Destroying America: Globalism, Socialism, Moral Virtue & Legal Plunder

American’s are experiencing the destruction of the nation through a sojourn in socialism which is a communist philosophy of equal sharing. This new form of socialism has grown among us under the guise of globalism and a desire to concentrate processes, policies, and managerial structures into a form of cohesion which is capable of interfacing to a corresponding global governance system and has been sold to the people in the form of promised guarantees such as protection against terrorism, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, ethical mandates, wealth redistribution, guaranteed jobs, higher minimum wages, and endless more.

This negative globalism can be ascertained in our current paradigm as socialistic policies, draconian controls, or feudalism which operates on a global scale to infiltrate and modify, global and local, social structures to the purposes of self-benefit to participating organizations (many of whom are corporations or doctrinal think tanks). Arguments rage over perpetuation of socialistic doctrines rather than in contrast, intellectual virtues or excellence such as wisdom and intelligence; the rational part of the human soul as defined by Aristotle, possessing its own reason and perfection through contemplation and experience.

Aristotle tells us that good character or moral virtue can be dictated. People of this century understand via direct experience an influencing power can dictate moral virtue or the irrational side of the soul through mandating (doctrine) in some way, “the habitual performance of right acts until the power of doing them freely and willingly becomes second nature,”1 supplanting natural rights and intellectual reason and responsibility. Intellectual giants within our culture of reason lay under siege: property rights, water rights, gun culture, states rights, structural limitations, checks & balances, environmental responsibility and stewardship, just to name a few. All of these have been set upon by socialistic policy makers mandating moral virtue doctrines which are only compatible with their own belief system rather than the central population.

The Secret of the Black Fox

Two sides of the same coin

The secret of the black fox teaches us that you shall have the chase you seek when you curse Nature.  And you shall chase him over the valleys and over the fields...but ne'er shall he yield...and he's jumped into the water and swum to the other side....and he's laughed so loud the Greenwood shook and then he's turned to the huntsman and he's cried!  Ride on my gallant huntsman, when must  I come again?  For you should never want for a fox to chase all over the glen....and when your need is greatest just call upon my name and I will come and you shall have the best of sport and game! (from Heather Dale's song The Secret of the Black Fox, included)

Doctrine: [dok’ trin] noun a tenet, a principle of faith or religion….a type of thinking entailing absolutes; one or a set of principles which mandate adherence and are based on belief rather than reason.

Philosophy: [fa las o fi] noun an all-inclusive pattern of related and unrelated experiences continually re-woven logically together for consistency in a more or less satisfying way that helps us to understand our lives and our relationship of meaning with existence offered to us through a gradual process of growth.

Why OathKeepers are under attack - Stewart Rhodes

Learn about Frederic Bastiat

A global way of life: legal plunder

There are many ways of mandating moral virtue. This can be through laws, policies treated as laws, or through the forum of public opinion and sentiment which is highly moldable when the public is operating in a state which is no longer self-reliant. Socialism or Globalism mandating Doctrine through the many possible applications and control of moral virtue is one way of defining a form of Legal Plunder. Legal plunder has become a favorite tool of globals through organizing and organizations which operate solely under the heading of social or societal construction formulating a new system of being which does not include happiness or intellectualism or natural rights.

“The present day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.” ~ Frederic Bastiat, The Law

So how is legal plunder being organized? What are we calling it? How do we recognize it? Legal plunder carries many names. Bastiat tells us that it can be: “tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit,” and many others.

Bastiat equated Legal Plunder as an instrument of Socialism. Why? Well because, he explains that in regards to Socialism, it is upon law that the doctrines of socialism depend. Socialism uses doctrine to ‘divert laws’ from their true purpose. Mr. Bastiat tells us that Socialists, “like all monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather it may call upon them for help.”

So how is legal plunder by Socialists used today and has the law already been diverted from their true purposes? Are they already being twisted to perform the work required to further socialism doctrines in our society? Is this really what we want or is this what we are willing to tolerate without reaction or action to restrict it?

