← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Zoroaster
Thread ID: 7577 | Posts: 5 | Started: 2003-06-23
2003-06-23 21:26 | User Profile
JUNE 19, 2003 THU Updated 6:32am CST PRISON PLANET.com Analysis [url=http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lorentz.html]http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_lorentz.html[/url]
Barbarians and Aristocrats
Al Lorentz June 19 2003
Throughout history, hard working people have always had to contend with marauding hordes intent on rape, pillage and plunder. Vikings plundered much of Europe for centuries, before them were various nomadic tribes such as those led by Genghis Kahn, Atilla the Hun and other lesser known but equally evil persons including the Assyrians and others who assaulted and eventually destroyed Israel.
Usually this rape and plunder was severe and total, anyone resisting was often put to death in the most horrible fashion. Resistance did not simply mean by force of arms either, by simply attempting to hide some of ones wealth or even something as necessary as next year's seed corn, a conquered subject would be put to death. The barbarian hordes often took large segments of the population as slaves, stripped the society of it's wealth and culture and burned or destroyed what they didn't take.
The efficient Roman empire made a veritable science out of conquest and plunder, going so far as to be selective in how they pillaged those they conquered. Unlike the barbarians who often destroyed the culture they conquered, the Romans decided it was better to convert them into a continual source of plundered goods. By slightly reducing the amount of plunder taken as well as limiting the outright barbarity visited on their conquered regions(unless of course they resisted too much or worse, rebelled after being subjugated).
The Roman pattern for conquest and subjugation was very efficient albeit very cruel and forced a levy or tax upon all conquered regions. The tax was not only monetary (or in the form of crops and harvested resources), it was also in human beings to be supplied to the legions as well as to serve as slaves. The only escape from this was either to be outside of the realm of Roman influence (and subject to other, possibly worse plundering hordes) or to be a Roman citizen. Roman citizens were exempt from taxation and slavery and were protected by laws and even had rights under the law (although nothing like our Constitutionally guaranteed, God given rights).
During the dark ages and beyond, European leaders attempted to improve upon this Roman model of subjugation and conquest by realizing that it was far easier to plunder their own citizens than it was to engage in the risky business of conquest. After all, military campaigns could go awry, were costly and sometimes backfired. A better source of continued revenue was from the citizens.
To help pillage and plunder their own citizens, Aristocrats used their own military and of course the military, not being fools, insisted upon a disarmed populace. Once the people were disarmed, they were easily controlled and forced into a form of chattel slavery. The more clever rulers devised systems of plundering the people with taxes as well as by offering them a modicum of false freedom and privileges which could, and quite often were, rescinded at the whim of the ruler.
Property ownership of course was forbidden except by the ruling aristocracy although citizens were allowed the illusion of being able to one day earn enough money to buy their own land. Some actually achieved this goal but the aristocracy were a closed rank society, only those of "noble blood" could be an aristocrat. To protect the aristocracy, true Christianity was suppressed and substituted with false religions which helped to perpetuate the aristocracies strangle hold of perpetual plunder on the people.
As Frederic Bastiat states in his book "The Law" (I paraphrase), work is pain but is necessary in order to gain wealth. Theft is the only alternative to work but it too carries pain in the form of punishment for theft. Barbarians engaged in theft and if they failed, were put to death. Clever thieves therefore (such as the aristocracy) sought to first control the law and thereby legalize their theft.
Since law properly emanates from God, the aristocracy had to subjugate true Christianity to their will. There was a struggle for literally decades as the aristocracy threatened, cajoled and waged war against true Christianity when it refused to endorse the ungodly theft by the aristocrats. Finally a false doctrine of "divine right of kings" came about, endorsed by the false church in exchange for filthy lucre (money) and of course favorable treatment by the aristocracy.
Under this system, the aristocracy engaged in wholesale theft and plunder and were accountable to none. They totally disregarded the law of God and, accompanied by the false church, enriched themselves at the expense of the peasants. It was not until the revolutionary war in this country was fought and won did we the peasants have any form of true relief. Even still, there were members within the Founding Fathers who wanted a return to the aristocracy with of course themselves being the new aristocrats.
Fortunately, Godly men won out and we attained our freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Included in this was of course the very important and cornerstone provision for we the people to accumulate property. At one time it was entirely possible for a citizen to actually own their own home and land. That day has passed.
Today, we are beset upon not by barbarians but rather by aristocrats who are capable of barbaric behavior. The modern aristocracy truly believe that they are somehow entitled to special treatment before the law and that the rest of us, the peasants, are beneath their contempt. In short, we modern day peasants are good only so long as we willingly fork over the prescribed amount of tribute to the aristocracy.
