TSA and Homeland Security Expose America's Biggest Threat

Why do Americans and others in the Western world feel so terrorized?

Earlier I watched a news clip in which travelers were asked their thoughts about the Naked-Body scanners and the Pat-Downs at the airports. Many people were very supportive of them, saying that if it saved their life from a terrorist it was worth it. Most people were very sincere and serious about their fears, really believing that the airplanes were dangerous and possibly full of terrorists, but never once mentioned fears of a plane crash, cancer caused by radiation, or of feeling insulted by a pat-down -- all of which are far more common and more likely to occur than terrorism.

It struck me as very interesting. It shows how much our fears are formed and caused by the media, rather than by logic.

It also shows how disgraced we are. We don't mind pointing fingers at others, other groups of people, singling them out and accusing them, blaming them, fearing them. We'd rather believe we are terrorized by a few people, than believe a machine causes cancer or that a plane could crash due to various factors. We love blaming people. We can't blame machines or planes crashing for feeling terrorized by our inability to control life and how it ends. We can't make naked body scanners or malfunctioning jet engines into scapegoats for our sins and fears -- but we can make people into scapegoats.

"I don't mind going through the body scanner or having a pat-down if it means keeping me safe from terrorists and saves my life."

And then, there are those who simply don't care. They don't care. They've never thought about it. It doesn't seem strange at all to remove their shoes and belongings, to pose in the scanner, or to be patted-down. It's only part of life, part of traveling, another process. They've become numb and hardened. These same people will strive to protect their family from unhealthy influences and foods, and will quickly accuse others of irresponsibility and sinfulness, but suddenly turn blind and dumb when they are accused of the same things.

And this may be why so many really aren't concerned about the body scanners and think that those who are must be paranoid. These people always laugh and say, "I don't have anything to hide. I'm innocent. Who cares." Most people really do believe they are innocent, or that their crimes are lesser than another's. They absolutely don't want to admit what the naked body scanner implies -- that they are guilty, that they are not innocent, that they are accused of a crime -- that they are a terrorist threat to the safety of others and to their friends, family, and country. It's too difficult to admit this.

We Americans will continue to feel terrorized and afraid of others until we admit we are guilty, imperfect, criminal, and stained. As long as those body scanners can only read the surface and those pat-downs only touch the surface, then we can also feel safe; for that scanner can't read our hearts and minds, and the pat-down can't grope our minds and find the weapons or evil intents we have hidden away. Go ahead, take my nail clippers, but don't you dare find the needles I use to prod my coworkers and family. Go, ahead, grope my groin, but don't reach into the cracks of my soul and pull out the hidden hate and excrement of my mind.

The real fear is not of foreign terrorists or men with dark skin. It is of ourselves. So, as long as it is easier for us to blame others and to point out those with superficial and skin-deep differences or obvious religious practices we will never have to look at that which lays beneath the skin and is not obvious. We will never have to look at ourselves.

We feel terrorized by our own self. This is why we feel terrorized and why we willingly submit to such things as the naked-body scanner. It takes a photo of our image, the false image we desire to project and to keep. It makes us feel as if we're doing something without actually doing anything. It allows us to continue lying to ourselves that we are not the terrorist and not a danger to our country or others.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. Abraham Lincoln made these words from the Bible famous and embedded them into the American mind.

America is united in believing that the way to defend against terrorism is to divide against itself. Rather than becoming stronger and steadfast we believe the best way to defend and protect ourselves is to accuse each other, ban each other, pat each other down and collect naked photos at the airports.

Somehow, it "protects" and keeps us "free" to avoid admitting our own sins and weaknesses while blaming others. Those damn tobacco smokers, those damn Muslims, those damn politicians, those damn Constitutionalists, those damn drunk drivers, those damn drug dealers, those damn bad parents, those damn this, those damn that. Keep pointing at others and wanting to get rid of them and we'll never ever have to point the finger at our own chest.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. Each of us is a house. How can we divide from our own self, disconnect our image from our soul? We are doing a good job of trying to divide ourselves. We don't want to admit how we have hurt ourselves and ignored our own basic freedoms in our individual lives. We have taken that New Age Christian teaching of "Dying To Self" and we have attempted to kill our self and negate it and tell it to stop nagging us. We have terrorized our own self.

In a strange way, Homeland Security and the TSA have tapped into the truth of America. We each stand accused of terrorism. We all have harmed America with our apathy, ignorance, hatred and fear, arrogance, and self-righteousness. There is no grace in America, only Law. And when there is only Law with no foundation of mercy supporting it, then there is no justice, and the U.S. Constitution dies.

The United States Constitution is a document firmly grounded on grace. That Bill of Rights is all about mercy and about refusing to divide against one's self or neighbors even when they are imperfect and stand accused. There is no such thing as free speech, freedom of the press, or freedom of religion without grace towards those we don't agree with or even think dangerous. But in America we no longer have grace. We believe attacking and accusing and banning the minority will save us and keep us alive.

And how odd that America was founded upon the rights of the minority rather than the majority, and yet we fear the minority. The power of the minority was well-known by our founders. They liked that minority. They were a minority that shaped the way the majority lived. But America wants to destroy that powerful minority. We think it smokes too much and will kill us all. It goes to the wrong churches or no church and will ruin our beliefs. It dresses strange and wants to blow up airplanes. It reads the wrong news. It eats the wrong food. Isn't it interesting how this minority holds so much power over our lives and minds? Our founders were right. The minority is important and strikes fear into us. It seems that all the majority can think about is the minority. Somehow, these minorities strike fear into us because they force us to be strong, merciful, graceful, educated, and to live in an imperfect world.

When we get rid of the minority we get rid of choice and the freedom required to make choices as a minority of one. America doesn't need the Bill of Rights anymore, because the minority is nearly illegal. If we all agree and do as we're told by the authorities, never questioning, never thinking for ourselves, then we no longer need the 1st Amendment or any other Amendment to protect us -- because none of us is a minority dissenter anymore, since those are illegal. There is absolutely no point in the Bill of Rights if we're all in the majority and agree on everything.

According to the 1st Amendment of the Constitution I have a right as a minority to express freedom of speech by buying tobacco, I have the freedom to express my religious beliefs by smoking tobacco, and the right to express these beliefs in printed format. But because I am a minority and don't have millions of dollars to pay off my state politicians and to fund "science" that supports my views (and the stock in my product), suddenly, the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to me; the minority it is designed to protect. Because I refuse to support my local state health department's sick sense of humor, which advocates through cartoons the killing of cigarette smokers, or their racist advertising which links tobacco users to those of middle eastern descent -- because I am a minority and love other minorities, even those I don't agree with; I am labelled a danger to society.

I am a danger. I am a minority. I am one little person with one little lit cigarette. My vote doesn't count, but my actions do. I am the part of the house that most of America is divided against. I am the one to fear most. A naked body scan and a pat-down will not detect me. A law, a ban, cannot change my mind or who I am. The Constitution can fade, but in my heart it is still written and cannot be erased. I am the United States Constitution. I am freedom and liberty and without me, without those like me there is no such nation as the United States of America. If you are not for me, then you are against me. If you are against me you are against the Constitution, against your own country, against your own house.

Yes, it's dangerous to travel these days. Terrorists are everywhere. Each person who submits unquestioningly to the naked body scan and/or pat-down has failed. They, we are the reason America's safety is threatened. We cannot defend even the smallest minority, our self. If we will not stand even for our self, then who will stand for us? No one. And so, the TSA is doing a very effective job of identifying exactly how dangerous it really is in this country. We are surrounded by a majority of people who will defend no one. It's incredibly dangerous, for one could be raped or mugged in an airport and not one person would come to our aid, nor apprehend the perpetrator of the crime. Those few people who defend themselves are the percentage of people left in this country who will also defend others. There aren't many left. A minority.

Why do Americans feel so terrorized? Because on a daily basis, we each live with the terrorist and cannot get away from them. They are everywhere we are because they are us. And the aptly named Department of Homeland Security along with the Transportation Security Administration are doing a most excellent and thorough job exposing exactly how dangerous America is and how many terrorists there are. Perhaps, we should be applauding them for showing us how disgraced and dangerous America has become. We're naked and can't see it, defiled and don't care.

How To Deal With TSA: Bathrobes and Slippers, NOT Violence and Mobs

My solution to the TSA: Bathrobes and fuzzy slippers.

I used to work with a lady that would say, "Kill 'em with kindness, kill 'em with kindness, that's what I always say," then, she'd laugh and take a big drag off her cigarette and exhale it out the window.

I've often found that these words are true and work better than obvious anger. For some reason, turning the other cheek and giving tyrants what they want and more, but in a way they hadn't planned on and that is humorous confuses and enrages them.

If the TSA, under the auspices of our government wants us naked and wants to make sure we aren't carrying weapons or explosives upon our bodies why not make things easier and cheaper and save the environment while we're at it? Those Rapiscanners and the TSA cost the country billions of dollars and waste energy and space and time.

Wouldn't it be far cheaper and easier if travelers arrived at the airport in bathrobes and fuzzy slippers? This way, instead of passing through the Rapiscan or having to endure a pat-down, one could simply open their bathrobe and show themselves and it would accomplish the same thing as a scan and also cut down on time-consuming pat-downs.

If we gave them what they wanted and more and were jolly and made a holiday of it there would be no sense in the body scanners or in all of the TSA and we'd save billions of dollars and have fought back in a non-violent and humorous way. Also, sales of bathrobes and slippers would sky rocket, helping private businesses and the economy.

But no, Americans won't do this. It's too easy. Americans will continue to rant and rave about the abuse of the TSA and the stories of men, women, children, and handicapped being defiled will continue. And the TSA will continue laughing at us and telling us they're only going to get more invasive and thorough.

I've wanted to write in the subject of mass panic and lynch mobs for awhile and now, I may. What the TSA is doing seems deliberately designed to cause mass violence and terror.

In the early part of the 1900s there were numerous lynch mobs and riots across the nation. At that time they were white on black mobs, but now the color lines are a bit blurred which makes it harder to see the similarities. But there is one commonality to American lynch mobs. That commonality is the story of a woman or a child having been brutally raped by a member or members of a minority group which the majority feels threatened by.

