of Mr. Dodd, himself, as he described this event before our
cameras in 1982. He said:
This group of twenty historians eventually formed the nucleus of the
American Historical Association. Then toward the end of the 1920’s the Endowment
grants to the American Historical Association $400,000 [a huge amount of money in
those days] for a study of history in a manner that points to what this country can
look forward to in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last
volume of which is a summary of the contents of the other six. And the essence of the
last volume is, the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with
characteristic American efficiency.1
Now we must turn off our time machine for a few moments and deal with this word
collectivism. You are going to hear it a lot. Especially if you delve into the historical papers
of the individuals and groups we are discussing, you will find them using that word over and
over. Although most people have only a vague concept of what it means, the advocates of
collectivism have a very clear understanding of it, so let’s deal with that now.
A STRATEGY TO CONTROL THE TEACHING OF HISTORY
The question that arises in Mr. Dodd’s mind is: How would it be possible for anyone
to think that they could alter life in the United States so it could be comfortably merged with
the Soviet Union and, by implication, with other nations of the world? What an absurd
thought that would be – especially in 1954. That would require the abandonment of
American concepts of justice, traditions of liberty, national sovereignty, cultural identity,
constitutional protections, and political independence, to name just a few. Yet, these men
were deadly serious about it. They were not focused on the question of if this could be done.
Their only question was how to do it? What would it take to change American attitudes?
What would it take to convince them to abandon their heritage in exchange for global
union?
The answer was provided by another powerful and prestigious tax-exempt
foundation, the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace. When Dodd visited that
organization and began asking about their activities, the President said, “Mr. Dodd, you
have a lot of questions. It would be very tedious and time consuming for us to answer them
all, so I have a counter proposal. Why don’t you send a member of your staff to our
facilities, and we will open our minute books from the very first meeting of the Carnegie
Fund, and your staff can go through them and copy whatever you find there. Then you will
know everything we are doing.”
Again, Mr. Dodd was totally amazed. He observed that the President was newly
appointed and probably had never actually read the minutes himself. So Dodd accepted the
4
offer and sent a member of his staff to the Carnegie Endowment facilities. Her name was
Mrs. Catherine Casey who, by the way, was hostile to the activity of the Congressional
Committee. Political opponents of the Committee had placed her on the staff to be a
watchdog and a damper on the operation. Her attitude was: “What could possibly be wrong
with tax-exempt foundations? They do so much good.” So, that was the view of Mrs. Casey
when she went to the boardroom of the Carnegie Foundation. She took her Dictaphone
machine with her (they used mechanically inscribed belts in those days) and recorded, word
for word, many of the key passages from the minutes of this organization, starting with the
very first meeting. What she found was so shocking, Mr. Dodd said she almost lost her
mind. She became ineffective in her work after that and had to be given another assignment.
This is what those minutes revealed: From the very beginning, the members of the
board discussed how to alter life in the United States; how to change the attitudes of
Americans to give up their traditional principles and concepts of government and be more
receptive to what they call the collectivist model of society. I will talk more about what the
word collectivist means in a moment, but those who wrote the documents we will be quoting
use that word often and they have a clear understanding of what it means. At the Carnegie
Foundation board meetings, they discussed this question in a very scholarly fashion. After
many months of deliberation, they came to the conclusion that, out of all of the options
available for altering political and social attitudes, there was only one that was historically
dependable. That option was war. In times of war, they reasoned, only then would people be
willing to give up things they cherish in return for the desperate need and desire for security
against a deadly enemy. And so the Carnegie Endowment Fund for International Peace
declared in its minutes that it must do whatever it can to bring the United States into war.
They also said there were other actions needed, and these were their exact words:
“We must control education in the United States.” They realized that was a pretty big order,
so they teamed up with the Rockefeller Foundation and the Guggenheim Foundation to pool
their financial resources to control education in America – in particular, to control the
teaching of history. They assigned those areas of responsibility that involved issues relating
to domestic affairs to the Rockefeller Foundation, and those issues relating to international
affairs were taken on as the responsibility of the Carnegie Endowment.