Should we fail to come up with our tribute payment, the aristocracy will seize our property. Under this system of government, we no longer own property, the state owns it and we are merely allowed the "privilege" of maintaining and using the property so long as we make our regular tribute payments. This is nothing but a throwback to the days when only nobility could own property. The only ones exempt from this are of course, the nobility who write themselves special loopholes in the law to avoid having a similar fate befall their massive wealth and holdings.
Should we resist making tribute payments and then attempt to resist having our homes and land seized from us, we see the barbaric side of the aristocracy. Special units of jack booted thugs stand ready to do the bidding of their aristocratic lords and masters. Having no compassion or character, these jack booted thugs gleefully will carry out the orders of their masters and help steal the homes and property of any citizen failing to make tribute.
Justifying their cowardice as "just doing their job", these thugs, who at times take seemingly great delight in executing their cruelty against usually unarmed and unprepared citizens, will execute a barbaric military style raid against anyone their aristocratic masters order them to. These thugs have made a science out of terminating anyone who would dare resist them and great amounts of wealth have been expended to ensure they have more than adequate force to do the job. There is of course a good reason for this; if the citizens ever realized they might be able to fight back and win, the aristocrats would soon be unable to extract tribute from the populace.
Just as the barbarians of old would subject those who resisted them to a cruel fate, our modern aristocrats do likewise. Examples are made of anyone who fails to pay tribute, much more to those who dare to resist. In addition to being stripped of their property and wealth, their children are taken from them, they are packed off to a torture house (referred to as a prison where they are brutalized by vicious criminals) and, should they survive this ordeal, will be returned to society as a second class citizen who might be able to get a job washing dishes or mopping floors. That is, assuming they survive the SWAT team raid by armed thugs with itching trigger fingers.
Personally, I have a lot more respect for the Barbarians of old, at least they had the courage to face the ones they were plundering in open combat and didn't deny that they were in fact stealing. Our modern day are cowards for robbing us and refusing to call it theft. The thugs who serve them are cowardly bullies who are either too stupid to realize they are doing the dirty work for lazy thieves or too psychotic to care, so long as they get to assault somebody without having to actually get hurt or punished for it.
A decent and God fearing society would put these people in a prison or worse, would put them to death. In our country we give them positions of power, honor and authority. Al Lorentz is a Fundamentalist Christian, father and devoted husband, state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas. Al has served as a Marine Sniper and later as an Airborne Ranger in the Texas National Guard. He welcomes your comments at allorentz@truevine.net. Disclaimer: This column appears as would a syndicatecd column in a newspaper. It does not necessarily reflect the views of Alex Jones. E Mail This Page
Previously by this author: Police State: Malicious Prosecution and Martha Stewart
2003-06-24 02:49 | User Profile
**Roman citizens were exempt from taxation and slavery and were protected by laws and even had rights under the law (although nothing like our Constitutionally guaranteed, God given rights). ** Am I the only one who sees this as just fatuous? The only "rights" one has are the rights one KEEPS by force of arms!
"Constitutionally guaranteed, God given rights" SHEESH!!
This is like the vaunted WWII "neutrality" of Switzerland. They were only neutral because the powers that were fighting ALLOWED them to be neutral! If either side had really and truly wanted in, then Switzerland could not have been "neutral" and would have been fighting for their own country/freedom/rights. I'm not saying they might not have succeeded in keeping their country -- but their "rights" to their country would only be assured by their own arms.
America only has these putative 'god-given' rights because we were technologically superior to the folks who held the land we wanted (and so we took it -- the hell with THEIR rights!), and then we were protected by distance and willingness to fight from others who wanted to violate OUR rights...
The reason we're currently losing our "rights" by the handful now is we're NOT willing to retain them by force of arms! We THINK (well, WE don't, but too many of our country-mates believe) that we have Constitutionally guaranteed rights and so we're "safe." But NOTHING will retain (or take away) those rights except the application of FORCE -- and I think God doesn't give a d@mn whether or not we retain the rights "he" gave us...
2003-06-24 08:11 | User Profile
Avalanche,
I like your posts and do not wish to take issue with you, but you are not entirely correct about Switzerland. It has not been invaded for more than five-hundred years because, in essence, it's a mountain fortress. The military cost of conquering Switzerland is simply too high, so its bigger neighbors leave it alone.
-Z-
2003-06-24 21:30 | User Profile
Z, didn't Avalanche address your point in her first full paragraph?
2003-06-25 06:51 | User Profile
Uncle John,
Avalanche didn't exactly answer my question. I believe Switzerland's neutrality had more to do with her own impregnability than it did with magnanimty of her bigger neighbors, say, France, Germany, or Italy. Avalanche said they allowed Swiss neutrality. It would have been better to say the Swiss policy of national defense ensured her neutrality.
-Z-