The story of the woman being raped is often an exaggeration of a real event or never occurred. A few people spread the story around and incite the fear and hatred of the men who turn out to protect their women and avenge this heinous crime. In a short time there is violence and chaos in the streets. Entire neighborhoods are burned and looted, many are killed and injured, and the average person is turned into an angry animal. These lynch mobs are usually incited by manipulators in unions or governments who are trying to prove their power to another group in power who has not made concessions to their demands. But more on that later.

Anyway, the point I am making is that the TSA's arrogant attitude and Homeland Security's attitude, telling us that we haven't seen nothing yet and that the abuses will continue inspite of public outcry are obvious signs that they want the American people to form into a lynch mob and string up a few TSA workers. Each new article and YouTube image of men, women, and children being abused kindles the fire. Unlike the exaggerated stories of the past of the white woman being raped by the black man, these stories are true and have imagery to back them up.

I am not saying we should ignore the abuses of the TSA, but I am concerned about the mass reaction to them. It seems to me that someone higher up is trying to prove a point with someone else and will use the average blind citizen to carry out the force. It seems to me that somewhere someone desires to shut down all airline travel.

The attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 shut down travel and grounded flights. How much more devastating will a nationwide lynch mob in our airports be? This would stop all travel, cause fear, and perhaps even stop all automobile travel due to martial law in many states. Evidently, we are at war, and for some reason our government thinks it's an autoimmune disorder and wants to make us attack it so that it can attack us--funded entirely by our tax dollars and blindness.

The enemy is us. It's you and I. Our government is treating us this way and will incite us into making it a reality. If only we could kill 'em with kindness and show up in our bathrobes and slippers as a peaceful yet effective demonstration of our power and sense of humor. If only.

Samuel Wolanyk chose to strip down to his underwear in San Diego in order to comply with TSA's need to make sure he was safe and was recorded by a woman. For some reason Wolanyk's compliance wasn't acceptable procedure and TSA wanted him to put his clothes back on so that he could have a pat-down. He and the woman that taped him are under arrest. Huh? If I had to guess, Wolanyk's choice to comply in a non-aggressive, sexy, and creative manner which "turned the other cheek," frightens TSA and Homeland Security more than anything yet. Way to go Wolanyk and may God Bless and Protect you. "Passenger Chooses Strip-Down Over Pat-Down," R. Stickney, NBC San Diego, 22 Nov. 2010 http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Passenger-Chooses-Strip-Down-Over-Pat-Down-109872589.html?dr

Why You Should Read Lolita Before Traveling In the U.S.A.: American Travelers Are Lolita, and The TSA Is Humbert Humbert

In 1955 Vladimir Nabokov, a Russian emigre to the United States, published Lolita, a tale of a linguistically and aesthetically talented pedophile who runs off with his 12 year old step daughter, "Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta" (first lines of Lolita).

Lolita was not published in the U.S. until 1958 due to its pornographic subject matter. Nabokov intensely hated cruelty to others and sexual deviants. So why did he write a book from the viewpoint of the pedophile, Humbert Humbert, who has conned several generations of readers and academics with the beautiful account of his love and "protection" of a 12 year old girl?

Nabokov hated evil. He had escaped the Bolsheviks in Russia, then later, escaped the Nazis with his wife of Jewish descent and their young son. They arrived in America and fell in love with it. Nabokov's wife, Vera, promptly purchased a gun to replace the one she had left behind in Europe, and learned to drive.

Nabokov, a seemingly absent-minded butterfly-chasing professor with an innocence about him that relied upon his wife's ferocity and protection liked to look at things from a very detailed and scientific perspective. He hated evil and studied it, dissected it, and understood its minutest detail. He climbed into the mind of evil when he wrote Lolita, shocking readers and enchanting millions with the beauty of his language.

Lolita was a triumph and proved how easily a population can be tricked into accepting evil, calling it beautiful, spending entire lifetimes studying its details without ever getting to its ultimate meaning. Anyone can tear apart an engine, or dissect a body and name the parts and figure out how they operate, but most cannot figure out the ultimate meaning -- why was this human body created, what is its purpose? How does one get into the mind of the creator via the act of dissection and cataloguing of the parts? It is impossible if one has no love or passion driving them. Creators and inventors generally have more love and passion which compels them to work harder and longer at something, creating a thing that changes the world for better.

Most inventions and creations were initially designed for the betterment of mankind or to add beauty or freedom. But many inventions are corrupted and used for evil purposes. The written word was made to better the world, but evil tries to corrupt it. The same goes for all art. We see technology abused, being used to make life harder rather than easier. Even Lolita, meant to show us evil from its own perspective, has been corrupted and adopted as a wonderful and dreamy tale by many gullible girls and joking young men, none of whom are aware that they have been artfully conned and that Nabokov proves his case of how evil survives and is accepted into the world.

Nabokov, the great enchanter and magician deceives many with his artistic slight of hand, keeping our focus upon the aesthetic, causing us to accept Humbert Humbert's defence because it is merely art and has no ultimate meaning or moral. If art is only aesthetic, then beauty has no meaning, thus what is the point of creating it?

Nabokov, a talented lepidopterist, studied butterflies and moths and was fascinated by their beauty. These creatures are patterned in ways that attract and enchant us, but also hide them from evil. Some butterflies blend in with their surroundings while others mimic dangerous animals to avoid being eaten. Nabokov learned that a butterfly's patterning is not merely aesthetic, but also enhances its survival. And this is what art's purpose is. Art is not merely aesthetic, but driven by truth and survival. If we cannot learn from art how to be wiser, better, kinder, and more graceful to others; to have pity, then art has no purpose, much as a shiny car has no meaning or purpose without an engine. A car is nice to look at, but without an engine it gets us nowhere.

The reason I expound upon Nabokov's Lolita and art is that more than ever America is deceived by the Humbert Humberts who claim they love us and want to protect us, while molesting us in various ways. We are made to pass through Naked Body Scanners, which undress us and expose us to dangerous mutagenic radiation. We are searched and groped by TSA officials as we travel the country, much as Lolita was groped by Humbert Humbert along the highways and byways of America. The stories now include "enhanced" searches that have left many feeling sexually violated after having had their penises, anuses, labia, and breasts felt by TSA screeners.

Now, does Humbert's love for Lolita feel nice and beautiful? Sure, he attacked the pornographic movie maker that ran off with Lolita, because that kind of art is immoral and degrading; but what of Humbert's protective and fatherly love for her? More than ever Nabokov's Lolita is important, for we all are her.

Was Lolita clean and innocent as the wind-driven snow? Was she faultless? No. But was that any excuse for Humbert Humbert to molest her? Was Lolita a kind and sweet child? No. She was obnoxious and sometimes crude. Was she more deserving of Humbert's sexual predation because of this? No. Americans are like this 12 year old girl and even though we are annoying and obnoxious and immoral it does not mean that we deserve to be treated by our states, by our fellows that work at TSA, as criminals in need of being stripped down or molested as we travel. Humbert Humbert protected Lolita as much as our airports are protecting us.

This is not beautiful, this is not America. This isn't even Nazi Germany. This is worse. This is worse for numerous reasons. Firstly, it's far worse and more abusive passing through United States airport security than in the rest of the world. America is supposed to be less abusive than the rest of the world. Second, the atrocities of the Nazis and American eugenicists and corporations in the first part of the 20th century are not so far removed from memory that we have forgotten them and what they looked like -- and what is going on in the United States right now resembles these past times.

The TSA's arrogance is only a small, yet extremely visible HINT as to what period of history we have regressed to. If a Naked Body Scanner, a long line in which one is divested of their possessions and shoes, hurried along, and subjected to physical searches which involve humble and silent endurance while one's anal and sexual reproduction areas are touched by uniformed employees of the government before being boarded upon crowded vehicles traveling somewhere doesn't wake us up and cause deja vu; then far worse than what happened in Nazi-controlled areas of Europe awaits us.

Rather than humbly lining up like the Jews, believing they'd eventually return home, we should stop cowering in embarrassment and start saying to hell with the "law," which breaks every law written into our soul. American travelers aren't terrorists and neither are visitors from other countries. The terrorists are the ones that apply for TSA jobs, and willingly carry out the orders of their superiors. If TSA employees were intelligent Americans they'd go on strike until they no longer were made to mistreat their fellow Americans. The terrorists are the ones groping for your wallet and now, your genitals. Soon, the women and children will be divided from the men, then the children from the women as enhanced airport security. It's already happening on an individual level. What next? Confiscation of Passport and Citizenship? Child sacrifice? When will their appetite be filled?

Wake up, America. Don't let the lives lost of the millions of Jews and others be for nothing. It's time to wake up out of our self-righteous and false morals. We are imperfect, we are obnoxious, we are all sinners, and we're not afraid of it. The Nazis were afraid of sin and imperfection and tried to hide it and eradicate it. We don't have to fall for that lie.

America wasn't founded as a utopia away from imperfection, but a place that would toughen up and accept it. That First Amendment isn't for the perfect or the safe people, but to protect the imperfect and those that speak unsafe things even if they are the truth and offend others. Our entire Constitution was designed to protect the so-called "impure," the "unsafe," the "sinful," the obnoxious, the rude, and the human. If the Constitution was only for the perfect and the moral, then our Founding Fathers would not have had any rights.

According, to Britain the American Revolutionaries were a bunch of terrorists, criminals, and tax evaders. And, according to our side of history they were brave, courageous, educated lovers of freedom. It all depends on who is writing history as to what the words "terrorist," "art," "pedophile," and "free" mean. We want to be on the right side of history. The trick is figuring out what the "right" side is. Usually, it's the side that is willing to break the law to show pity and hospitality to others when they are traveling in an inhospitable world.

America, this is not ancient Sodom where travelers were subjected to rape when visiting that town. Why are we forcing ourselves upon travelers? How does it protect us to treat citizens and visitors to this country this way? We are not Nazis, not Humbert Humbert, not Sodomites -- are we?

image: George Washington, Commander of the Terrorist Americans who threatened Britain's safety and health, also known as The Father Of Our Country, The United States Of America.

American Travelers Uncovered At Their Own Expense

I'll be traveling soon and have been studying the TSA site in hopes of passing the security exams I will encounter along the way. And I wonder to myself, if it's really this dangerous to fly, then why isn't it banned altogether as so many other health risks are these days?

It's amazing how much fear our government is in when it comes to travelers. Every particle must be examined and X-rayed. And now, passengers must stand in a Stick 'Em Up pose and have naked photos taken. Why would someone willingly give their government which is supposed to protect them, not expose them, a naked photo of them self, but not dear Granny or their own child?