Their first goal was to rewrite the history books, and they discussed at great length
how to do that. They approached some of the more prominent historians of the time and
presented to them the proposal that they rewrite history to favor the concept of collectivism,
but they were turned down flat. Then they decided – and, again, these are their own words,
“We must create our own stable of historians.”
They selected twenty candidates at the university level who were seeking doctorates
in American History. Then they went to the Guggenheim Foundation and said, “Would you
grant fellowships to candidates selected by us, who are of the right frame of mind, those
who see the value of collectivism as we do? Would you help them to obtain their doctorates
so we can then propel them into positions of prominence and leadership in the academic
world?” And the answer was “Yes.”
So they gathered a list of young men who were seeking their doctorate degrees. They
interviewed them, analyzed their attitudes, and chose the twenty they thought were best
suited for their purpose. They sent them to London for a briefing. (In a moment I will
explain why London is so significant.) At this meeting, they were told what would be
5
expected if and when they win the doctorates they were seeking. They were told they would
have to view history, write history, and teach history from the perspective that collectivism
was a positive force in the world and was the wave of the future.
Now lets go to the words of Mr. Dodd, himself, as he described this event before our
cameras in 1982. He said:
This group of twenty historians eventually formed the nucleus of the
American Historical Association. Then toward the end of the 1920’s the Endowment
grants to the American Historical Association $400,000 [a huge amount of money in
those days] for a study of history in a manner that points to what this country can
look forward to in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last
volume of which is a summary of the contents of the other six. And the essence of the
last volume is, the future of this country belongs to collectivism, administered with
characteristic American efficiency.1
Now we must turn off our time machine for a few moments and deal with this word
collectivism. You are going to hear it a lot. Especially if you delve into the historical papers
of the individuals and groups we are discussing, you will find them using that word over and
over. Although most people have only a vague concept of what it means, the advocates of
collectivism have a very clear understanding of it, so let’s deal with that now.
Red Hawk
RED HAWK
He entered the church and immediately felt a rush of energy as he looked around the sanctuary. It was an old church and it had fascinated him every time he drove by it. He actually felt that the church was pulling him into it. He finally decided he had to visit that church!
Maurice looked at the old stone walls where various statues of angels were mounted as if they were sentinels standing guard over sacred ground. Breathing in the breath of God and breathing out the breath of God, he knew that the very presence of God was in this place.
He saw two chairs in front of the alter facing each other several feet apart, their occupants sitting in a trance state, eyes closed, deep breathing , as two women were behind them with their hands above their heads, then their shoulders, then moving down to their abdomen..never touching, but apparently cleansing something from their bodies. Maurice quietly slipped into the very last pew so as not to disturb the healing that was taking place.
The people left the chairs and returned to their places as two more came to sit for their healing. Maurice was completely hypnotized by what was happening. What was this ritual about? He felt compelled to go and sit in one of those chairs! He wanted the power of God's healing hands through these women, but he was afraid. Finally, when all of the others had taken their turns, Maurice slowly got up and made his way to the chair. The woman smiled at him and whispered, "God bless you brother. Do you have pain? Are you ill?" Maurice shook his head.."no". The woman said, "Ok, just relax and close your eyes. Try to clear all thoughts from your mind, but they will come. Just let them stay as long as they wish, and allow them to flow out as easily as they entered. Be sure to take some deep, cleansing breaths." Maurice closed his eyes and began to breathe as the woman held her hands over him. He could feel the warm energy of God's sweet spirit enter his head and move through his body. He felt his shoulders relax, then his abdomen and then his legs...finally his feet.
When the woman was finished she leaned over thd whispered, "Brother, there is a spirit guide here with you today. It is a Native American man with dark, flowing hair. He has a red hawk sitting on his shoulder. He says, "Do not be afraid, my brother. I have been with you since you were born. I am here to protect you. You do not need to worry about anything."