All these questions go back to our roots as a nation. But first lets take a look at a recent example:

In the Friday, February 11, 2011 issue of Great Falls Tribune runs a front page article by Associated Press’s Ben Evans titled: Watchdog group shines critical light on Capitol complex’s office sleepers. The article might cause you to say well here’s an organization that is looking out for the public, making sure our politicians are behaving to our expectations. Many readers might not read the whole article but simply make a few intended assumptions based on the first paragraph and then move on with their thinking having been successfully manipulated by the author and the organization described in it. Few readers will read further or read deeper, seeing the layers of real story unspoken existing between the lines. Let’s practice:

WASHINGTON – A Washington ethics watchdog says it’s time for Congress to crackdown on lawmakers who sleep in their offices rather than pay for a place to live.

Reacting to a surge in congressmen bunking down in their workspaces, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) wants the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate whether the politicians are getting an unfair tax break and violating their own rules by making personal use of public resources.

“House office buildings are not dorms or frat houses,” Melanie Sloan, the group’s executive director, said Thursday. “If members didn’t want to find housing in Washington, they shouldn’t have run for Congress in the first place.”

For years, at least a few lawmakers have slept on couches and cots in their offices to avoid….

Photo Insert with caption: Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont., has been known to sleep in his office while in Washingon for convenience. Now Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is asking for an investigation into the personal use of office space, which the group says, could violate rules or amount to an unfair tax break.

Article continues: …long commutes or pricey Washington rent payments. Some see it as a badge of honor, a commitment to frugality and hard work and a reminder to constituents they don’t consider Washington home.

CREW cited media reports that more than 30 lawmakers, all men, are now doing it. Sloan thinks the real total could be as many as 40 or 50 after a wave of budget-conscious, anti-Washington freshmen won seats in November.

Rep. Paul Ryan, the House Budget Committee chairman, has slept in his office for years. Ryan R-Wis, brushed aside questions about the complaint.

“People have been doing it for decades,” he said. “I work until midnight every night. I get up at six every morning.”

Another longtime office sleeper, Rep. Luis Gtierrez D-Ill., said he’ll move out if the rules change. But he said it is more convenient for him to stay in the Capitol complex.

A spokesman for the Office of Congressional Ethics declined to comment except to say that the office had received CREW’s letter, which maintains that the free living arrangements amount to a taxable benefit that should be reported to the IRS. Several congressional officials said they weren’t aware of any rules or guidance specifically addressing the matter.

Sloan said that aside from the legal and rules questions, she has heard reports from congressional staffers about uncomfortable work environments.

“Especially if you’re a woman and you’re working late and your boss is there getting ready for bed, that seems designed for discomfort,” she said.

Besides, she added, “who wants to run into a member of Congress in need of a shower wandering the halls in sweats and a robe?”

Ok so let’s pick this article apart so that what is happening here is more understandable. Here we have an organization who is not a part of publically controlled government, who implies through its name that it is Ethically endowed itself, at least enough to pass judgment on others.

So what is an organization which is not governmental? It is a NGO: a non-governmental organization. It is a consequence of someone’s idealistic intent to influence and since it is in the public – private partnership business that makes it also identifiable as a special interest group. Question is whose interests?

(CREW) wants the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate whether the politicians are getting an unfair tax break and violating their own rules by making personal use of public resources.

The article thus describes an intent to cause control or harm through the diverting of laws from their true purpose. What are the true purpose of laws? Well if we were to go back and look a moment at one of our founding documents (which thoroughly defined the purpose for acting against injustice by creating a new nation based on our common principles) The Declaration of Independence which defines the purpose of government and through it, our laws, we would find the passage which tells us: “Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their (the Peoples) Safety and Happiness.” Effect means to cause. We are all familiar with the term safety, and happiness I will reacquaint you with in short order below.

“House office buildings are not dorms or frat houses,” Melanie Sloan, the group’s executive director, said Thursday. “If members didn’t want to find housing in Washington, they shouldn’t have run for Congress in the first place.”

To continue we see a person who is supplanting the prime directive purpose of law with her own ideas about the value of a public representative. For her socialistic behavior has greater value than the purposes imbued in a representative by its constituency. This is socialism.