Granny would take better care of that naked body shot than anyone else and protect it from all other eyes because it embarrasses her to even have such a thing, and she's embarrassed for you. She'd probably tear it into a million pieces, then burn it to make sure no one ever saw it.

And most children would also be embarrassed to possess a nude photo of their parent, and would hide it from any friends that may see it. Any parent who gave their child a naked photo of themselves would be considered a pervert. Conversely, any parent that gave a stranger a photo of their child naked would be a pervert. Any parent so afraid of their own child that they forced them to strip down upon entering and leaving the house needs help. And any child old enough to stand up for them self should never allow this kind of abuse from a parent. If a child is this dangerous, then they should be confined behind barbed wire and constantly monitored by professional guards.

What if you were a woman and had been raped by a knife-wielding man and from that point on demanded that all men, including relatives, entering your house submit to a strip search to make sure they weren't carrying any weapons or other dangerous objects? People would pity this woman and think her paranoid and in need of psychological help in order to regain her confidence and ability to live in a world were most are harmless and only a few dangerous. Wouldn't it also help such a woman to own a gun and learn self-defense techniques? America is this woman and has been attacked, but she hasn't been given the tools and confidence to face the world again.

Why would we trust the government and an invisible viewer with an image of our naked body but not a close friend or relative? It seems that a relative or close friend would be a better guardian and more respectful of this image than a person or government that has no personal love or interest in us. Not all of us are Playboy Play Mates or gigolos and there's a reason for that.

We live in a society that is image-obsessed, thinking that image is everything, and tells us everything about a person. Yet, increasingly, we are afraid of human touch and contact. We are paranoid of physical touch, which is not a cold image.

I've observed this fear of human contact around my little town. I've seen girls snap at men for touching them in the smallest way or by accident when passing by. I've seen guys stand like statues, their arms crossed over their chests in large crowds, glaring at anyone who dares tap them on the shoulder.

I've overheard girls talking about "the circle," an invisible area that others should know better than to enter. Evidently, there is an unspoken rule these days that says "thou shalt not cross within a few inches of any other person at any time." These girls were agreeing with each other that it was very rude of others to get too near, even though they were in a crowd. And this wasn't even about being touched or bumped up against, this was about getting too near although never having made physical contact. Yet, these same girls will post their image and every detail of their lives online and dress attractively. If one really doesn't want to be touched or have anyone get near to them they should refrain from bathing several days before going into public, step in a fresh dog pile, dump an ashtray over their head, and spill a glass of whiskey and coke on their clothes, and write "leper" across their forehead.

If you wanted to keep me at a distance you'd put on too much perfume. It works every time. My eyes roll up into my head, I feel as if a plastic bag is being wrapped around my head, and I wish there was a tobacco smoker in the vicinity to hide the smell (incidentally, where I live the indoor tobacco ban supposedly includes perfume, incense, candles and other strong smells in the air. I doubt that anything other than the tobacco ban is enforced).

Anyway, I'm not so much offended by the radiation factor of the full-body scan in airports, as by our society's willingness to give a government such power and a nude photo, which they never paid for. I don't know about you, but giving away naked photos of myself wasn't what I paid for when I bought my airline ticket. It offends me and breaks my heart when I see people standing in a pose reminiscent of a crucifixion.

Once, a long time ago, a man was hung on a cross, judged between two criminals. His crime was that he was a king, a person with dignity and who desired all people be royalty and their nakedness covered. He was naked and the entire world saw him and became obsessed with the image of him naked and bleeding, prone, unable to cover himself from our gaping and disrespectful eyes. And now, we are all like him, naked, being judged with the terrorists although we are royalty.

Anyone who thinks a naked body scanner protects them from death is a hypocrite. That America is this weak, this afraid is sad. A naked body scanner cannot save us or protect us from evil. Uncovering people has never saved anyone from crime. Whenever people are uncovered, laid bare, and treated as criminals by their master or government it has been a time of great suffering and hatred.

Can a naked body scanner read a heart? If it could I'd put the things at the entrance of every state capitol building and in Washington, D.C., for this is where the most danger to American safety resides. These few men and women have images that appear clean and safe, but are their hearts free of terrorist threats, do they use their pens as weapons of defense against evil or to enact evil upon women and children by stealing freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and fought for by a few belligerent and brave souls during the Revolutionary War?

I'm not Jesus and I won't sacrifice my life for a government that is afraid of me. If I sacrifice my life and my dignity it will be for those I love and for freedom and those brave enough to love me.

What is America so afraid of, what is our government afraid of? Why do we believe it makes us safe to hand over our freedom and ease of travel to a government agency? When a government restricts and controls freedom of movement and travel, rather than increases it we should be very concerned. When a government accuses all citizen travelers of being potential threats, then we must wonder why. Has America grown so weak and prone, so exposed and defenseless that it fears everything and everyone? What happened to the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave? Where are those who remember these words and what they mean?

Free doesn't mean tobacco free, sugar free, or free from something. It means free to DO something. Freedom is an action, not something that is excluded from the mix. We've twisted the word free to mean something is missing and that somehow this is a good thing. We now identify ourselves as free from this or that, rather than free to do this or that. America is not free if it thinks it's terrorist free. America is free when it's free to do, to take action, to move about, to stand for freedom, to stand against evil -- because evil is everywhere and always will be.

The only way to fight evil is with freedom to do, not freedom from.

Note: I will be requesting a pat down in place of the full body scan wherever possible. I can see who is touching me and prefer this human touch, even if slightly invasive and humiliating. I'd rather not lie to myself that I am fully clothed by stepping into the full body scanner. I much prefer the truth and the truth is often quite unpleasant -- which is why so many silently step into the scanner.

image: Amelia Earhart

Russia Says Smoke More For Healthy Economy, While U.S. and E.U. Tell People To Chew Coal Tar Candy To Help Weaken Economy

That's it, I'm going to Russia.

Russia's finance minister, Alexei Kudrin is telling "people to smoke and drink more, explaining that higher consumption would help lift tax revenues for spending on social services" ("'People Should Smoke and Drink More,' Says Russian Finance Minister," Telegraph, 1 Sep 2010).

According to the Telegraph article Kudrin says, "People should understand: Those who drink, those who smoke are doing more to help the state."

Really? Tell that to Europe and the Unites States of America, land of pharmaceutical phascism.

Those dumb Russians. They must be stuck in the Stone Age. Don't they know that the Western world all chews or sucks scabs of coal tar now? Haven't they heard of Chantix, which boosts the health of society and the economy by turning sane people into suicidal maniacs and diabetics? Jeepers, where's Nikon and his anti-tobacco league of nose-slitters when you need them?

I hear that tobacco use is popular in China too. China's government grows the stuff since they don't like importing it or relying upon the U.S. for their supplies.

If Russia's finance minister says that buying tobacco and alcohol helps the economy and even "[upholds] birthrates" (Telegraph), then conversely not buying these must harm the state coffers and the economy.

Kudrin would say that a ban upon these items and others is harmful and unpatriotic.

Hypothetically speaking, if you wanted to undermine another country's morale, economy and peace what would you do? You'd send out the agents of dissent and fear to propagandize and create confusion and panic so as to immobilize, paralyze, and silence.

Hypothetically speaking, how would you invade another country and move in right under their noses and never let them know what was happening so that they would not retaliate against you because they had no idea that they were even under attack, instead pointing fingers at each other?

Instead of openly invading the enemy country, instead of sending hundreds of thousands of troops across the ocean to attempt a new Normandy invasion, instead of dropping bombs and other expensive and finite devices you would buy people. You'd pay out several million, or billion dollars to a few experts and highly respectable personalities and let them spread ideas and false beliefs. These false beliefs would spread across the land and many would fall in line spreading the lies and hate, never realizing that they were helping the enemy agenda, never getting paid for their work.

This has occurred before, especially within Communist movements. There are a few paid subversives and many unpaid and ignorant adherents that spread the ideas until they become mainstream and no longer recognizable as dangerous. This is why joining any mass movement, be it religious or political is highly dangerous, perhaps nearly suicidal.

What I am trying to get at is that hypothetically speaking, smoking bans may actually be propaganda campaigns planted by foreign states to undermine the strength and stability of Europe's and America's economies as well as unity of their peoples.

No smoking ban has ever benefited a city, state, or country. Billions of dollars in revenue and taxes have been lost, unemployment increased, guilt increased, and hatred of fellow citizens increased.

A tobacco or alcohol ban keeps the populace busy blaming each other, wasting millions of dollars in enforcement, and divides them against each other. A tobacco or alcohol ban causes large segments of society from gathering together, removes them from benefiting society with money, ideas, or courage. The enemy wants us afraid of each other, separated, hidden, and guilt-ridden.

If smoking tobacco is healthy for Russia, then why nowhere else?

Do Europe, the United States and Canada really believe that undermining their own morale and economies with tobacco and alcohol prohibitions is healthy or wise? Do we really believe that forcing at least 25% of the population into hiding is good for the economy and for health? Do we really believe that forcing 25% of the population onto toxic and foreign coal tar-derived gums, candies, and patches is good for society? Do we really believe the delusion that prescribing varenicline to war veterans with shell shock, making them into homicidal maniacs at home is better for health and family than using tobacco products?

We know that most Nicotine Replacement "Therapy" is produced in foreign countries. We know that states, such as Ohio are spending 3 million dollars to collect 1 million in fines. We know that the states are pushing million dollar add campaigns to force people onto toxic NRT products and drugs. We know that children are being recruited in schools to spread the campaign of hate and fear. We know that tobacco farmers are being reduced to poverty, and millions have lost their jobs due to the trickle-down affect of tobacco bans.

What we know is that to "save" lives and money lost to tobacco use, our states are spending even more on enforcement and dangerous NRT promotions. How many of our state and federal representatives are agents of foreign governments? Who is paying them? Where is the money coming from? It makes no sense to undermine E.U. or American stability unless one is working specifically to do so with the purposeful intention of destroying us. I.G. Farbenindustries worked to subvert American strength throughout the 1920s and 30s in preparation for war.

