[vc_row full_width=”” parallax=”” parallax_image=””][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_single_image image=”1820″ alignment=”center” style=”vc_box_shadow_circle” border_color=”grey” img_link_large=”” img_link_target=”_self” css_animation=”bottom-to-top” img_size=”full”][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”” parallax=”” parallax_image=””][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text css_animation=”appear”]J. P. Morgan like many of his progressive friends was a “Monopoly Capitalist” and held divided loyalties between fidelity to America and homage to the one-world government plans of the Rhodes Round Table groups. With the Wall Street complicity in having got Woodrow Wilson seated in the White House two years earlier, J. P. Morgan knew, as did others such as Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford, that America would be drawn (by design) into World War I.
To prepare the American public would be a huge undertaking, and Morgan figured on using the American press to spread a pro-war message, subtly disguised of course, as needed defense spending.
With a grateful salute to Mindfully, here is a passage from the 1917 Congressional Record detailing how Morgan took over the propaganda aspects of the American press.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”” parallax=”” parallax_image=””][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_separator color=”juicy_pink” align=”align_center” border_width=”5″ el_width=”90″][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”” parallax=”” parallax_image=””][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text css_animation=”appear”]
J.P. Morgan Interests Buy 25 of America’s Leading Newspapers and Insert Editors
U.S. Congressional Record February 9, 1917, page 2947
Congressman Calloway announced that the
J.P. Morgan interests bought 25 of America’s leading newspapers, and
inserted their own editors, in order to control the media.
The CHAIRMAN: The Chair will recognize the gentleman from Texas, a member of the [defense appropriations] committee.
Mr. CALLAWAY: Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the Record a statement that I have of how the newspapers of this country have been handled by the munitions manufacturers.
The CHAIRMAN: The gentleman from Texas asks unanimous consent to extend his remarks in the Record by inserting a certain statement. Is there any objection?
Mr. MANN: Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, may I ask whether it is the gentleman’s purpose to insert a long list of extracts from newspapers?
Mr. CALLAWAY: No; it will be a little, short statement not over 2 ½ inches in length in the Record.
The CHAIRMAN: Is there any objection?
There was no objection.
Mr. CALLAWAY: Mr. Chairman, under unanimous consent, I insert into the Record at this point a statement showing the newspaper combination, which explains their activity in the war matter, just discussed by the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. MOORE]:
“In March, 1915, the J.P. Morgan interests, the steel, ship building and powder interests and their subsidiary organizations, got together 12 men high up in the newspaper world and employed them to select the most influential newspapers in the United States and sufficient number of them to control generally the policy of the daily press in the United States.
“These 12 men worked the problems out by selecting 179 newspapers, and then began, by an elimination process, to retain only those necessary for the purpose of controlling the general policy of the daily press throughout the country. They found it was only necessary to purchase the control of 25 of the greatest papers. The 25 papers were agreed upon; emissaries were sent to purchase the policy, national and international, of these papers; an agreement was reached; the policy of the papers was bought, to be paid for by the month; an editor was furnished for each paper to properly supervise and edit information regarding the questions of preparedness, militarism, financial policies and other things of national and international nature considered vital to the interests of the purchasers.
“This contract is in existence at the present time, and it accounts for the news columns of the daily press of the country being filled with all sorts of preparedness arguments and misrepresentations as to the present condition of the United States Army and Navy, and the possibility and probability of the United States being attacked by foreign foes.
“This policy also included the suppression of everything in opposition to the wishes of the interests served. The effectiveness of this scheme has been conclusively demonstrated by the character of the stuff carried in the daily press throughout the country since March, 1915. They have resorted to anything necessary to commercialize public sentiment and sandbag the National Congress into making extravagant and wasteful appropriations for the Army and Navy under false pretense that it was necessary. Their stock argument is that it is ‘patriotism.’ They are playing on every prejudice and passion of the American people.
– end –
[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row][vc_row full_width=”” parallax=”” parallax_image=””][vc_column width=”1/1″][vc_column_text css_animation=”appear”]With a salute to AprilSmith.org we’ll mirror something from her history lessons —
April Smith asks:
“Did you know that the little man on the Monopoly game, now called Mr. Monopoly, was once called Rich Uncle Pennybags and was drawn to look like J.P. Morgan?”
There is a lot of talk here about whining for ‘rights’. Here are a few thoughts on this…
A lot of people who talk of their ‘freedoms’ (eg Freedom Of Speech) are really just talking about the length of their leash. There’s a difference between being free and being granted a certain amount of clothesline by an authoritarian keeper. Particularly, those who have it deeply engrained in them (via psychological pressure, etc.) to obey can be given more leash (the leash has been internalized). But the leash is still there.
The principle of freedom requires an entity called an “individual”. No one else can grant you freedom, they can only grant you an amount of leash (an amount of limitation), for in the act of ‘granting’ they are assuming control, and you are assuming an obedient role. Only you can grant yourself freedom, by acknowledging whatever strengths and resources you possess, acting according to your own individual values and aspirations, and facing the consequences with whatever is at your disposal. This same principle applies to an organization which seeks to be free – it all depends not on what others grant them, but what they assume for themselves. With freedom implicitly comes responsibility.