Maurice got up from the chair and returned to his pew. Who was that man? He had always felt a connection with Native Americans. Whenever he saw Native American art or heard the haunting music from the Native American flutes, it sent chills all the way to his feet. He felt somehow that he belonged at one time to an ancient people. What did all of this mean? Could it be that this little old church held the secrets of a past he was unaware of? Was this woman sent into his life to connect him with ancestors from long ago?
Several evenings later as Maurice was reading a book, out of the corner of his eye, he saw someone pass by the door of the bathroom. He put the book down and went to see if his wife might have slipped by him. No one was there. He called out to her as she was puttering in the kitchen. She had not come into the room at all. Then he remembered the words of Red Hawk at the little church. "Do not be afraid my brother. I will be with you always." From that moment on, Maurice had peace in his heart. ......musology
The Bean
The BeanOnce, awhile back, a man was walking about in his garden and he found a Bean.
It wasn't much different than any other Bean. It wasn't a big Bean or a little Bean. It was a "just right" kind of Bean. the man picked the Bean up and put it in his pocket.
After a few days the man's wife was sorting through his clothes to be washed, and out fell the Bean. The woman picked up the Bean and looked at it very closely. As she pondered the Bean, she thought, "Well, it's just a plain old Bean." The woman took the Bean and planted it in a little pot and forgot about it.
The Bean sat in the pot on their front porch for months. The sun grazed over the pot and the rain watered the Bean. The Bean began to grow.
The woman and the man had been longing for a baby, but no baby came.
One night the woman had a dream. In the dream, a Spirit came to her and told her, "I am going to grant your wish, but you must do as I command. First, you must go out on your porch and dig up the Bean in your little pot. Then, you must wash off the Bean three times and eat it."
The next day the woman was looking out her window and she saw the little pot in which she had planted the Bean. She rememberd the Dream..so she went outside and got the little pot and found the Bean. She took the Bean, washed it three times and ate it.
In the summer, when the sun was shining high in the sky the man and the woman looked in the cradle at their brand new beautiful baby boy named Charlie...but they lovingly called him.."The Bean".
musology...
Note: after I wrote this story I was amazed to learn that my son had nicknamed my grandson..."Bean".
The Tiniest Twinkle
The Tiniest Twinkle
Once upon a time in the Land of Moon
and Stars there was a little Tiny Twinkle
There were millions of little Tiny Twinkles
in that land, but there was one little Tiny
Twinkle who stood out from all the
others. This little Tiny Twinkle was
the prettiest Tiny Twinkle ever to be found
in the Land of Moon and Stars.
She gleefully danced through the
Land of Moon and stars and all of
the other Tiny Twinkles loved her
dearly.
One day the prettiest Tiny Twinkle was
sitting on a cloud when the Master of the Land of Moon and Stars came and sat
down beside her. He said, "You are my most favored Tiny Twinkle in all the Land of
Moon and Stars. I have heard a prayer from a beautiful spirit in the far away magical land called Earth. Her name is Janna. She and her fellow Earth Spirit have wished on the brightest star in the Heavens. They wished for a baby.
Once upon a time in the Land of Moon
and Stars there was a little Tiny Twinkle
There were millions of little Tiny Twinkles
in that land, but there was one little Tiny
Twinkle who stood out from all the
others. This little Tiny Twinkle was
the prettiest Tiny Twinkle ever to be found
in the Land of Moon and Stars.
She gleefully danced through the
Land of Moon and stars and all of
the other Tiny Twinkles loved her
dearly.
One day the prettiest Tiny Twinkle was
sitting on a cloud when the Master of the Land of Moon and Stars came and sat
down beside her. He said, "You are my most favored Tiny Twinkle in all the Land of
Moon and Stars. I have heard a prayer from a beautiful spirit in the far away magical land called Earth. Her name is Janna. She and her fellow Earth Spirit have wished on the brightest star in the Heavens. They wished for a baby.