It will be shown in future years that the tobacco bans along with the pushing of dangerous NRT products was a deliberate attack upon America and Europe. It will be shown that these bans were enacted to waste our money, to stop the flow of money, and to divide the people. All tobacco and alcohol restrictions benefit the enemy, whoever they may be. All tobacco and other bans are deliberate distractions and propaganda campaigns.

There is only one way to protect one's self from being duped by any kind of propaganda campaign, be it foreign, religious, or political -- Grace.

Because one can never know what the truth is at any one time, because one can never have all the information or knowledge, there is only one way to prevent one's self from being used against their own country and friends. Grace.

When we stand back and look objectively at things we can see a larger picture and see that those who incite us to hate others or fear them are the true enemies. It is un American to live in fear of food, tobacco, alcohol and other common parts of life. If a society is paralyzed by fear of the common, noncriminal, the ordinary parts of life how will it ever stand against real enemies and evils?

If a cigarette makes a "strong" Christian quake, if a chubby child is repulsive to the First Lady, if a stumbling drunk has the power to endanger a town's safety then we must be the most spineless and softest people that has ever walked the face of the earth. I'm embarrassed.

I'll be visiting Russia before I visit California. If Russia's not afraid of me, then I'll be boosting their economy and sunbathing in Red Square on a beach of snow and slathered in a heavy coat and hat as I watch the waves of tanks roll past on their way out towards the sea of Western arrogance and atrophied muscle. C'mon America, spit out the coal tar candy. Man up and light up before it's too late.

Americans Prefer the Taste of Corporatism (Fascism) to Communism

"Generally, fascism has come to mean a military dictatorship built on racist and powerfully nationalistic foundations, generally with the broad support of the business class (distinguishing it from the collectivism of Communism.)" (Kenneth C. Davis, "Boom to Bust to Big Boom," Don't Know Much About History:Everything You Need to Know about American History but Never Learned).

"It was rather easy, especially in the case of Germany and Italy, for demagogues to point to the smoldering ruins of their countries and the economic disaster of the worldwide depression and blame their woes on foreigners" (Kenneth C. Davis, Don't Know Much About History).

I see a very interesting repeat of history occurring in the United States of America, which has been steadily growing in size and becoming clearer in shape. The U.S. is steadily moving towards fascism, but the parties doing the moving don't see it that way, and most often believe they are fighting against fascism.

America's ruling classes have nearly always divided themselves into two factions: the liberal-progressive Marxist/Communist; and the conservative-right Socialist/Fascist. The rest of us, down on the ground are neither one or the other, but are easily and often gulled into leaning one way or the other and labelling ourselves as such and arguing all of the points of what we've been taught to say honestly and passionately, believing we are right and everyone else is wrong.

It cannot be helped that, generally, we are ignorant and unaware pawns. We're all guilty and have no idea of having ever committed a crime because we're told that we are on the correct side of things and that we are righteous and care for others. And we do, but those who lead us don't really give a damn about anyone other than themselves and their position of power. Because we are ignorant, and most of all, because we do care about others; these two qualities are used to guide us to think, say, and do things we would never have thought of left to our own devices. We only want to be free.

America has gone right of right. We have gone far right and are in the land of fascism. A liberal, Marxist movement only goes so far in the United States. It burns bras, protests on colleges campuses, has free love, and works in communes and fights for equal rights, then fizzles out for lack of substance. And one day, the equal rights Communist wakes up and looks in the mirror and sees they are old, bitter, and tired of free love. In fact, it's rather annoying that the free love turns into a free for all with all kinds of people wanting a piece of your love. The kids, the ex, the state, the gas pump, the church offering plate and everyone else wants a piece and it feels as if one is being taken advantage of.

Someone, something must be blamed for all of this giving away of one's self, which increasingly feels like taking, grabbing, and stealing.

And this is when the tough love fascist voice steps in and tells the people that the cure is found in limiting everything. All of that free love and pleasure must be replaced with good solid child-bearing wives, good religion, lots of kids, cleanliness, order, discipline, genetic purity, and ridding the government of poorly run programs that waste money on trying to help those that are burdens upon society.

In essence, fascism is a change from spineless political correctness to the opposite: harsh cruelty. It becomes a harsh, Spartan-like world, where only the fittest are deemed worthy of life, where babies are laid out in the elements after birth, where a mother's love is weakness, and men worship men. Fascism loves to use hard-core, fundamentalist religions. It doesn't care what the religion is: Islam, Christian, Jew, Mormon, etc, etc. Fascism hates all religions, and will bend them and twist them to serve its purposes. It has no regard for them other than as tools twisted into righteous skewers for disseminating austerity and hate.

Truthfully, neither Fascism or Marxism love anyone, and neither is able to operate responsibly with our money or time. They each fail on different levels. The Marxists go overboard with their political correctness and over complications, while the Fascists go overboard on their oversimplification and exterminations. Both are sure they're right. Both are wrong and harmful to the happiness and dignity of a people. They travel down different paths which always end up intersecting at the same place: Death and destruction.

Somehow, people forget that an earthly utopia is not a place where everyone thinks, looks and acts alike, or perfectly, or correctly. Ah, if only everyone would get along with us. What's wrong with everyone else? Why are they so dumb and blind to the "truth"? Why are they making my life so hard? Why are they so irresponsible, and why don't they work as hard as me? Why must I foot the bill for them?

It is easy to get angry at another group when one is unable to accrue any kind of wealth or happiness due to a government demanding more and more of an individual. This leads to jealousy when it is perceived or pointed out that another individual or group seems to never work while they receive welfare or, conversely, are very wealthy. If we were not so burdened by our governments we could not be made to hate others as easily. We may even say, "Ah, who cares if they're getting handouts. I've got plenty to go around."

And so, the United States is having a dramatic pendulum swing due to the years of allowing ourselves to be taken advantage of. We are swinging right. So far right that if events don't alter the movement we may knock ourselves out, sending the works out of the casing.

The thing about Fascism in America is that it has more power and popularity as a force than Communism. America considers itself a Christian country, although it is often decried from the pulpits that it is godless and needs saving. America is not godless. We have many gods, all claimed by their adherents as the ONE, the right one. If anyone seriously studied their Bible, rather than listening to others, they would find that the One God is nothing like what they've been told and doesn't very often go to church. If we knew this God, we wouldn't be so easily moved by Fascist leaders or Communist leaders, nor be so arrogant as to believe we can make the earth a utopia, free from evil.

But we don't often know this God, and so believe in angry and self-righteous movements against other angry and self-righteous movements, or against the defenseless. And this makes those at the top of the power class laugh in delight as they pull our strings and make us hop across the stage where we collide in violence against another puppet. Rather than looking up and getting angry at the person holding the strings, we focus on the other puppet and want to destroy or ban them for hitting us, when it is not their fault that they are being manipulated against us.

Another interesting sign that America is moving far right, mirroring Germany of the 1930's and 1940's is our fear of foreigners, our fear that they are invading our lands and taking our livelihoods, and will cover the land with their children, "tainting" our culture. America, along with most of the Western industrialized world, is at a zero or less population growth. We simply aren't reproducing, and many populations are predicted to decline dramatically in the next hundred years. This is also what was occurring in Germany when the Nazi Party took power. Somehow, subconsciously, we are aware of this and feel threatened by those of different races, cultures, and socioeconomic status who are having children.

The Nazi Party encouraged good, "pure" men and women to have more children and was obsessed with the health of mothers, and that they not contaminate their unborn children's lives (Utah, earlier this year tried to make it murder if a woman miscarries and is a tobacco user). There is most definitely an undercurrent in America that is pushing for women to live as nothing more than breeders, and that castigates them if they don't spend every moment serving this higher purpose. This idea of the woman, born brainless and only to serve the man and the breeding program is everywhere in pop culture.

The vampirism of Stephenie Meyer's Twilight books and movies is born of an odd spiritualist fundamentalism usually seen in fringe cults. These books are touted as a return to good morals and purity. The idea behind them is that a woman is nothing until she is impregnated by a good vampire male, thus gaining eternal life, apotheosis through male worship. When vampires and morality are mixed and sold as good for young women, a culture is sick, no matter how polite the vampire is. When a culture adopts fundamental fringe cult beliefs, making them mainstream, they have become fascist.

There is a growing obsession with reality T.V. programing that features mega families with perpetually pregnant, smiling, over-achieving mothers and fathers. Notice, these are all very wealthy and often "perfect" Americans. But if a less wealthy person, a less perfect person has too many children it is a grave sin against the country and should be outlawed. Sure, it may be irresponsible for some to have more children than they can care for, but our media attacks them, as inferior genetic stock, while fawning over the perfect and good-looking wealthy that help replenish good American stock.

Another sign that we are going far right is our obsession with food and health rules, and penalizing as a crime all who don't live like religious fanatics under sharia law. Again, Utah, comes up, here with its mandatory electronic scanning of I.D.s at bars and clubs. It's as if they're collecting a list of who and where the sinners are. This also means, that a person that went out to a club can be accused of D.U.I. even before they get into their car. This means that a patron that only drank water is guilty by association.

We are nearly back at Prohibition where it was legal to drink alcohol, but not to procure it or have it anywhere on one's property. It is technically, illegal, in my state to even have one's car keys on their person if they have had a beer. It is even possible to get a D.U.I. while walking home or sleeping in one's car. It doesn't matter if one is a public nuisance or not, it only matters who is on duty and what kind of mood they're in when they cross a person's path. Where I live, every driver is actually considered guilty of being drunk the moment they get into their car. One must prove they are not. It's the law.

In my state, they want to put those who have harmed no one, but have been caught for multiple D.U.I into the state mental institution. Do you know what this means? It means an expensive, fascist pharma experimentation program that will only grow, requiring more money and more souls. A country has moved far right when it ships downtrodden alcoholics to the infamous state mental institution, in the middle of a desolate part of the state, away from friends, family, and anyone able to defend them from strange crimes. I don't understand alcoholism, but I also don't believe these people are expendable, or that they should be sent to the insane asylum. If they've committed a crime against the community, such as violence, murder, theft put them in prison; which is an excellent rehab program.

Thank goodness, most are ignorant of the laws. Even laying a pack of cigarettes on the bar or smelling strongly of tobacco smoke is enough to levy a large fine upon a bar around here. But most aren't aware of this and haven't snitched on offenders yet. Soon, it will be illegal to smoke outside. First, the Pharmaceutical industry gods are implementing outdoor bans at the Holy Shrine of Our Hospital, then the Pharma Seminary/University, then they will move into town. It's nice to see the women standing on the street, looking like hookers, because they can't smoke in the parking lot for fear of contaminating the holy asphalt and hygienic air.