The etymology of the word ‘right’: Middle English, from Old English riht; akin to Old High German reht right, Latin rectus straight, right, regere to lead straight, direct, rule, rogare to ask, Greek oregein to stretch out
If you are granted a ‘right’ that is proof that you are NOT free, that you do not possess liberty. Liberty is not, cannot be a right. That is an oxymoron. Whether the writers of the American constitution understood this I cannot say. But you can understand it if you choose.
If you ask others to grant you rights, at least acknowledge that you are granting them the right to dictate to you, to lord over you. You are abdicating your liberty and acknowledging their lordship. There are benefits to having an overlord, which is why people abdicate their liberty in some circumstances. But if it is liberty you seek, then assume it, seize it; make your own decisions, obey your own values. You may ask others to respect your individuality and personal sovereignty, but don’t ask others to give you liberty.
Liberty requires two ingredients: freedom and power. Liberty is the employment of freedom.
Consider those who are granted “Freedom Of Speech”. Are they permitted to speak whatever they wish? Of course not. There are exceptions, qualifications, subtle and implied limitations. Say the wrong thing and the leash gets shorter, or the master comes to move you to different accommodations (ones less visible and with fewer rights). Those granted “Freedom Of Speech” like to show us how splendidly long their leash is, polishing it with pride and making speeches about it, but they are mistaken in calling it freedom.
But you already have the freedom to say what you wish. Can you not operate your own mouth, your own pen? What this so-called Freedom of Speech right really grants is a promise that, within limits, your keeper will not attack you for what you say, and will stop those who would attack you. (Whether this promise is kept is another issue.) Thus you are granted the right not to be attacked by your master, and you are granted his (promise of) protection (or often merely his promise of retaliation which is far less useful). In other words you are not given anything, merely promised that you will not have something stolen from you. And this makes sense, because the keeper is not really in a position to grant freedom, merely to take it away, to limit it. He does not possess your freedom so he cannot give it. You possess your freedom.
Can your freedom be stolen? In fact no. Your goods can be stolen, you can be beaten, killed. Your resources, means, power, liberty can be diminished. But freedom cannot be stolen. At best others can convince you to obey them, to lend them your freedom, your obedience, usually in return for something.
Two examples of laws:
1) A driver may not drive faster than 100 kph.
2) Light does not exceed 3 x 10^8 meters per second.
What is the difference between these two laws? They both imply limits. However the first is a decree, an order given by one to another which is to be obeyed. In fact it is false, in that a person may choose to drive faster. This law conveys a desire and a will to enforce.
The second is a natural law – a limitation. It’s not that a photon disobeying it will be pulled over, racially harassed, and ticketed. He is free to go as fast as he can. The law doesn’t set the limit or attempt to usurp freedom, it merely reflects an observation of behavior. It is unenforced.
To be more natural like the second law, the first law could be rewritten:
1) If a driver drives faster than 100 kph, hungry police may attempt to catch him and attack his wallet, and he may be stigmatized with demerits which may affect his (granted) rights.
Unfortunately some live as if a law (decree) really does represent an impossibility, a natural limitation, saying such things as “I can’t do this” or “I have to pay my taxes”. Their habits of speech reveal how they have been conditioned and how they condition themselves – how they have removed the possibility of choice from their consideration. Tucking those facts away as impossibilities, they then consider themselves free and possessing individual liberty.
I think is it important to remind ourselves of the difference between things we really believe we cannot do, such as drive 10000 kph, and those which we are told by an authority we must or must not do. In fact we should say “I choose not to do this to avoid attack (what some call ‘punishment’, although I fail to see a distinction), instead of saying “I must do this”. The difference is the difference between choice and obedience. Responding to a force out of necessity and consideration of its potential or merit is different than obeying a force which you regard as your lord.
How Power And Freedom Are Often Confused
Earlier I stated that an individual’s freedom cannot be granted or stolen, merely forgotten or dismissed. Does this then imply that a person who has acknowledged his freedom and does not look to others to grant him rights is able to do anything he likes? No. Just as a light wave cannot propagate faster than c, individuals have natural limitations, based on resources, wit, courage, wisdom, their position relative to others and their environment, etc. Their power.
In contrast to the case of a person who looks to others to grant him rights, a free-minded individual evaluates his own power, strengths, limitations, and needs, and takes actions which _he_ deems suitable. Likewise he takes responsibility for those actions, and deals with their consequences.
The state of freedom can be a very subtle one to realize. In a sense it is an ‘anything goes’ policy. But while some would claim this leads to chaos, in fact people do have values, and they do have limitations. This is as much a part of them as are their destructive tendencies.
Now let’s consider what might happen if everyone were free, as I have claimed they intrinsically are. Some, due to their nature, would live in peace, but others, due to their nature, would seek to subjugate the will of others, would steal and plunder. People would probably form into groups, based on their beliefs, skin color, or location. They might choose as leaders people with charisma and energy, and they might be betrayed by brutal leaders who assume power.
Groups might set decrees setting forth certain expectations, and individuals would be expected to obey these decrees, or would be attacked by the group. Many individuals would become accustomed to being controlled from without. The group might use psychological propaganda and misinformation on young people to deeply engrain habits in them at a young age, or might even attempt to convince them that freedom is a thing which only the group can bestow – a right.
Groups would often conflict with other groups, waging war to attain supremacy, attempting to assimilate the losers.