The prettiest Tiny Twinkle in the Land of Moon and Stars stared wide-eyed at the Master. She asked, "Oh great and good Master of the Land of Moon and Stars, what do you want me to do?"
The Master of the Land of Moon and Stars said, "Oh Prettiest Tiny Twinkle , because you are the fairest of all the Tiny Twinkles, I wish to send you to the Earth Spirits to be their baby and give them joy all the days of their lives."
And that is what came to pass.
in the spring, when the birds sang and the flowers bloomed a beautiful baby girl was born to the Earth Spirits. She is the Prettiest Tiny Twinkle and they named her "Taeden".
And all the Tiny Twinkles in the Land of Moon and Stars rejoiced.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The Day the Music Died
I can remember the nervous pride I felt standing tall in the uniform on the 50-yard line in the Gator Bowl on a Friday night. Hundreds of fans were screaming from the bleachers waving red and white pom poms with excitement and anticipation to see what we were going to pull off this week.
Three very tall, very sharp drum majors in starched white uniforms and 10-gallon shakos slowly strutted out of the center of the band, stopping in unison with striking precision. With 400 eyes riveted on the trio, batons raised and up snapped trumpets, trombones, sousaphones, saxophones, piccolos, clarinets, euphoniums, cymbals, snares and that big old bass drum. With the strong downbeat of the batons we were on the march again!
You see, because of diligent practice under the direction of a bandmaster who spent much more time with us than his paycheck reflected, and hundreds of hours after school, we knew exactly how long that step should be and how many steps it took to get from yard line to yard line. We knew when to pivot, when to rear march, right flank, left flank and when to stop. We knew how to make that football field come to life with circles and boxes, weaving in and out of rank and file, all the while filling the staduim with rousing Sousa marches, familiar classical melodies and this week's favorite pop tune.
Then one day the music died. The children hung up the beautiful uniforms and took off their feathered shakos and put them on the shelf. Into their cases they lovingly placed the trumpets, saxophones, trombones, sousaphones, euphoniums, flutes, piccolos and clarinets. Snares and cymbals were stacked like steadfast soldiers at the back of the band hall while they finally covered up that big old bass drum. The bandmaster who had decided to make music his life, and help children do so as well, took one more look around before he closed the door behind him. You see, someone up there had decided that the children really needed another PE, diversity or basket-weaving class and there just wouldn't be enough time for band, chorus, art or theatre.
Now during halftime, the football field is empty as the crowd shuffles to the concession stand to the grinding, redundant beat of the digital mess blaring from the press box as the trumpets, saxophones, trombones, sousaphones, euphoniums, flutes, piccolos and clarinets tarnish alone in their cases. Rust in Peace. ......musology
Three very tall, very sharp drum majors in starched white uniforms and 10-gallon shakos slowly strutted out of the center of the band, stopping in unison with striking precision. With 400 eyes riveted on the trio, batons raised and up snapped trumpets, trombones, sousaphones, saxophones, piccolos, clarinets, euphoniums, cymbals, snares and that big old bass drum. With the strong downbeat of the batons we were on the march again!
You see, because of diligent practice under the direction of a bandmaster who spent much more time with us than his paycheck reflected, and hundreds of hours after school, we knew exactly how long that step should be and how many steps it took to get from yard line to yard line. We knew when to pivot, when to rear march, right flank, left flank and when to stop. We knew how to make that football field come to life with circles and boxes, weaving in and out of rank and file, all the while filling the staduim with rousing Sousa marches, familiar classical melodies and this week's favorite pop tune.