America is moving far right. It's in the air. I've been sniffing it for a few years now, but the odor of it has grown stronger and quite foul. It was more difficult to smell it before the smoking bans and near Prohibition took place because the smoke covered up the smell and the alcohol made one too tipsy to notice or care.

Arizona's strict law that targets illegal immigrants has helped to expose the growing fears and ignorance of Americans and illegals. Whether the law is right or wrong, it is laying bare the battle between Communism and Fascism. Those that are not legal citizens of the U.S. are being controlled by the Communist power faction, while those that fear them are being controlled by the Fascist power faction. Both are wrong and so busy hating each other that they will cause death before they fix anything. Summer is nearly here. And historically, heat, cities, media, and racial tensions don't mix when that tried-and-true rumor of the woman being brutally raped spreads amongst the masses.

Are Mexicans really threatening American stability, or is it our version of the Taliban, the drug cartels that are the danger? Are Mexicans threatening us, or is it the dealers in human bondage that hold them prisoner in countless houses across the country? Are Mexicans a danger to our way of life, or is it the giant foreign-owned corporations that use them like disposable labor because Americans are still free enough to turn our noses up in disgust at such slavery?

Remember, the Nazis blamed the Jews for Germany's economic problems. We're doing the same to the Mexicans. It's claimed they don't pay taxes and send all their money back to Mexico. It seems nearly impossible not to pay taxes in America unless one has an expensive attorney or accountant. Everything we do in this country is taxed. And how do they send all their money back to Mexico? How do they send their money back when they don't make any? The average American doesn't have money left over after paying the bills to send anywhere. If a Mexican can figure out how to get past the American system, then U.S. citizens must be idiots, because we haven't figured out how to beat the system after all these years. Maybe, we need more Mexican accountants and legal professionals to help us.

If a mass of Mexicans can really topple the American economy, close hospitals, and slip past taxes and surveillance; then it means that a mass of Americans can topple the dishonest corporations funding our government into fascism, that we too can shut down hospitals and universities that become arms of Big Pharma, rather than places of healing and learning; that we too can cut down on over taxation, and surveillance. If the Mexicans have so much power, then we do too.

If Americans would take the same fear and hatred of Mexican illegals and turn it against the giant monopoly corporations that influence our governments, universities, scientists, and non-profits nearly every problem we have with illegal immigrants would be solved. And our problems with employment in general would automatically go away. And the MexAmerican Taliban drug cartels would disappear, because there is no profit in crime, drugs, or people when a culture is content, happy, and FREE. Drug abuse decreases of its own when the people are intoxicated on freedom and liberty. When a people are free they have fewer health and mental problems and have no desire to numb themselves, or to induce sensations because they have been numbed by a fascist culture. When people are free they work harder, they produce more, they employ more, pay more, and are free enough to forgive others.

If we'd let Lady Liberty loose to trample out the grapes of wrath and pour her cup of indignation upon the fascist corporations, most of whom descend from Nazi Germany's IG Farbenindustries or are joined by "marriage," we'd have more than enough room in our land and in our hearts for as many immigrants as we could seat at our Thanksgiving table.

Fascism is also called Corporatism. This is what happens when a government and a few giant corporations unite to dictate to a country. Communism is when everything is owned and operated by the government.

This time, rather than a lone Hitler preaching over the country, America has many voices of Hitler. We are being dictated to by very charismatic and seemingly religious and patriotic people on a daily basis. They spout Samuel Adams and Ben Franklin. They spout the Bible and other trusted sources. Lest we forget, a great deal of Nazi literature and preaching also espoused Christian ideals, and supported Christian morals, using the word "Christian" all the time. If something was "Christian," then it was a good thing and the reason for cleaning up the country. Communism is godless, Fascism appeals to every god fearing person it can. A Corporatist state has to appeal to religious rightness in order to sell itself and motivate the masses into buying its product of mass death in order to save itself. Fascism thinks "Christian," "Muslim," and "Jew" are brand names to slap onto a product. Fundamentalist religion loves the idea of sacrifice, sacrifice, sacrifice. Money must be sacrificed, freedom must be sacrificed, lives must be sacrificed. Everything must be sacrificed to redeem the country and save its soul.

American talk radio has taken the opportunity of the dissatisfaction and corruption of our political system to begin a daily seminar of fear and religion. Glenn Beck, in particular is a dangerous orator. He cries, he talks religion, he has revivals, he's had revelations and messages from God. He pretends he speaks to the American Christian ideal. He talks revolution, yet says he doesn't. He authors poorly written books and paints. All faux intellectuals delve into art. This fact has fascinated me for years. Dictator types are jealous of artists and writers. They can't understand them and wish they could be them. They write horrible books and paint. It's a time-worn pattern.

Glenn Beck is what could be called "White Propaganda." This is when a person seems to be on the same side as the target audience and says what they think, or what they think they think. "Black Propaganda" is when it's obvious to the audience that the message is from the enemy. "Grey Propaganda" is exactly that, a bit blurry as to who it comes from and what the audience is supposed to think.

Glenn Beck is anti-Christian and warps the Bible every time he talks about it. For several years he has aired an Easter special with Pink Floyd's agonies screaming in the background while Beck narrates the crucifixion of Christ. Over and over he has crucified Christ, always stopping short of what happens after the crucifixion. The Romans and the Jews only crucified Jesus once. Beck does it every year and never lets Him conquer death. This is because it is a belief within his religion that one must pay for their own sins with sacrifice, and must work their own way to Heaven, and if they are good enough they will get to Heaven and be made a god. In Beck's world, in his religion Corporatism is a good thing.

Propaganda never lies. It always tells the truth. It is the intention behind the propaganda that lies. Any Christian that doesn't get the creeps after listening to Beck, may need to reasses their understanding and knowledge of God. I listen to him now, only for "inside" information. I use to listen to him regularly, but now, I find him a symptom of America's sickness, and he's always sick, always spouting fear.

Fascism loves religion, it loves conservatism and it has twisted these things into barbed weapons. Religion isn't bad. But when it lets hate and fear run it it's dangerous. When a religion teaches that one can become a god and have many wives in heaven, then it's dangerous (Islam, Mormon, and others espouse the harem teaching). When a religion teaches that certain genetic groups are inferior and collects a massive database of ancestry and genetics history it needs to be questioned.

When we have orators like Glenn Beck preaching and crying for our souls then it's time to get real and wonder where we are in history and how easily duped we can be. And people sure do get angry when their Beck is threatened. Why would anyone get angry, unless they really do believe in a world in which freedom of speech only applies to them?

Sure, America has quite a few illustrious orators right now. President Obama is said to be one of them, but he's not on the radio for hours and hours every single day. Obama lets the radio talk, kicks back with Big Pharma nicotine gums and candies, listens, and laughs to himself. All he has to do is make a speech and let the media voices work it out and stir up the masses. Viva la revolucion! It doesn't matter to our elected officials and their corporate backers how many Tea Parties are held. It only matters that they vote hard right in the coming elections, rather than investigating the donors to the political campaign--all of the donors. It only matters that the Tea Partiers are riled up, distracted, and manipulated for the purposes of further destroying freedom. It only matters that there is a massive movement to bounce the far left movements off of, in order to create a "Big Bang," and create the ultimate fascist security state in which everyone is enslaved.

So far, the Tea Party movement hasn't followed in the footsteps of their namesake event. The Boston Tea Party wasn't aimed so much at the political system and government officials as at the corporate monopoly money behind them. The Boston Tea Partiers were a small group of men dressed as Iroquois Indians because they admired the ideas of self-governance that the Iroquois had been encouraging the colonists to pursue. The orginal Tea Party was an attack upon the trade monopoly of the British East India Company control, against corporatism. The colonists understood the root of the problem. It doesn't look so good for our modern Tea Party. They haven't tossed out one monopoly product yet.

And as an aside....And how long has it been since we've had a President in office that knew how to use tobacco properly? Clinton banned tobacco in the White House, and had no idea what a cigar was for. Bush inhaled Laura's 2nd hand, and Obama thinks it's all about the addiction to free-base nicotine, rather than for pleasure. He really likes the gum. That's for kids hiding from Mom and Dad! Why doesn't he be the adult President and light up? Does he think he'll get banned from the Oval Office?

If I were President....If I were President the Oval Office would look like the Inklings at the Eagle and Child tavern. Being President is like having the Ring of Power in The Lord of the Rings. Good people with good intentions can be turned evil by such power. So, really, I'm not sure I could be trusted with such power. If the red phone rang at 3 in the morning would I answer it?

America and much of the world is moving far right into fascism. Fascism is Corporatism. Fascism is a religion. Fascism has many names and many hiding places, but it always has the same patterns. Fascism is like one of those multi-armed gods of the far East. It has one body, and many writhing arms. It is Sharia law, it is puritanical, it is Mormon, it is the Great Wall of China, it is the pater familias of Roman culture, it is the Spanish Inquisition, it is a ban upon everything that makes us human.

Fascism likes to remove citizenship from certain select groups of people, many of whom are native-born. Germany removed citizenship rights from the Jews and others. Many of the Jews in Germany were native-born. Many of Jewish ancestry had fled to Germany from other countries, such as Russia during its Bolshevik purges of Jews. There was a mix of native-born Jews and immigrant Jews, as well as many other groups of people displaced by the atrocities taking place around eastern Europe in the first years of the 20th century.

In America, we have in the past made certain native-born peoples into more or less non-citizens: Blacks, Indians, women, and others. Blacks, Indians, and women were not permitted to vote, freely travel, participate in business, own guns, go to schools and universities, and places of public gathering.

It must be wondered if the Mexican illegal issue is again going to create a way of making select groups of native-born Americans into non-citizens for the use and abuse of the fascist State. An identification system will have to be worked out in order to prove one's citizenship, to prove one is really an American citizen. It won't be adequate to prove one's family came over on the Mayflower and was the first to set foot on Plymouth Rock. No, the only way to prove one is a citizen will be to submit to being scanned, tracked, and branded. If one does not accept the identification system designed to keep non-citizens out, one will not be permitted to travel, work, shop, vote, or have legal representation.