This discussion was my clever way of demonstrating that people are in fact already free, and always have been. Freedom does not imply omnipotence or omniscience. It alone does not imply liberty. It merely indicates a will to choose. What many seek while claiming to seek freedom is more power.
A free-minded person does not have to be a rebel, his house filled with machine guns, explosives, and Crays. In fact he may be a peaceful law- abiding citizen. The difference can be very subtle. He may obey a law only because he understands that if he doesn’t he will be attacked by the group. This does not mean he is not free, for he is consciously making his choices based on his environment. It does mean his power, and thus his liberty, is limited.
Likewise, a rebel may not understand freedom at all. He may rebel against governments and people because he believes they possess his freedom. He may break laws only because the action is forbidden. He merely reacts. He may be just as bound as one who obeys unthinkingly. He has power but cannot employ it freely, he can only apply it in opposition.
Now my reader may say that most are like the law-abiding, free-minded individual, just obeying to avoid punishment, but in fact that is not the case. Government has become a deeply engrained religion of sorts, and people have become dependent on the security (illusory and otherwise) which the group mentality provides. They see presidents, governors, soldiers, policemen, and pieces of carefully printed paper as holy and sacred. They believe deeply that rights granted are freedoms. Except when encouraged to do otherwise, they assume that the law is right, and that which breaks the law is wrong. They rarely question the basic fabric of their beliefs. It is unthinkable.
Further, even aside from the influence of their governments proper, people are greatly influenced by the subtle pressures and taboos of their neighbors. They sacrifice themselves and their liberty to blend in, not merely because they fear the consequences of being different, a reasonable fear even for a free-minded individual, but because they honestly come to believe themselves to be wrong, broken, sick. They come to hate themselves as others do.
The difference between those who are free at heart, yet lack liberty, and those who are deeply conditioned to believe in authority, cannot often be clearly seen in times of peace. Those who have forgotten freedom will often claim they are free, ironically pointing to their leashes, their rights, as proof. But when the opportunities for change come, as they always do eventually, these people will cower and try to retain ‘the system’. They have grown dependent on it. They will respond to those who welcome change with violence and hatred, much like a trained dog on a leash angrily barking at a stranger. Others will welcome change, and will struggle through it, still able to see that greater things can be accomplished.
I believe most of us would like to put ourselves in the second category, believing we are just putting up with the system for awhile, and have not forgotten that we are free. But that is wishful thinking, and the truth is not black and white. We have all been trained to think we are not capable, trained to believe freedom is bestowed. And this training takes constant vigilance to challenge.
Pleading for rights, while perhaps valuable, will not make you free, will not give you liberty. It will only make you a more powerful dog, a more effective tool. Liberty requires a much deeper commitment than begging others to grant you rights, or attempting to become one of the rulers rather than the ruled, and it requires a great deal of patience for the genuine changes to occur. I see many grabbing for rights while still clinging to an entire system hinged upon obedience and oppression. It is not freedom these people seek, it is merely power.
At first, freedom must be cultivated internally, by realizing that rights granted by an authority are not freedoms. Until you take your destiny into your own hands and stop whining to others for rights, for privacy, for power, you will not comprehend the nature of freedom, or the nature of freedom in motion – liberty. We all have some power, no matter how large or small, no matter whether we live in the wilderness or in a jail cell. It is how we use that power which we have, or in despair fail to use it, that determines whether we live as free individuals or as automatons. Power and wisdom work in tandem. If one has more power than wisdom, he uses it poorly and looses it. If one has more wisdom than power, he uses what little he has wisely, and thus gains more power. Power alone is not liberty. One may be powerful but not free. One may be free but not powerful.
Freedom is choice, independence. Liberty is the free use of power – not power over one’s environment or fellows, but power in harmony with them.
Thank you for reading.
I hereby grant you the reader the _right_ to use this (public domain) document _freely_. (If you’ve been paying attention you understand that you are already free to do as you choose. I am granting you a ‘right of freedom’, an oxymoron. You probably realize that my statement isn’t granting you freedom, which in fact you already possess, it’s just saying I am abdicating the _right_ granted to me to have you attacked if you make use of this text without permission. Thus you have gained no freedom, no liberty, merely a right, a length of leash. Wag your tail.)
It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety’s sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.
Sunday morning came — next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams — visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation
God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!
Then came the “long” prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory —
An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher’s side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, “Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!”
The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside — which the startled minister did — and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:
“I come from the Throne — bearing a message from Almighty God!” The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. “He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import — that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of — except he pause and think.
“God’s servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two — one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this — keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor’s crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.
“You have heard your servant’s prayer — the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it — that part which the pastor — and also you in your hearts — fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: ‘Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!’ That is sufficient. the whole of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory — must follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!
“O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle — be Thou near them! With them — in spirit — we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it — for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.
(After a pause.) “Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!”
It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.
God of Battles Archetype associated with battle, strife, and sovereignty. Proto-Celtic moro-rigani, translation terror or monstrous–queeen. Old Irish, mor translation great or terrible signifying a duality of role for the consequences of battle and its moral impact upon sovereignty.