…in regards to Socialism, it is upon law that the doctrines of socialism depend. Socialism uses doctrine to ‘divert laws’ from their true purpose. Mr. Bastiat tells us that Socialists, “like all monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather it may call upon them for help.” ~ Bastiat

Socialism does not respect the people or the people’s priorities. Is it in the people’s priorities to dictate where a man may or may not lay his tired head? Or are they more focused that he is available and taking action upon their concerns? This is an example of legislating through the forum of public opinion for control by a special interest group. Changes here then would be for the benefit of this groups idealistic ideas (socialism/globalism) rather than for the people. Are we not still a government for the People and By the People? Or are we a government for the Special Interest Groups and By the Special Interest Groups?

Photo Insert with caption: Rep. Dennis Rehberg, R-Mont., has been known to sleep in his office while in Washingon for convenience. Now Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is asking for an investigation into the personal use of office space, which the group says, could violate rules or amount to an unfair tax break.

The article lambastes Rehberg by singling him out. Which for this week in where the publicly identified globals have been routinely hammering on him their socialistic doctrines, it’s not exactly surprising. Here’s the background on some of it from my personal notes:

  • hmmm, so what's this about the Chinese buying up all the gold on the open market...might make sound money policy & infrastructure changes at the state level difficult if there's no precious metals available...montana...can you say saphire?
  • The Montana Patriot community has three concerns right now open for discussion. One being sound money policy in which Montana disconnects from the fiat system and enters one based on real asset values such as precious metals. Another is States Rights. These are subjects which those who are not nation dismantling globals, participate in.
  • Senator Tester MT (co-author healthcare bill a globalist/socialist initiative) was running a radio ad this week saying he was campaigning against secrecy & secret meetings in DC and seeking public support in this. That we the public should be concerned when the shoe is now on the other foot...Oh really? Wow imagine that...a globalist barred from something or not controlling something in DC. Must be a little unsettling for him.
  • Speaking of Tester, here's how globals talk to nationalists: this same week he and other Dems try to take Denny Rehberg to task for speaking to MT State Legislature in Helena about States Rights. Tester & Cohorts say "it was an inappropriate venue for what they described as a divisive partisan speech." According to Tester & Cohorts, Rehberg should instead be focusing on guaranteeing jobs.
  • Translation: Rehberg sit down, stf up and be a good sheep. Courtesy of Great Falls Tribune article by Matt Gouras Associated Press , plastered top of front page. Globals find checks and balances on power as scary as the Boogy Man....tell their children horror stories about Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness defined by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics
  • Ok so what constitutes an appropriate venue for discussion on States Rights with the peoples Representatives if not their own State Legislature?
  • “Globals or Socialists fear all liberties…Clearly then, the conscience of the social democrats cannot permit persons to have any liberty because they believe that the nature of mankind tends always toward every kind of degradation and disaster.” ~ Bastiat, The Law
  • Am I a degradation or disaster by definition of being a member of mankind? Are you?

To answer these questions for ourselves let us first look at the definition of the proper function of man. Aristotle first defined this for us. He taught us that the function of man is to seek good. He explained in the Nicomachean Ethics that the good for man is a goal which is always chosen for its own sake; that this good is, by human agreement in all walks of life, referred to as happiness.

Aristotle said, “the aim of politics is the highest good attainable by action….the highest attainable good attainable by action is happiness.” Being happy is definable, according to the great philosopher, as the ability of and opportunity for “living well” and “doing well” (success in life in whatever way an individual may define success for him or herself)

The inheritance of the United States of America includes and recognizes these definitions of politics and happiness within The Declaration of Independence which reads:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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. -

Today we experience organizations practicing this socialism in opposition to our natural definitions of politics and happiness.  Most of of these organizations are not even portions of our recognized government and they are attempting to legislate from the forum of public sentiment using legal plunder as a dual weapon; a means to quell their opposition and to modify human society in such a way that public sentiment and then following law becomes diverted from their true purposes.

Bastiat suggests that the “politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not been caused by old conquests and lootings and by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being (pursuit of happiness) and perfection (excellence or virtue), would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward? But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations and arrangements – legal or apparently illegal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder.

While Bastiat considered justice a negative concept due to the thorough infiltration of legal plunder in all aspects of human society, I would instead suggest that justice is relative. Its perception of negativity or positivity being reliant upon the situational paradigm and the application upon the intent of those employing legal plunder .