And as in Nazi Germany, many native-born Americans will become non-citizens with no rights and will be the new slaves rounded up to work the jobs that citizens won't work. The German people rarely complained about this arrangement. I doubt American citizens will be any different.

America won't control the border or encourage Mexico to harness its resources to create wealth and jobs. America won't stop the MexAmerican Taliban drug cartel, nor the real foreign and native terrorist threats to security: Monsanto, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline and others that love fascism and want us to use their products religiously.

America's great symbols: The Statue of Liberty, The Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution, tobacco (the American Revolution was also known as the Tobacco Wars), open roads for free travel, the automobile, the farmer, the rancher, the immigrant starting new from nothing, rock'n'roll, and Paul Bunyan the greatest of loggers have all been derided as sinful and outdated symbols. Liberty, Independence, basic Constitutions, Tobacco, Travel, Farmers, Ranchers, Immigrants, Joyful Music, and Loggers are only destructive and harmful to the environments and morals of evil despots. And as long as we remember and know of these symbols and the meaning behind them, as long as they run in our blood America will live.

We do not choose the time we are born in, but we can choose who we will be in the time we have been alloted. Look at history, at myth, at fiction and decide who the heros are and why. Very often, that hero is a small, single person. Often, that person has no name, such as the silent operators along the Underground Railroad.

"In Germany, Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) made scapegoats not only of the Communists and foreign powers who he claimed had stripped Germany of its land and military abilities at Versailles, but also of the Jews, who he claimed were in control of the world's finances. The long history of anti-Semitism in Europe, going back for centuries, simply fed the easy acceptance of Hitler's argument" (Kenneth C. Davis, Don't Know Much About History)

"Prior to the American entry into the war, the Nazi treatment of Jews evoked little more than weak diplomatic condemnation. It is clear that Roosevelt knew about the treatment of Jews in Germany and elsewhere in Europe, and about the methodical, systematic destruction of the Jews during the Holocaust. Clearly, saving the Jews and other groups that Hitler was destroying en masse was not a critical issue for American war planners" (Davis, Don't Know Much About History)

Tolkien, Tobacco, Censorship, and Liberty

I recently received a very nice hard back edition of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings as a gift. I last read this work when I was 13 years old and have wanted to read it since the film versions came out, but never got around to it.

I like to do a little research upon an author following a reading of them. It is helpful to understand a little of the private interests and passions of an author to understand why they care so much about their literary creations, and work so hard upon them.

I found it interesting that Wikipedia's biography of J.R.R. Tolkien had to use a picture of him from 1916 in military uniform, when he was an unknown and only 24 years old. The only other picture of him on the Wikipedia bio was of Tolkien in 1911, when he was 19.

The probable reason that Wikipedia could not, or would not use a more appropriate picture of J.R.R. Tolkien, one that showed him during the time he became known to the world outside of the University of Oxford for The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings is because there aren't many close-up photos of him without a tobacco pipe in or near his mouth.

Usually, a Wikipedia entry displays, or should display the first defining photo as the one that shows the person as they are most known and recognized by the world, not as they looked in childhood or as a teen. The childhood photos, should be relegated to the section pertaining to childhood. If the bio is describing Bette Davis or some movie star known for her good looks, the defining picture should be one that shows her at her peak, not one that shows her as an old hag. A picture of the youthful Albert Einstein would not be the defining image the world has. It would look out of place and odd when we all know he had unkempt white hair. Perhaps, Einstein carried his pipe a bit lower than Tolkien which allowed for the illusion that he was a tobacco-free thinker.

J.R.R. Tolkien was born in 1892 and died in 1973, which means he lived to be 81 years old. If he hadn't smoked he would've lived forever and The Lord of the Rings would look quite different (although, in the literary world one's creation is considered to make one immortal). I wonder if writing about Hobbits smoking tobacco qualifies as 2nd or 3rd hand smoke? And why does he look so much happier with the pipe than without it? He's probably glad he's not stuck on a piece of our modern PhrankenPharma nicotine gum.

Unlike the film version, which depicts the victorious Hobbits returning to their peaceful and untouched home in the Shire, the book shows an entirely different picture. Tolkien shows that the last battle is the one closest to home.

In the final chapters of the book, the Hobbits; Frodo, Sam, Pippin, and Merry return home to the Shire after having gone to Hell and back, saving the earth from the dark evil of Sauron by tossing the Ring of power into the depths, forever cutting Sauron off.

The Hobbits return home to find gates across the roads, Rules which dictate the lives of the Shire; preventing the inhabitants from lighting fires, freely travelling, sharing food or home with strangers; and that beer and tobacco are no longer allowed for use amongst the common folk, being reserved only for the few who lord over them. Anyone that breaks a rule or speaks up is confined in the Lockholes by the Shirriffs who enforce the Rules.

There is general poverty amongst the people and the land. The homes have been burned down and ugly row houses line the road where once beautiful trees grew. The gardens have gone to weed, and the new mill belches out dirt that pollutes the river and air. The wizard, Saruman, has decided to set up a monopoly over the lives of the Shire Hobbits, which began innocently enough with a prohibition upon beer, but escalated to every aspect of life.

Merry wonders "What's the matter with this place?" ("The Scouring of the Shire," The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien).

One of the native Hobbits explains: "We grows a lot of food, but we don't rightly know what becomes of it. It's all these 'gatherers' and 'sharers', I reckon, going round and counting and measuring and taking off to storage. They do more gathering than sharing, and we never see most of the stuff again" ("The Scouring of the Shire").

"[O]n every wall there was a notice and a list of Rules. Pippin tore them down. There was no beer and very little food, but with what the travellers brought and shared out they had a fair meal; and Pippin broke Rule 4 by putting most of next day's allowance of wood on the fire.
"'Well now, what about a smoke, while you tell us what has been happening in the Shire?' he said.
"'There isn't no pipe-weed now,' said Hob; 'at least only for the Chief's men. All the stocks seem to have gone.....'" ("The Scouring of the Shire").

"'No welcome, no beer, no smoke, and lots of rules....'" ("The Scouring of the Shire").

"'There's hundreds of Shirriffs all told, and they want more, with all these new rules'" ("The Scouring of the Shire").

Sounds a bit like my town and the rest of the country. The bigger the jails, the larger the police force the more criminals are invented. In the United States of America one is lucky if they have never been arrested or jailed. At least, 1 out of every 25 people is jailed in their lifetime, far exceeding Russia or China.

Many good people are sitting in our jails and prisons at this moment, some for traffic or parking tickets. In a jail not far from me sits a grandfather who loves his grandchildren and became their guardian when the children's mother (his daughter) became a neglectful drug addict. He protested Social Services constant and intrusive visits to his house to make sure he was taking care of the children and was arrested for standing up for his rights and family. He committed no crime other than doing the right thing and for telling Social Services to stop coming to his house.

"'So things went from bad to worse. There wasn't no smoke left, save for the Men; and the Chief didn't hold with beer, save for his Men, and closed all the inns; and everything except for Rules got shorter and shorter, unless one could hide a bit of one's own when the ruffians went round gathering stuff up 'for fair distribution': which meant they got it and we didn't....'" ("The Scouring of the Shire").

The four Hobbits, returned from battles, set about "raising the Shire," and waking the inhabitants from their sleep and powerless condition. They route out Saruman's thugs, although not without some loss of life. The Shire was ready to overthrow the Rules and those that forced them to live in a world "fair" only to the greedy. When we hear the words "fair" and "unfair" we need to ask what exactly is meant by these words, for most often they are employed by mean misfits of society.

After freeing the captives from the Lockholes, Frodo is appointed Deputy Mayor until the Mayor is properly recovered from his time in prison. Frodo promptly lays off the majority of Rule enforcement:

"The only thing that he did as Deputy Mayor was to reduce the Shirriffs to their proper functions and numbers" ("The Grey Havens," The Lord of the Rings, J.R.R. Tolkien).

Not only did the Hobbits save the earth from Sauron, an equivalent to our Satan, but they introduced Middle-Earth to tobacco smoking. The Prologue of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings details a bit of the history of this "art" in the section entitled "Concerning Pipe-weed":

"There is another astonishing thing about Hobbits of old that must be mentioned, an astonishing habit: they imbibed or inhaled, through pipes of clay or wood, the smoke of the burning leaves of a herb, which they called pipe-weed, or leaf, a variety probably of Nicotiana. A great deal of mystery surrounds the origin of this peculiar custom, or 'art' as the Hobbits preferred to call it....

"And certainly it was from Bree that the art of smoking the genuine weed spread in recent centuries among Dwarves and such other folk, Rangers, Wizards, or wanderers, as still passed to and fro through that ancient road-meeting. The home and centre of the art is thus to be found in the old inn of Bree, The Prancing Pony....

"Hobbits first put it into pipes. Not even the Wizards first thought of that before we did. Though one Wizard that I knew took up the art long ago, and became as skilful in it as in all other things that he put his mind to."

How much longer before this book is banned for its universal message of liberty and of overcoming evil? How much longer before it is censored and conveniently forgotten, along with so many other great works of literature? Will our children and grandchildren find this book, complete and as its author wrote it? Already, its author's image is being censored, in a way typical of Soviet Russia, when it commonly erased images of those no longer politically correct. And pipe-weed is nearly banned in favor of Saruman's Phake Pharma Nicotine monopoly of patches, gums, lozenges, inhalers, and other patented "therapies" for those that enjoy life too much.

images: J.R.R. Tolkien

Albert Jay Nock's Word To The Remnants

"Isaiah's Job" by Albert Jay Nock, The Atlantic Monthly, 1936:

One evening last autumn, I sat long hours with a European acquaintance while he expounded a political-economic doctrine which seemed sound as a nut and in which I could find no defect. At the end, he said with great earnestness: "I have a mission to the masses. I feel that I am called to get the ear of the people. I shall devote the rest of my life to spreading my doctrine far and wide among the population. What do you think?"

An embarrassing question in any case, and doubly so under the circumstances, because my acquaintance is a very learned man, one of the three or four really first-class minds that Europe produced in his generation; and naturally I, as one of the unlearned, was inclined to regard his lightest word with reverence amounting to awe. Still, I reflected, even the greatest mind can not possibly know everything, and I was pretty sure he had not had my opportunities for observing the masses of mankind, and that therefore I probably knew them better than he did. So I mustered courage to say that he had no such mission and would do well to get the idea out of his head at once; he would find that the masses would not care two pins for his doctrine, and still less for himself, since in such circumstances the popular favourite is generally some Barabbas. I even went so far as to say (he is a Jew) that his idea seemed to show that he was not very well up on his own native literature. He smiled at my jest, and asked what I meant by it; and I referred him to the story of the prophet Isaiah.

