As I struggle through whatever time I have left, I begin to see more and more of the underlying currents feeding and changing the nations of this world. Changing the world into one giant sea of humanity. Erasing individualism and cultural heritage as the new world order takes hold. We all crave change in our world, and it is not surprising that the changes occurring today are so easily accepted.
But unlike days of old, change is readily accepted without question. Accepted without examination or confirmation. Not at all like days of old when change was only accepted after careful examination and a period of having gone through a demonstrated period of proof. A process whereby change adds value to our society, and enriches the foundations upon that which our freedoms have been laid.
A progressive society is what we have become. But not progressive in the way one would presume or desire the meaning to hold. This progress leads to regression. A path away from the freedoms we have all come to hold so dear in this country, these United States of America.
And I fear these currents will finally wash away the shores which define this nation’s borders. We will cease to be a definitive power in defense of the impoverished peoples of this world. We will cease to be a protector of the innocent. We will cease to be the guardian of liberty.
Under the tutelage and direction of a very few persons, Barak Hussein Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and other lesser minions, we have been redirected from our path and sent on a new course. Our destination has many names, but they are all one destination. Globalization, internationalism, transnationalism, regionalization, and many more names have been placed upon these ideologies and theories of governance. All of these ideals claim to have the best interests of humankind at their center.
But do they really address the best interests of humankind? Or do they merely conceal still another hidden agenda?
Conspiracy theories abound in the world today, and each proponent claims to know the truth. They claim to reveal the true wizard behind the curtain, pulling and pushing the levers and the strings that control the great Oz. But do they really reveal the truth? Perhaps the truth is far greater than we imagine. Perhaps we are closer to the end of the story than we realize. Perhaps we stand upon the threshold of the end of time.
Here in the independent socialist nation of Maine we have a cadre of old timers that still remember how things used to be. They still remember the value of independence. As we become a state more in debt to the great society, as Johnson named it, and that society has become the master of this nation, the special interest groups, the welfare classes, the NGOs and governmental bodies entrusted with the care and promulgation of the great society, we become less of a free nation and more of a subservient nation towards these interests.
We’ve learned in school that might does not make right, and that is a lesson that seems to have been forgotten by the progressive community, or perhaps never learned. The power of right is not a light responsibility, and it cannot be held simply by might. An animal may love its master, but will do so only so long as that master is able to feed it.
Let me share with you here the third chapter of The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
THE RIGHT OF THE STRONGEST
The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, which, though to all seeming meant ironically, is really laid down as a fundamental principle. But are we never to have an explanation of this phrase? Force is a physical power, and I fail to see what moral effect it can have, To yield to force is an act of necessity, not of will—at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be a duty?
Suppose for a moment that this so-called “right” exists. I maintain that the sole result is a mass of inexplicable nonsense. For, if force creates right, the effect changes with the cause : every force that is greater than the first succeeds to its right. As soon as it is possible to disobey with impunity, disobedience is legitimate; and, the strongest being always in the right, the only thing that matters is to act so as to become the strongest. But what kind of right is that which perishes when force fails? If we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey because we ought; and if we are not forced to obey, we are under no obligation to do so. Clearly, the word ” right” adds nothing to force: in this connection, it means absolutely nothing.
Obey the powers that be. If this means yield to force, it is a good precept, but superfluous : can answer for its never being violated. All power comes from God, I admit; but so does all sickness: does that mean that we are forbidden to call in the doctor? A brigand surprises me at the edge of a wood : must I not merely surrender my purse on compulsion; but, even if I could withhold it, am I in conscience bound to give it up? For certainly the pistol he holds is also a power.
Let us then admit that force does not create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers.
Those who may be strongest, may not be right, and we must ask ourselves today, who is right? What are the legitimate powers that we must obey in this rapidly changing global world community?