In his book, The Survival Home Manual, Joel M. Skousen notes that “the bureaucrat never does any of the dirty work for the prosecution of his rulings.” In other words, a judge or administrative officer who cites a citizen for the conduct of illegal activities never directly enforces his own edicts. If the activity in question – such as building a house without a permit – continues after it has been administratively determined such activity should stop, then the bureaucrat in charge of regulating such affairs usually initiates a case before the judicial branch of government. If the defendant refuses to “cease and desist,” then the judge has the power to hold the offender in contempt. Instead of arresting a person for “building a house without a permit,” the judge authorizes a policeman or sheriff to arrest the offender for “contempt of court.” The crime then shifts into a different playing field. The issue then becomes one of “control,” and the offense becomes one of questioning and denying the power and authority of the State and its judicial system. As Skousen puts it,
“Notice, that if you ever resist bureaucratic ‘law,’ you are not prosecuted for resisting an inane and unconstitutional law, but for “defying the court” or “resisting arrest.” Separating the act of resistance from the initial law which motivated the act is one of the slickest ways to bring a populace into line with bureaucratic law.”
A compliant citizenry makes it easy for the State to mask its ultimate sanction. Usually the threat of arrest and imprisonment is enough to make most people docile and obedient. However, if a person wishes to resist, and refuses to submit to “court orders,” he will usually find himself overwhelmed by State force, usually in the form of drawn guns ready to shoot. All State law, no matter how petty, has as its final punishment your death – should you decide to resist to the bitter end. In this enlightened age, there are few hold outs who would dare the State to go this far, but in the late 1970s John Singer, a fundamentalist Mormon living in Utah, defied court orders that he cease teaching his children at home. Ultimately, he would not peacefully submit to an arrest, and after holing himself and his family up in their mountain hideaway, he was eventually shot and killed by law enforcement officers on January 18, 1979.
The saga of John Singer should be of interest to voluntaryists for a number of reasons. First, it is concrete proof that State sovereignty rests on force and its threat. Second, it presents the dilemma of conscientious homeschool parents: Who has the final say how children should be raised and educated? Who has the right to say what they are taught, and how they are taught? Should homeschool parents acknowledge State supremacy in matters of schooling and submit to the State by complying with its regulations, or should they go their own way, as John and Vickie Singer did? In short, the case of John Singer epitomizes the question: Who ultimately controls the children in our society – their parents or the State? The purpose of this article is to look at some of the important evidence necessary to answer these questions.
Although John Singer was born in Brooklyn, New York in 1931, his parents, both originally German citizens, took him back to their native country shortly after his birth. There he experienced the horrors of Nazi regimentation and the chaos of World War II and its aftermath. Since he was a U.S. citizen he was allowed to emigrate back to the United States in 1946. There he lived with his mother’s sister, learned English, studied TV repair, and became a carpenter under his uncle’s tutelage. Within a year after his mother, brother, and two sisters joined him in New York, they had saved enough money to drive to Utah, “the promised land of their faith,” the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Mormons. By the time Singer married Vickie Lemon in September 1963, he had built himself a log home in the Kamas Valley, where he farmed and plied his TV repair trade. He was described by David Fleisher and David Freedman, authors of his biography (Death of an American, New York: Continuum, 1983) as “a strong, independent, industrious man with an unwavering faith in his God.” Seven years after their marriage John and Vickie were excommunicated from the Mormon Church for their continued insistence on believing in the literal interpretation of the Mormon scriptures (including its original doctrine of plural marriage) and for taking the side of the fundamentalists rather than the modern church. Two years later, in March 1973, they withdrew their three school-age children from South Summit Elementary School, a public school in Kamas, Utah. The Singers objected to the “immoral secular influences” found in the Utah state-run schools, including “the school’s ‘permissive attitude’ toward such immoral behavior as sexual promiscuity, drugs, crude language and gestures, rock music, and lack of respect for adults.” They believed the State had no constitutional right to interfere with their religious beliefs by requiring them to send their children to public school.
This marked the beginning of the first phase of Singer’s resistance to public schooling. After an initial meeting in April 1973, to explain their views to the Superintendent of the school district and the members of the Board of Education, the Singers received a letter informing them that they were in violation of the state’s compulsory attendance law, which required attendance at a public or “regularly established” private school, or homeschooling subject to the approval of their local school district’s Board of Education. On December 6, 1973 the School Board flied a complaint against John Singer in juvenile court for , “the crime of contributing to the delinquency and neglect of” his three oldest children, ages 6, 7 and 8. When Singer failed to appear in court to defend himself against the charges, the judge issued a bench warrant for his arrest. It took the sheriff and his deputies about a month to apprehend Singer, since he refused to surrender voluntarily. They surprised him while he was on a TV repair call. Singer spent the night in jail, and the following day agreed to accept a court-appointed attorney and work with the school board on an approved homeschooling program. On March 8, 1974, the school board issued a certificate of exemption to the Singers, with the stipulation that the school board administer a Basic Skills Achievement Test to the four oldest Singer children twice a year, starting in the fall. The school psychologist, Tony Fowell, was appointed to administer the tests and monitor the children’s home education progress. Three months later, in June 1974, the criminal complaint against Singer was dismissed based on the evidence of his compliance.