It occurred to me then that this story is much worth recalling just now when so many wise men and soothsayers appear to be burdened with a message to the masses. Dr. Townsend has a message, Father Coughlin has one, Mr. Upton Sinclair, Mr. Lippmann, Mr. Chase and the planned economy brethren, Mr. Tugwell and the New Dealers, Mr. Smith and Liberty Leaguers – the list is endless. I can not remember a time when so many energumens were so variously proclaiming the Word to the multitude and telling them what they must do to be saved. This being so, it occurred to me, as I say, that the story of Isaiah might have something in it to steady and compose the human spirit until this tyranny of windiness is overpast. I shall paraphrase the story in our common speech, since it has to be pieced out from various sources; and inasmuch as respectable scholars have thought fit to put out a whole new version of the Bible in the American vernacular, I shall take shelter behind them, if need be, against the charge of dealing irreverently with the Sacred Scriptures.

The prophet's career began at the end of King Uzziah's reign, say about 740 B.C. This reign was uncommonly long, almost half a century, and apparently prosperous. It was one of those prosperous reigns, however – like the reign of Marcus Aurelius at Rome, or the administration of Eubulus at Athens, or of Mr. Coolidge at Washington – where at the end the prosperity suddenly peters out and things go by the board with a resounding crash.

In the year of Uzziah's death, the Lord commissioned the prophet to go out and warn the people of the wrath to come. "Tell them what a worthless lot they are." He said, "Tell them what is wrong, and why and what is going to happen unless they have a change of heart and straighten up. Don't mince matters. Make it clear that they are positively down to their last chance. Give it to them good and strong and keep on giving it to them. I suppose perhaps I ought to tell you," He added, "that it won't do any good. The official class and their intelligentsia will turn up their noses at you and the masses will not even listen. They will all keep on in their own ways until they carry everything down to destruction, and you will probably be lucky if you get out with your life."


Isaiah had been very willing to take on the job – in fact, he had asked for it – but the prospect put a new face on the situation. It raised the obvious question: Why, if all that were so – if the enterprise were to be a failure from the start – was there any sense in starting it? "Ah," the Lord said, "you do not get the point. There is a Remnant there that you know nothing about. They are obscure, unorganized, inarticulate, each one rubbing along as best he can. They need to be encouraged and braced up because when everything has gone completely to the dogs, they are the ones who will come back and build up a new society; and meanwhile, your preaching will reassure them and keep them hanging on. Your job is to take care of the Remnant, so be off now and set about it."

II

Apparently, then, if the Lord’s word is good for anything – I do not offer any opinion about that, – the only element in Judean society that was particularly worth bothering about was the Remnant. Isaiah seems finally to have got it through his head that this was the case; that nothing was to be expected from the masses, but that if anything substantial were ever to be done in Judea, the Remnant would have to do it. This is a very striking and suggestive idea; but before going on to explore it, we need to be quite clear about our terms. What do we mean by the masses, and what by the Remnant?

As the word masses is commonly used, it suggests agglomerations of poor and underprivileged people, labouring people, proletarians, and it means nothing like that; it means simply the majority. The mass-man is one who has neither the force of intellect to apprehend the principles issuing in what we know as the humane life, nor the force of character to adhere to those principles steadily and strictly as laws of conduct; and because such people make up the great and overwhelming majority of mankind, they are called collectively the masses. The line of differentiation between the masses and the Remnant is set invariably by quality, not by circumstance. The Remnant are those who by force of intellect are able to apprehend these principles, and by force of character are able, at least measurably, to cleave to them. The masses are those who are unable to do either.

The picture which Isaiah presents of the Judean masses is most unfavorable. In his view, the mass-man – be he high or be he lowly, rich or poor, prince or pauper – gets off very badly. He appears as not only weak-minded and weak-willed, but as by consequence knavish, arrogant, grasping, dissipated, unprincipled, unscrupulous. The mass-woman also gets off badly, as sharing all the mass-man’s untoward qualities, and contributing a few of her own in the way of vanity and laziness, extravagance and foible. The list of luxury-products that she patronized is interesting; it calls to mind the women’s page of a Sunday newspaper in 1928, or the display set forth in one of our professedly "smart" periodicals. In another place, Isaiah even recalls the affectations that we used to know by the name "flapper gait" and the "debutante slouch." It may be fair to discount Isaiah’s vivacity a little for prophetic fervour; after all, since his real job was not to convert the masses but to brace and reassure the Remnant, he probably felt that he might lay it on indiscriminately and as thick as he liked – in fact, that he was expected to do so. But even so, the Judean mass-man must have been a most objectionable individual, and the mass-woman utterly odious.


If the modern spirit, whatever that may be, is disinclined towards taking the Lord’s word at its face value (as I hear is the case), we may observe that Isaiah’s testimony to the character of the masses has strong collateral support from respectable Gentile authority. Plato lived into the administration of Eubulus, when Athens was at the peak of its jazz-and-paper era, and he speaks of the Athenian masses with all Isaiah’s fervency, even comparing them to a herd of ravenous wild beasts. Curiously, too, he applies Isaiah’s own word remnant to the worthier portion of Athenian society; "there is but a very small remnant," he says, of those who possess a saving force of intellect and force of character – too small, preciously as to Judea, to be of any avail against the ignorant and vicious preponderance of the masses.

But Isaiah was a preacher and Plato a philosopher; and we tend to regard preachers and philosophers rather as passive observers of the drama of life than as active participants. Hence in a matter of this kind their judgment might be suspected of being a little uncompromising, a little acrid, or as the French say, saugrenu. We may therefore bring forward another witness who was preeminently a man of affairs, and whose judgment can not lie under this suspicion. Marcus Aurelius was ruler of the greatest of empires, and in that capacity he not only had the Roman mass-man under observation, but he had him on his hands twenty-four hours a day for eighteen years. What he did not know about him was not worth knowing and what he thought of him is abundantly attested on almost every page of the little book of jottings which he scribbled offhand from day to day, and which he meant for no eye but his own ever to see.

This view of the masses is the one that we find prevailing at large among the ancient authorities whose writings have come down to us. In the eighteenth century, however, certain European philosophers spread the notion that the mass-man, in his natural state, is not at all the kind of person that earlier authorities made him out to be, but on the contrary, that he is a worthy object of interest. His untowardness is the effect of environment, an effect for which "society" is somehow responsible. If only his environment permitted him to live according to his lights, he would undoubtedly show himself to be quite a fellow; and the best way to secure a more favourable environment for him would be to let him arrange it for himself. The French Revolution acted powerfully as a springboard for this idea, projecting its influence in all directions throughout Europe.


On this side of the ocean a whole new continent stood ready for a large-scale experiment with this theory. It afforded every conceivable resource whereby the masses might develop a civilization made in their own likeness and after their own image. There was no force of tradition to disturb them in their preponderance, or to check them in a thoroughgoing disparagement of the Remnant. Immense natural wealth, unquestioned predominance, virtual isolation, freedom from external interference and the fear of it, and, finally, a century and a half of time – such are the advantages which the mass-man has had in bringing forth a civilization which should set the earlier preachers and philosophers at naught in their belief that nothing substantial can be expected from the masses, but only from the Remnant.

His success is unimpressive. On the evidence so far presented one must say, I think, that the mass-man’s conception of what life has to offer, and his choice of what to ask from life, seem now to be pretty well what they were in the times of Isaiah and Plato; and so too seem the catastrophic social conflicts and convulsions in which his views of life and his demands on life involve him. I do not wish to dwell on this, however, but merely to observe that the monstrously inflated importance of the masses has apparently put all thought of a possible mission to the Remnant out of the modern prophet’s head. This is obviously quite as it should be, provided that the earlier preachers and philosophers were actually wrong, and that all final hope of the human race is actually centred in the masses. If, on the other hand, it should turn out that the Lord and Isaiah and Plato and Marcus Aurelius were right in their estimate of the relative social value of the masses and the Remnant, the case is somewhat different. Moreover, since with everything in their favour the masses have so far given such an extremely discouraging account of themselves, it would seem that the question at issue between these two bodies of opinion might most profitably be reopened.

III

But without following up this suggestion, I wish only, as I said, to remark the fact that as things now stand Isaiah's job seems rather to go begging. Everyone with a message nowadays is, like my venerable European friend, eager to take it to the masses. His first, last and only thought is of mass-acceptance and mass-approval. His great care is to put his doctrine in such shape as will capture the masses' attention and interest. This attitude towards the masses is so exclusive, so devout, that one is reminded of the troglodytic monster described by Plato, and the assiduous crowd at the entrance to its cave, trying obsequiously to placate it and win its favour, trying to interpret its inarticulate noises, trying to find out what it wants, and eagerly offering it all sorts of things that they think might strike its fancy.


The main trouble with all this is its reaction upon the mission itself. It necessitates an opportunist sophistication of one's doctrine, which profoundly alters its character and reduces it to a mere placebo. If, say, you are a preacher, you wish to attract as large a congregation as you can, which means an appeal to the masses; and this, in turn, means adapting the terms of your message to the order of intellect and character that the masses exhibit. If you are an educator, say with a college on your hands, you wish to get as many students as possible, and you whittle down your requirements accordingly. If a writer, you aim at getting many readers; if a publisher, many purchasers; if a philosopher, many disciples; if a reformer, many converts; if a musician, many auditors; and so on. But as we see on all sides, in the realization of these several desires, the prophetic message is so heavily adulterated with trivialities, in every instance, that its effect on the masses is merely to harden them in their sins. Meanwhile, the Remnant, aware of this adulteration and of the desires that prompt it, turn their backs on the prophet and will have nothing to do with him or his message.

Isaiah, on the other hand, worked under no such disabilities. He preached to the masses only in the sense that he preached publicly. Anyone who liked might listen; anyone who liked might pass by. He knew that the Remnant would listen; and knowing also that nothing was to be expected of the masses under any circumstances, he made no specific appeal to them, did not accommodate his message to their measure in any way, and did not care two straws whether they heeded it or not. As a modern publisher might put it, he was not worrying about circulation or about advertising. Hence, with all such obsessions quite out of the way, he was in a position to do his level best, without fear or favour, and answerable only to his august Boss.