Legislating from the forum of public sentiment and situational ignorance is a form of legal plunder and unethical by the current definition of good character. Human kind are susceptible to understandings sweetened with carefully crafted words contrived from the sentiments of the “irrational side of the soul that is emotional but not vegetative,”2 quick to judge but slow to think and reliant on habits of mandated moral virtues rather than real reason and intellect applied.

A socialist can imply to you that it is irresponsible or unethical for a public servant to sleep on a couch in his office. Yet the public falls to reliance on the habits of dependency on familiar sources of information for an easy truth; a truth which they may then apply toward an easily attainable end. Socialism is manipulative and deceptive. The people thus susceptible to being manipulated become a tool to legislate upon or maneuvered for desired changes in society thru the alterations in public perception: a form of legal plunder.

The public is being subjected by organizations like the CREW to all manners of transformative manipulations to conform to socialistic Doctrine. CREW tells us in the story above that women well versed in a branch of society which routinely functions under the effects of exhaustion are still uncomfortable with someone seeking rest in their location or imply that such women have no regard for the fiscal responsibilities of representatives placed upon them by their constituency of origin. We are told things like if we participate in our gun culture, we are extremists by the group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) who was caught acting in a governmental capacity just this January despite a long history of professing that it is not. We are told that the police are all criminal creating a rift between those the socialists want to use to control the population and those whom they want to control and mold to be more compatible with their doctrinal operating principles. We are depicted as potential terrorists for our political views by infiltrated or saturated organizations such as DHS. These are all patterns of legal plunder made upon the people by the new socialism we call Globalism. This ideology operates by force, dishonesty, and violations of their oaths where oaths have been taken, routinely following unlawful orders to create this new social governance paradigm. And to compound the problem, we are willing to stand by and let these psychotic & neurotic special interest groups and nongovernmental organizations (ngo’s) spewing the new religion of fear-twisted and non-representative globalism, create a global governance through the destruction of this Republic? This goes against all intellectual powers of reason.

Whilst the various players duc it out in every venue imaginable, the public sits comatose; does not ask why a person or group would desire to cause the public to see or believe something a certain way. The public does not ask, what is the history of the individual or group who desires to use them to legislate through the forum of public opinion consequently using law or policy to legally plunder another group or individual. The public does not seek to understand who or what funds such groups. The public does not habitually seek to identify the nature or degree of sameness of this person or group who would use them to modify collective societal behaviors. The public has lost the habit of thinking for itself. It hasdeveloped a new habit; a dependence on perceived authority. They have become sheep in every sense of the term. Therefore the public is not, by their own choice, capable of understanding the plays of power or changes in policies, or modifications to the processes of society around them. The public through their habitual intellectual ignorance will shoot one of their own in the foot….thinking they are justified in supporting a stance or an action because they have been informed by an illicit authority they do not understand, that there is a reason to be concerned or have it investigated.

These are unhealthy habits and are a means to destabilize and destroy a nation from within. What better way to subjugate a people but through modification of their every behavior? What better way to institute long reaching control for little investment than through teaching the Peoples Representatives and through them the people, how and when to breathe or where they are allowed to sleep? Many decent individuals have died in the public political arena by friendly fire. It’s not the weapon…it’s the Foolish, the Ignorant, and the Unconcerned behind the trigger.

1 Nels M Bailkey, Nicomachean Ethics: Moral Virtue and the Doctrine of the Mean.

2 Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics: Intellectual and Moral Virtue

More by this Author


Comments 7 comments

Cyrellys profile image

Cyrellys 5 years ago from Montana Author

Lol, no sweat my friend, sorry about that. I'm glad to hear from others who see them for what they are.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 5 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

I never meant to imply that you think CREW is an apolitical group and am sorry that you would infer that I did - I just wanted to emphasize to your readers their agenda - you and I are on the same page. I thought I was supporting your viewpoint. I can read, can you?