John and Vickie Singer did not take lightly to regimentation. Although they allowed their children to be tested in October 1974, and April 1975, by April 1976 they concluded that “they must get out from under the thumb of the local school district” because they resented bureaucratic intrusions into their home and family life. Consequently, they informed the district they would permit no further testing. They decided that they would educate their children according to their own religious beliefs without interference from the government. As they explained,
“We are responsible for our children, not the school board. They don’t support or raise them, we do. We are true Americans, and the Lord has let us know that He will protect our constitutional freedoms. It is a corrupt government that passes a law that takes children away from their parents, and those people who try to enforce that law are tyrants.” (pp. 61-61)
Thus began the second stage of their resistance. The local school board withdrew their exemption certificate, and initiated a new criminal complaint against them. After having attended several school board meetings and court hearings, on August 23, 1977, the Singers were present in the juvenile court of Judge Kent Bachman. The charge against them was again criminal neglect of their children. Representing himself, John refused to plead guilty. All his children were well cared for, none were “neglected,” and he readily admitted that they did not attend public school. Singer’s position was “that the only thing I have to prove to this court is that my children are not being trained for any delinquency actions or any criminal actions, and this is the only thing I have to prove and nothing else.” (p. 76) Judge Bachman insisted that the only issue was whether the Singers “compiled with the policies or standards set out for the education of your children” by the school board. (p. 81) Singer responded, “But it seems like the standards which have been set out here are not the same standards I believe in. …Have you got even the right to force my children under any form of education?”
The judge concluded that the Singers were guilty of a misdemeanor and found them in violation of the compulsory attendance law. Both parents and children were to be evaluated by a court designated psychologist, Dr. Victor Cline. John and Vickie were each fined $290, and sentenced to 60 days in the county jail unless they met with the evaluating psychologist. Due to the publicity that their case was generating, the Singers were approached by supporters of private and home schooling, and urged to incorporate their own private school. Since Utah law was very vague on the requirements for a private school, it was thought they might use this loophole to escape the jurisdiction of Judge Bachman’s juvenile court. Thus by the time they were summoned on November 1, to explain why they had failed to comply with the judge’s order (four children had been tested and evaluated by Dr. Cline, but they themselves refused to submit) the Singers had formally incorporated their own private school, High Untas Academy, Inc. Judge Bachman granted a stay, and held that if after one month the Singers did not comply with the order of August 23rd, “there will be incarceration for both of you.”
On November 3, 1977 John and Vickie were interviewed and tested by Dr. Cline. He found the children to be on an average of 34 points lower IQ than their parents because the children were not having “adequate educational experiences.” In the meantime, Judge Bachman had set a trial date for December 16th, and decided to hold a pre-trial conference on November 5. In an effort to work out a peaceful compromise, the judge agreed to vacate his order that they be jailed and pay a fine, if the Singers would submit an acceptable plan for the education of their children.
This the Singers refused to do, because they believed the judge had improperly disregarded their efforts to form a private school. They also decided not to attend their December 16th trial for fear that their children would be physically taken from them. On December 16th, Judge Bachman issued bench warrants for their arrest, and set bail at $300 each. Their trial was continued to January 31, 1978.
For the next year, John Singer was literally at war with the authorities, and did not set foot outside his farm. When contacted by the sheriff on the telephone, John informed him that he “intended to resist arrest.” At the January 3rd trial, Judge Bachman found John and Vickie Singer guilty of child neglect. By now, they had five school-age children who were ordered to submit to daily tutoring provided by the South Summit School District. If the Singers failed to comply with the tutoring program designed by the school district, they would be held in contempt of court. The Singer children were to remain in the custody of the Utah Division of Family Services (Judge Bachman had first issued the custody ruling on August 23, 1977), but allowed the children to remain at home with John and Vickie. After the trial, John Singer told the press that he and Vickie would not allow a tutor in their home. “We’re not trying to tell other people what to believe or how to live, we just want to be left alone and mind our own business.”
As a result of case reassignments, a new judge entered the picture. Since the Singers would not comply with the school district’s daily tutoring plan, on February 6, 1978, the new juvenile court judge, Farr Larson, issued an order for the Singers and their children to appear in court March 14, 1978 to show cause as to why the parents should not be held in contempt, and why the children should not be taken from their home and placed in custody of the State. The Singers did not attend their show cause hearing on March 14, 1978. Judge Larson found them in contempt and issued bench warrants for their arrest. His order was stayed for 7 days, so as to allow the Singers time to file an appeal. On March 21st, the sheriff was ordered to commit both parents to jail for 30 days, and each of them were ordered to pay a fine of $200.