If a prophet were not too particular about making money out of his mission or getting a dubious sort of notoriety out of it, the foregoing considerations would lead one to say that serving the Remnant looks like a good job. An assignment that you can really put your back into, and do your best without thinking about results, is a real job; whereas serving the masses is at best only half a job, considering the inexorable conditions that the masses impose upon their servants. They ask you to give them what they want, they insist upon it, and will take nothing else; and following their whims, their irrational changes of fancy, their hot and cold fits, is a tedious business, to say nothing of the fact that what they want at any time makes very little call on one’s resources of prophesy. The Remnant, on the other hand, want only the best you have, whatever that may be. Give them that, and they are satisfied; you have nothing more to worry about. The prophet of the American masses must aim consciously at the lowest common denominator of intellect, taste and character among 120,000,000 people; and this is a distressing task. The prophet of the Remnant, on the contrary, is in the enviable position of Papa Haydn in the household of Prince Esterhazy. All Haydn had to do was keep forking out the very best music he knew how to produce, knowing it would be understood and appreciated by those for whom he produced it, and caring not a button what anyone else thought of it; and that makes a good job.


In a sense, nevertheless, as I have said, it is not a rewarding job. If you can tough the fancy of the masses, and have the sagacity to keep always one jump ahead of their vagaries and vacillations, you can get good returns in money from serving the masses, and good returns also in a mouth-to-ear type of notoriety:

Digito monstrari et dicier, Hic est!

We all know innumerable politicians, journalists, dramatists, novelists and the like, who have done extremely well by themselves in these ways. Taking care of the Remnant, on the contrary, holds little promise of any such rewards. A prophet of the Remnant will not grow purse-proud on the financial returns from his work, nor is it likely that he will get any great renown out of it. Isaiah’s case was exceptional to this second rule, and there are others, but not many.

It may be thought, then, that while taking care of the Remnant is no doubt a good job, it is not an especially interesting job because it is as a rule so poorly paid. I have my doubts about this. There are other compensations to be got out of a job besides money and notoriety, and some of them seem substantial enough to be attractive. Many jobs which do not pay well are yet profoundly interesting, as, for instance, the job of research student in the sciences is said to be; and the job of looking after the Remnant seems to me, as I have surveyed it for many years from my seat in the grandstand, to be as interesting as any that can be found in the world.

IV

What chiefly makes it so, I think, is that in any given society the Remnant are always so largely an unknown quantity. You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them. You can be sure of those – dead sure, as our phrase is – but you will never be able to make even a respectable guess at anything else. You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you. Except for these two certainties, working for the Remnant means working in impenetrable darkness; and this, I should say, is just the condition calculated most effectively to pique the interest of any prophet who is properly gifted with the imagination, insight and intellectual curiosity necessary to a successful pursuit of his trade.

The fascination and the despair of the historian, as he looks back upon Isaiah's Jewry, upon Plato's Athens, or upon Rome of the Antonines, is the hope of discovering and laying bare the "substratum of right-thinking and well-doing" which he knows must have existed somewhere in those societies because no kind of collective life can possibly go on without it. He finds tantalizing intimations of it here and there in many places, as in the Greek Anthology, in the scrapbook of Aulus Gellius, in the poems of Ausonius, and in the brief and touching tribute, Bene merenti, bestowed upon the unknown occupants of Roman tombs. But these are vague and fragmentary; they lead him nowhere in his search for some kind of measure on this substratum, but merely testify to what he already knew a priori – that the substratum did somewhere exist. Where it was, how substantial it was, what its power of self-assertion and resistance was – of all this they tell him nothing.

Similarly, when the historian of two thousand years hence, or two hundred years, looks over the available testimony to the quality of our civilization and tries to get any kind of clear, competent evidence concerning the substratum of right-thinking and well-doing which he knows must have been here, he will have a devil of a time finding it. When he has assembled all he can and has made even a minimum allowance for speciousness, vagueness, and confusion of motive, he will sadly acknowledge that his net result is simply nothing. A Remnant were here, building a substratum like coral insects; so much he knows, but he will find nothing to put him on the track of who and where and how many they were and what their work was like.

Concerning all this, too, the prophet of the present knows precisely as much and as little as the historian of the future; and that, I repeat, is what makes his job seem to me so profoundly interesting. One of the most suggestive episodes recounted in the Bible is that of a prophet's attempt – the only attempt of the kind on the record, I believe – to count up the Remnant. Elijah had fled from persecution into the desert, where the Lord presently overhauled him and asked what he was doing so far away from his job. He said that he was running away, not because he was a coward, but because all the Remnant had been killed off except himself. He had got away only by the skin of his teeth, and, he being now all the Remnant there was, if he were killed the True Faith would go flat. The Lord replied that he need not worry about that, for even without him the True Faith could probably manage to squeeze along somehow if it had to; "and as for your figures on the Remnant," He said, "I don't mind telling you that there are seven thousand of them back there in Israel whom it seems you have not heard of, but you may take My word for it that there they are."

At that time, probably the population of Israel could not run to much more than a million or so; and a Remnant of seven thousand out of a million is a highly encouraging percentage for any prophet. With seven thousand of the boys on his side, there was no great reason for Elijah to feel lonesome; and incidentally, that would be something for the modern prophet of the Remnant to think of when he has a touch of the blues. But the main point is that if Elijah the Prophet could not make a closer guess on the number of the Remnant than he made when he missed it by seven thousand, anyone else who tackled the problem would only waste his time.

The other certainty which the prophet of the Remnant may always have is that the Remnant will find him. He may rely on that with absolute assurance. They will find him without his doing anything about it; in fact, if he tries to do anything about it, he is pretty sure to put them off. He does not need to advertise for them nor resort to any schemes of publicity to get their attention. If he is a preacher or a public speaker, for example, he may be quite indifferent to going on show at receptions, getting his picture printed in the newspapers, or furnishing autobiographical material for publication on the side of "human interest." If a writer, he need not make a point of attending any pink teas, autographing books at wholesale, nor entering into any specious freemasonry with reviewers. All this and much more of the same order lies in the regular and necessary routine laid down for the prophet of the masses; it is, and must be, part of the great general technique of getting the mass-man's ear – or as our vigorous and excellent publicist, Mr. H. L. Mencken, puts it, the technique of boob-bumping. The prophet of the Remnant is not bound to this technique. He may be quite sure that the Remnant will make their own way to him without any adventitious aids; and not only so, but if they find him employing any such aids, as I said, it is ten to one that they will smell a rat in them and will sheer off.

The certainty that the Remnant will find him, however, leaves the prophet as much in the dark as ever, as helpless as ever in the matter of putting any estimate of any kind upon the Remnant; for, as appears in the case of Elijah, he remains ignorant of who they are that have found him or where they are or how many. They did not write in and tell him about it, after the manner of those who admire the vedettes of Hollywood, nor yet do they seek him out and attach themselves to his person. They are not that kind. They take his message much as drivers take the directions on a roadside signboard – that is, with very little thought about the signboard, beyond being gratefully glad that it happened to be there, but with every thought about the directions.

This impersonal attitude of the Remnant wonderfully enhances the interest of the imaginative prophet's job. Once in a while, just about often enough to keep his intellectual curiosity in good working order, he will quite accidentally come upon some distinct reflection of his own message in an unsuspected quarter. This enables him to entertain himself in his leisure moments with agreeable speculations about the course his message may have taken in reaching that particular quarter, and about what came of it after it got there. Most interesting of all are those instances, if one could only run them down (but one may always speculate about them), where the recipient himself no longer knows where nor when nor from whom he got the message – or even where, as sometimes happens, he has forgotten that he got it anywhere and imagines that it is all a self-sprung idea of his own.

Such instances as these are probably not infrequent, for, without presuming to enroll ourselves among the Remnant, we can all no doubt remember having found ourselves suddenly under the influence of an idea, the source of which we cannot possibly identify. "It came to us afterward," as we say; that is, we are aware of it only after it has shot up full-grown in our minds, leaving us quite ignorant of how and when and by what agency it was planted there and left to germinate. It seems highly probable that the prophet's message often takes some such course with the Remnant.

If, for example, you are a writer or a speaker or a preacher, you put forth an idea which lodges in the Unbewußtsein of a casual member of the Remnant and sticks fast there. For some time it is inert; then it begins to fret and fester until presently it invades the man's conscious mind and, as one might say, corrupts it. Meanwhile, he has quite forgotten how he came by the idea in the first instance, and even perhaps thinks he has invented it; and in those circumstances, the most interesting thing of all is that you never know what the pressure of that idea will make him do.

For these reasons it appears to me that Isaiah’s job is not only good but also extremely interesting; and especially so at the present time when nobody is doing it. If I were young and had the notion of embarking in the prophetical line, I would certainly take up this branch of the business; and therefore I have no hesitation about recommending it as a career for anyone in that position. It offers an open field, with no competition; our civilization so completely neglects and disallows the Remnant that anyone going in with an eye single to their service might pretty well count on getting all the trade there is.

Even assuming that there is some social salvage to be screened out of the masses, even assuming that the testimony of history to their social value is a little too sweeping, that it depresses hopelessness a little too far, one must yet perceive, I think, that the masses have prophets enough and to spare. Even admitting that in the teeth of history that hope of the human race may not be quite exclusively centred in the Remnant, one must perceive that they have social value enough to entitle them to some measure of prophetic encouragement and consolation, and that our civilization allows them none whatever. Every prophetic voice is addressed to the masses, and to them alone; the voice of the pulpit, the voice of education, the voice of politics, of literature, drama, journalism – all these are directed towards the masses exclusively, and they marshal the masses in the way that they are going.

One might suggest, therefore, that aspiring prophetical talent may well turn to another field. Sat patriae Priamoque datum – whatever obligation of the kind may be due the masses is already monstrously overpaid. So long as the masses are taking up the tabernacle of Moloch and Chiun, their images, and following the star of their god Buncombe, they will have no lack of prophets to point the way that leadeth to the More Abundant Life; and hence a few of those who feel the prophetic afflatus might do better to apply themselves to serving the Remnant. It is a good job, an interesting job, much more interesting than serving the masses; and moreover it is the only job in our whole civilization, as far as I know, that offers a virgin field.