Cyrellys profile image

Cyrellys 5 years ago from Montana Author

I realize everyone is pretty hot and frustrated right now about politics and what is happening across the board. However we must take the time to read carefully. Communicators such as myself layer our work with information and intent on several levels to reach different groups at the same time. Someone who hasn't been paying attention or who is not ready to look at their world closely would take what I wrote in the article as a slap across the face for having apparently insulted the capacity of the public. Someone else who is waking and realizes something is terribly wrong but can't put a finger on just what it is would have a proverbial EUREKA moment and then feel compelled to investigate everything going on much closer and with greater concern for details knowing that SOME people are not completing the cycle of knowledge gathering before formulating their opinions.

And others who are fully awake and aware who have been involved on the front lines of the fight for a very long time, who are accustomed to watching communicators on all sides back-channel across lines at each other would see something very different. Such a person would see someone telling the other side, "Nice try buddy. You've just been caught red-handed AGAIN trying to use 'the perceived authority' of self-professed non-profit, non-partisan think-tank organizations to 'socially-engineer' the public into your Marxist camp. Very cute. You're busted again. EPIC FAIL. What do ya got for an encore?" There-by PROVING that what I implied about the public (since I am a member of the public) is entirely wrong in the first place (deliberately) because we ARE capable and FAR FROM habitually, intellectually ignorant.


Cyrellys profile image

Cyrellys 5 years ago from Montana Author

tsadjatko I never implied that it is a non-profit, non-partisan watchdog group. If you think I did, then you need to reread the article I wrote.

I said, "Whilst the various players duc it out in every venue imaginable, the public sits comatose; does not ask why a person or group would desire to cause the public to see or believe something a certain way. The public does not ask, what is the history of the individual or group who desires to use them to legislate through the forum of public opinion consequently using law or policy to legally plunder another group or individual. The public does not seek to understand who or what funds such groups. The public does not habitually seek to identify the nature or degree of sameness of this person or group who would use them to modify collective societal behaviors. The public has lost the habit of thinking for itself. It has developed a new habit; a dependence on perceived authority. They have become sheep in every sense of the term. Therefore the public is not, by their own choice, capable of understanding the plays of power or changes in policies, or modifications to the processes of society around them. The public through their habitual intellectual ignorance will shoot one of their own in the foot….thinking they are justified in supporting a stance or an action because they have been informed by an illicit authority they do not understand, that there is a reason to be concerned or have it investigated," quote from article.


tsadjatko profile image

tsadjatko 5 years ago from maybe (the guy or girl) next door

You cite CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) throughout your hub - if anyone thinks CREW is a non-profit, non-partisan watchdog group - THINK AGAIN...http://www.crewexposed.com/?autm_source=th&utm_med...


Cyrellys profile image

Cyrellys 5 years ago from Montana Author

Yes, some years ago I would have dismissed it too. And I did dismiss many that if I had the time and energy today, I might consider going back to take a second look at. As far as your question about the politically subversive tactic 'No good deed goes unpunished', I don't know.

Wikipedia refers to the phrase as sardonic, or an aphorism while usingenglish.com calls the phrase a idiomatic expression.

I did find this online: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_good_deed_goes_unp...

The phrase, itself, has been "attributed to several luminaries, including Clare Boothe Luce,[1] Billy Wilder,[2] American financier John P. Grier, banker Andrew W. Mellon,[3] and Oscar Wilde.[4]" ~ en.wikipedia.org

Whether or not these individuals were practitioners of this politically subversive tactic as we know it today, again I don't know. The extent of my knowledge barring additional information to this date is only that the practice of deceptively preying on the public's sentiment and perception is widespread by special interest groups and other globals.

Here's another idiom, "...knowing is half the battle." This pertains to us. Being aware that we and others around us can and are being used in this way to cause harm or control the population gives us an advantage. It lessens the practice's effectiveness on a percentage of its effort. The better versed we become at catching it the more the practice will box-in the practitioners because it IDENTIFIES them...socialism being an ideology that does not function well in broad daylight will then be forced to back-track and find some other way of subsisting.


FitnezzJim profile image

FitnezzJim 5 years ago from Fredericksburg, Virginia

Interesting write-up.

I would have dismissed the original DC article you cited out of hand as yet another shining example of the politically subversive tactic 'No good deed goes unpunished'. Do we have any history on who originated that tactic?

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working