The Singers refused to appeal their convictions (primarily on the basis that such actions were inconsistent with their religious beliefs). John had also previously told friends that “I’d rather die than go against my religious beliefs.” (p. 111) When Judge Larson finally dissolved his stay of execution, he was quoted in the newspapers as saying:
By law, children in this state have a right to an education, and a duty to attend school. Children are no longer regarded as chattels of their parents. They are persons with legal rights and obligations. The rights of the parents do not transcend the right of a child to an education nor the child’s duty to attend school. Parents who fear the negative influence of public education should also examine the damaging effects of teaching a child disobedience to law and defiance to authority. (p. 114)
The judge also directed the sheriff to arrest John Singer, but “to employ such means and take such time as are reasonably calculated to avoid the infliction of bodily harm on any person.” (p. 144) After nearly six months of inaction, in October 1978, Judge Larson removed the restriction about the use of violence from his arrest order, but he set no time limit for Singer’s apprehension. After consultation with State law enforcement officials, it was decided that they would try to arrest Singer during a media interview, at which three law officers would pose as newsmen. This caper was foiled by Singer’s strength, his family’s immediate reaction (they jumped all over his would-be captors), and the pistol in Singer’s waist band. On October 20, 1978, the Summit County attorney filed a new criminal complaint, charging John with 3 counts of aggravated assault for resisting , arrest with a gun. A felony warrant (which automatically permits the use of deadly force to effect an arrest) was issued so he could be taken into custody. Judge Larson was also reaching the end of his patience. Near the end of October 1978, he threatened the county sheriff with a contempt of court citation if he – the sheriff – did not carry out the order to arrest Singer.
By early November 1978, John Singer had been at a standoff with the authorities for the better part of a year. He was still in contact with the media via the telephone and friends. His predicament, he believed, was caused as much by the Mormon Church as it was by the State of Utah. “Speaking of his right to educate his children as he saw fit, John had said: ‘According to the state’s system, my home is just a feeding place. All they want me to do is feed my children and they want to take them from me and brainwash them to put them into a Sodom and Gomorrah society’.” (p. 158) The local and State government and its enforcement machinery found themselves in an increasingly embarrassing situation. One lone man was holding them at bay.
Something had to be done. The leadership of the Utah Department of Public Safety, the Division of Narcotics and Liquor Law Enforcement, and Highway Patrol all became involved in a surveillance and apprehension plan. The key was to “surprise Singer with such a show of force that he would realize the futility of resisting arrest and would submit peacefully.” (p. 170) Ten men, in five groups of two, were to watch Singer, learn his daily routines, and eventually confront him in such a fashion that he would have no choice but to submit. On January 18, 1979, their plan was put into effect while John was clearing snow off his driveway with a gas-powered snowblower. Although he had put down his rifle, Singer still had a thirty-eight Colt automatic tucked in his trousers. When approached by four of the lawmen, he turned, started running, and drew the pistol from its resting place. Feeling threatened for his personal safety, one of the officers fired his shotgun at Singer, and killed him with a single blast of buckshot. Shortly thereafter, social workers took the children into protective custody for nine days. In order to get them back, Vickie agreed to a court-approved plan whereby she could teach the children at home under the supervision of a private school acceptable to the juvenile court.
Thus ended the life and saga of John Singer, killed while resisting arrest on charges of contempt of court and feloniously assaulting law officers attempting to arrest him. Was he right? Does statist law assign the control of children to their parents, or does the State reserve to itself the right to control their upbringing? In other words, who controls the children in our society?
One of the books that prompted the writing of this article was Blair Adams’ volume: Who Owns The Children? (subtitled “Public Compulsion, Private Responsibility, and the Dilemma of Ultimate Authority,” Waco, Texas: Truth Forum, 1991, Fifth edition). Penning a very broad-ranging fundamentalist Christian attack on State compulsion, the author examines some of the court cases and legal precedents that shed light on this important question. In his “Preface” he writes:
[A]ccording to the courts of this land, … “A child is primarily” not his parents’ offspring but “a ward of the [S]tate”; … parents hold relationship he owes allegiance to the government”; … parents serve as a mere “guardianship” which “the government places [the child] under”; … parental authority must be “at all times exercised in subordination to the paramount and overruling direction of the [S]tate”; … “the natural rights of a parent to the custody and control of… his child are subordinate to the power of the [S]tate”;… in deciding whether parent or State will control a child’s education, the child’s academic progress under the parents – even as measured by State-approved tests – has been termed by State prosecutors as “irrelevant and immaterial”; and finally … such legal principles and policies form the basis of all this nation’s compulsory education laws. (pp. xix-xx)
Now let us examine the actual court cases and contexts in which these judicial statements were made.
Mercein v. People Ex Rel Barry, 25 Wendell 64, December 1840
This case involved a custody dispute in New York state. Lawyers for Mr. Barry, the father, argued that the father’s right to the custody of his minor child was paramount to that of Mercein (his father-in-law) or even Mercein’s daughter (the child’s mother). The court stressed that, “The interest of the infant is deemed paramount to the claim of both parents,” and that the welfare of the infant must be recognized ahead of the rights of the parents. The chancellor then went on to explain how parental authority is dependent on the State:
By the law of nature, the father has no paramount right to the custody of his child. By that law the wife and child are equal to the husband and father; but inferior and subject to their sovereign. The head of a family, in his character as husband and father, has no authority over his wife and children; but in his character of sovereign he has. On the establishment of civil societies, the power of the chief of a family as sovereign, passes to the chief or government of the nation. And the chief or magistrate of the nation not possessing the requisite knowledge necessary to a judicious discharge of the duties of guardianship and education of children, such portion of the sovereign power as he relates to the discharge of these duties, is transferred to the parents, subject to such restrictions and limitations as the sovereign power of the nation think proper to prescribe. There is no parental authority independent of the supreme power of the state . But the former is derived altogether from the latter. … (Emphasis added.)
It seems then, that by the law of nature, the father has no paramount inalienable right to the custody of his child. … The moment the child is born, it owes allegiance to the government of the country of its birth , and is entitled to the protection of that government. (Emphasis added.)