Then one day the music died. The children hung up the beautiful uniforms and took off their feathered shakos and put them on the shelf. Into their cases they lovingly placed the trumpets, saxophones, trombones, sousaphones, euphoniums, flutes, piccolos and clarinets. Snares and cymbals were stacked like steadfast soldiers at the back of the band hall while they finally covered up that big old bass drum. The bandmaster who had decided to make music his life, and help children do so as well, took one more look around before he closed the door behind him. You see, someone up there had decided that the children really needed another PE, diversity or basket-weaving class and there just wouldn't be enough time for band, chorus, art or theatre.
Now during halftime, the football field is empty as the crowd shuffles to the concession stand to the grinding, redundant beat of the digital mess blaring from the press box as the trumpets, saxophones, trombones, sousaphones, euphoniums, flutes, piccolos and clarinets tarnish alone in their cases. Rust in Peace. ......musology
Who Captured the American Dream?
It appears that Uncle Sam is heading at warp speed toward bankruptsy. Who captured the American Dream? When did the American Dream become homes, boats, fancy cars, flat-screen televisions, Blackberrys, blueberrys or iPods?
A group of patriots in 1776 in Philadelphia gave us the American Dream. These brave men preserved the American Dream for us in several documents. The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Federalist and Anti - Federalist Papers.
Against the overwhelming opposition of we the people, our elected officials recently passed into law a bill that will most certainly lead us further down the path to economic destruction.
History warned us in 1833. President Andrew Jackson shut down the central bank loan sharks and investors-the gamblers of his day. President Jackson said to them, "Gentlemen, I have been watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the people. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin 50,000 families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out!" Andrew Jackson slammed the door shut on the central bank. It appears we didn't learn a lot from "Old Hickory".
I leave you with the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
The American Dream is not found in the material. The American Dream is in the heart and secured for us in the documents those patriots left to us so long ago. .....musology
A group of patriots in 1776 in Philadelphia gave us the American Dream. These brave men preserved the American Dream for us in several documents. The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Federalist and Anti - Federalist Papers.
Against the overwhelming opposition of we the people, our elected officials recently passed into law a bill that will most certainly lead us further down the path to economic destruction.
History warned us in 1833. President Andrew Jackson shut down the central bank loan sharks and investors-the gamblers of his day. President Jackson said to them, "Gentlemen, I have been watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the people. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin 50,000 families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out!" Andrew Jackson slammed the door shut on the central bank. It appears we didn't learn a lot from "Old Hickory".
I leave you with the words of Thomas Jefferson:
"We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
The American Dream is not found in the material. The American Dream is in the heart and secured for us in the documents those patriots left to us so long ago. .....musology
Gig Muse
I was musing the other night with my husband about one of the crazy gigs I've played in 30 years of the music business. I am going to take this space to ponder some stuff that has happened on my musical trek. I'm just not good enough to remember these in order. It's frequently amusing to view what goes on in a bar from the stage.
* One night while playing out at the beach, a guy sitting at the bar picks up a lighter to light his smoke. It ended up being pepper spray and knocked the poor dude off the bar stool and across the room. It cleared the bar for about an hour. That stuff really burns.
* Another night, playing at the same bar, it was slow on a monday as usual then, in comes an entourage of very drunk, happy people. It was Lita Ford and her record producer husband and friends. They were incredibally nice and enthuisastic and she said," I wish i had my guitar, you look so lonely up there by yourself, I'd get up there and play with you."
* I can remember one of my chick singah friends telling me, "You can get the crowd to do anything on the dance floor." After years of gigging you could see certain songs would generate similar reactions:
Old Time Rock and Roll -Right after the famous piano lick at the beginning, inevitabally some inebriated woman would yell "Whooooo".
Shout- You could count on the dancing bears twisting low to the floor at the section which went "a little bit softer now" and some would end up flat out on the dance floor wiggling like worms, and at the crecendo "a little bit louder now" they would inch their way back up to a standing position. I never played that song with out that result.