State v. Bailey, 157 Ind. 324, October 29, 1901
Sheridan Bailey had been convicted for violating the compulsory education law of Indiana which went into effect March 8, 1897. One of the grounds upon which Bailey challenged the state was that “it invaded the natural right of a man to govern and control his own children.” The court responded with the following words:
The natural rights of a parent to the custody and control of his infant child are subordinate to the power of the state, and may be restricted and regulated by municipal laws . (Emphasis added.) One of the most important natural duties of the parent is his obligation to educate his child, and this duty he owes not to the child only, but to the commonwealth. If he neglects to perform it or willfully refuses to do so, he may be coerced by law to execute such civil obligation.
Viemeister v. White, President of Board of Education , 179 N.Y. 235, October 18, 1904
This case involved a compulsory immunization regulation of the Queens County Board of Education mandating that all pupils and teachers be vaccinated, or otherwise be denied admittance to school. The parents sued the Board of Education, demanding that their son be re-admitted to public school, even though he had not received the required shots. The parents believed that smallpox vaccinations “did not tend to prevent smallpox,” “tends to bring about other diseases, and that it does much harm with good.” The court observed: “When the sole object and general tendency of legislation is to promote the public health, there is no invasion of the Constitution, even if the enforcement of the law interferes to some extent with liberty or property.” The court also noted that belief in the efficacy of vaccination programs was widespread both in the United States and other countries.
The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive; for the Legislature has the right to pass laws which, according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. In a free country, where the government is by the people through their chosen representatives, practical legislation admits of no other standard of action: for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does in fact or not . (Emphasis added.)
In effect, the court said that if it is a common belief that killing red headed people is an effective way to ward off economic depressions, and the legislature passes a law authorizing the killing of all red heads for this purpose, then killing of red headed people is no longer murder but a legislatively sanctioned activity for the general welfare of the society. Such reasoning is the result of belief in majority rule, and the negation of individual rights.
State v. Shorey, 48 Or. 396, September 11, 1906
John Shorey was convicted of violating Oregon’s child labor law which prohibited “the employment of a child under 16 years of age for a longer period than 10 hours in any one day”. On appeal the Oregon Supreme Court explained that laws regulating the employment of adults had a different constitutional basis than the child labor law. Since the 14th Amendment to the federal constitution protected “life or liberty,” adult employment laws were only valid if they were reasonably necessary to “protect the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.”
But laws regulating the right of minors to contract do not come within this principle. … They [minors] are wards of the state and subject to its control. As to them the state stands in the position of parens patriae and may exercise unlimited supervision and control over their contracts, occupation, and conduct, and the liberty and right of those who assume to deal with them. This is a power which inheres in the government for its own preservation and for the protection of life, person, health, and moral of its future citizens . (Emphasis added.) … [The court then goes on to cite the author of a legal textbook] ‘Minors are wards of the nation, and even the control of them by parents is subject to the unlimited supervisory control of the state.’ Consequently, the court affirmed that Oregon’s child labor law was “a valid exercise of legislative power.”
Allison et al. v. Bryan, 21 Oklahoma 557, June 25, 1908
This case adjudicated a custody dispute over Kenner Allison, Jr., the illegitimate child of Anna Bryan and Kenner Allison, Sr. By the early common law, fathers usually asserted their control over any and all of their children. This right was gradually eroded by statutory law and court decisions during the 19th Century. Thus, by 1908, the Oklahoma Supreme Court declared that fathers were not entitled to the services of their children.
A child is primarily a ward of the state . The sovereign has the inherent power to legislate for its welfare, and to place it with either parent at will, or take it from both parents and to place it elsewhere. This is true not only of illegitimate children, but is also true of legitimate children. The rights of the parent in his child are just such rights as the law gives him; no more, no less . His duties toward his child are just such as the law places upon him…. [The Court then cites the case of Mercein v. People (see above) and concludes its general discussion of children, parents, and the state by referring to Lewis Hochheimer’s book, A Treatise on the Law Relating to the Custody of Infants (1887).] “It may be considered as the settled doctrine in American courts that all power and authority over infants are a mere delegated function, entrusted by the sovereign state to the individual parent or guardian, revocable by the state through its tribunals, and to be at all times exercised in subordination to the paramount and overruling direction of the state.” (Emphasis added.)
Ex parte Powell, 6 Oklahoma Criminal Court of Appeals 495, January 11, 1912
Upon being convicted of burglary, John Powell, aged 14 and without parents or relatives, received a sentence of two years in the State Training School for Boys. This case was instituted by the State Commissioner of Charities and Corrections, who applied for a writ of habeas corpus, seeking to remove Powell from the school. It became necessary for the Court to review the statutory provisions relating to juvenile delinquents in Oklahoma. It observed that in the United States “the fundamental doctrine upon which governmental intervention in all such [juvenile] cases is based is that the moment a child is born he owes allegiance to the government of the country of his birth, and is entitled to the protection of the government for his person, as well as his property. … The authority of all guardians is derived from the state;…
Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 US 158, January 31, 1944
This case originated in a clash between the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the State of Massachusetts. The legislature had passed a law which prohibited children from selling magazines. It was designed to prevent Jehovah’s Witnesses from having their children distribute the “Watchtower” publication. Sarah Prince had been convicted of violating Massachusetts’ child labor laws, and she appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States on the basis that her religious freedoms, under the First Amendment, had been violated by the State. The Supreme Court upholding her conviction, set forth part of its reasoning in the following comments:
Previously in Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 US 510, 45 S. Ct. 571, … [see reference to this case in my article “Bad or Worse!”, The Voluntaryist, October 1992] this Court had sustained the parent’s authority to provide religious with secular schooling, and the child’s right to receive it, as against the state’s requirement of attendance at public schools. … It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder. Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra. And it is in recognition of this that these decisions have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter.