* For some reason, being a chick singer, I would get the expected request of Janis Joplin...but it had to be Bobby McGee. Nothing else she ever did would suffice. I've never been a Janis Joplin type singer, and It has come to the point that Bobby McGee is now on my penalty tune list. In later years, it would be requests for Melissa Etheridge..the modern day Joplin. Same thing with Patsy Cline requests...you could do every hit Patsy Cline ever recorded but you better not forget Crazy...because that is the one they would come up and ask for.
* Back in the seventies when the pop hit "Kung Fu Fighting" was on the charts, I was in a band in Karamursel, Turkey..there was always one very drunk female who would hit the floor in a mini skirt and go go boots doing karate chops and roundhouse kicks. The boys in the band always enjoyed watching that. I can't tell you how many times drunk women would "star" the band...sigh.
* Furthermore, there was usually one intoxicated woman dancing alone at the end of the night.
* I have played some odd gigs over the years in unexpected places. One time I had a gig in Grayton Beach Florida at an artists market..it was actually kind of a cool bohemian place. I think they had the fattest pig I have ever seen in a pen at that place. I was told Michael McDonald lived close by so i would always make sure I played his songs very loud hoping he would wander over and give me a record deal. I have played at grocery stores and one time, at an old fort in Jacksonville , Florida. I am a flute player and I had a penny whistle...the gig called for a snare drummer and a fife player...so...i was the fife player and my friend , Stephanie, was the snare drummer...decked out as a union soldier and a confederate soldier. We played at the moat bridge while people were filing in.
* I am actually an entertainer..and i have done everything from face painting to balloon twisting, clowning, and soothsayer. I did many "tarot card " reader gigs...lol. I learned a little about it, but I am certainly no real sooth sayer. I would wear a blue turban, and was "Madame Kosmos" from Romania..complete with a thick, accent from nowhere. I was amazed and kind of scared that some people believed me.
I will continue to add to this muse...as I remember things ...
*
Cold Economy...Warm Hearts
Christmas Time is here again. I love Christmas! I love the decorations, the excitement and warmth of the season.
With the economy in such a slump, I suppose folks are worried that it might not be a "good Christmas" this year. I consider it might be the best Christmas we've had a a long time. Perhaps we will go back to baking cookies and cakes as gifts, or creating with our hands beautiful home made items. What if we actually get back to what Christmas symbolizes? A new birth of hope, joy and peace...goodwill toward men. A celebration of the Birth of the King of Kings...Dear Jesus. Maybe we can get back to community togetherness, and go door to door caroling . We can get with our friends and family...and share stories of Christmases gone by...while sipping on some hot wassil. Maybe we can get to that church service or Midnight Mass. We could pray and be thankful for the blessings we do have. Perhaps God is telling us it's time to simplify our lives. We've grown to big and far too greedy. How did Christmas become so materialistic? I don't fear Christmas this year...I welcome it. I am ready to downsize...I am ready to get back to the Reason for the Season. I think we are far more blessed by this economic bust than we realize and we can turn it into the warmest and most meaningful Christmas we've had in about 100 years.....Musology
With the economy in such a slump, I suppose folks are worried that it might not be a "good Christmas" this year. I consider it might be the best Christmas we've had a a long time. Perhaps we will go back to baking cookies and cakes as gifts, or creating with our hands beautiful home made items. What if we actually get back to what Christmas symbolizes? A new birth of hope, joy and peace...goodwill toward men. A celebration of the Birth of the King of Kings...Dear Jesus. Maybe we can get back to community togetherness, and go door to door caroling . We can get with our friends and family...and share stories of Christmases gone by...while sipping on some hot wassil. Maybe we can get to that church service or Midnight Mass. We could pray and be thankful for the blessings we do have. Perhaps God is telling us it's time to simplify our lives. We've grown to big and far too greedy. How did Christmas become so materialistic? I don't fear Christmas this year...I welcome it. I am ready to downsize...I am ready to get back to the Reason for the Season. I think we are far more blessed by this economic bust than we realize and we can turn it into the warmest and most meaningful Christmas we've had in about 100 years.....Musology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