But the family itself is not beyond regulation in the public interest, as against a claim of religious liberty. And neither rights guard the general interest in youth’s well being, the state as parents patriae may restrict the parent’s control by requiring school attendance, regulating or prohibiting the child’s labor, and in many other ways. … [T]he state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child’s welfare, and this includes, to some extent, matters of conscience and religious conviction . (Emphasis added.)…
The state’s authority over children’s activities is broader than over like actions of adults. This is peculiarly true of public activities and in matters of employment. A democratic society rests, for its continuance, upon the healthy, well-rounded growth of young people into full maturity as citizens, with all that implies. [What should they be – obedient, tax-paying slaves and conscripts?] It [the state] may secure this against impending restraints and dangers, within a broad range of selection.
Ex part Walters, 221 P.2d 659, Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma, June 28, 1950
This case extensively quotes Ex parte Powell, one of the earlier Oklahoma citations found above. It prefaces these quotes by remarking that, “Thus it will be found that this court has for some forty years been committed to the thesis that the state has a paramount interest in the child. And why should this not be? Is it not for the common good? Aristotle, the Greek Philosopher, hundreds of years prior to the modern dictators who for selfish, sinister ends, though proclaimed for the common good, have made such effective use of the idea, said, ‘All who have meditated on the act of governing mankind have been convinced that the fate of empires depends on the education of youth’.”
Without a doubt statist case law demonstrates that the State claims that it owns the children. Although there may be cases to the contrary (we’d like to see them if there are any), John Singer was certainly right when he asserted that the state wants the parents to bear the cost of raising the children, so that the state can then take the children, brainwash them, and have them as loyal supporters.
The implications arising from the principle that the State owns the children are astounding. Note, that if the state owns the children, then it must own the adults into which the children mature. Although there may be no court rhetoric to this effect, all the actions of the State, from taxation to military conscription of adults reinforces this conclusion. Second, if the State owns the children, then adults should be required to have not only marriage licenses, but permission from the State before they bear children. Why should unapproved couples be allowed to procreate? Soon, the State will not only grant permission to have children, but will tell couples how many children to have. Bearing children and having a family become privileges granted only at the sufferance of the State. Third, comes licensure of all birth attendants and the places where births may take place. If your home is not approved by the State, you may not have a home birth, any more than you may home school your children if the State does not approve. If the state owns the children, it must be able to keep track of when, where, and how they are born. (Current birth registration laws are but a partial attempt to do this.) As Blair Adams puts it,
This desire for control over childbirth has nothing to do with considerations for the health and safety of the mother or child. As always it has everything to do with the power of the State and its desire to establish total control over, its ownership of, the lives of our children and of everyone else as well. … The day rapidly approaches that will designate as a crime the birth of children anywhere outside State-controlled and State-sanctioned institutions, just as today many states have designated as criminal the education of children outside of such institutions.
It has been repeatedly shown, although State rhetoric denies it, that State solicitude for children originates not from any genuine concern for the children, but rather from the State’s desire to achieve “order, stability and control.” The State’s primary concern is always not the condition of children’s lives, but in expanding State control. “Control, not quality, has become the essential rationale behind” all sorts of State compulsion. In the case of education, the State maintains a double standard. Its own efforts to educate via the public schools is an admitted failure. Parents of homeschoolers have excelled at training their children. Rather than trying to curtail homeschooling, one would think that the State would logically try to encourage it. More students at home would take some of the burden off the State system, and would result in an improvement for those taken out of public schools. So why does the State want to regulate and curb homeschooling? Obviously there are vested economic interests which oppose homeschooling (teachers, unions, etc.). But state opposition to unfettered homeschooling is more than a question of economics. It is a question of control and legitimacy. As Blair Adams explains,
[T]o proclaim a people free to choose their own government but then to insist that the government determine, through a government-controlled compulsory educational system, the very attitudes and values by which the people will choose becomes the most insidious and pernicious form of tyranny: it gives the people the illusion of freedom while all along controlling them through a form of governmental programming.
There is little doubt that the State will do everything in its power to maintain its supremacy. We have seen how State personnel murdered John Singer for no other reason than he would not “bow down to Caesar.” A year and a half after his death, the judge who issued the contempt citation against Singer, finally terminated his jurisdiction over the Singer family. “The freedom that we’ve been fighting for has finally come through,” declared Vickie Singer. “But it’s very ironic, to say the least, because now I’m teaching my kids the same way that John and I did before he died, and I think the State knows it. But all they wanted to do was show us, and show the people, that if anybody tried to come against the system, watch out because this is what can happen to you. And I think they tried to use John and me as an example.” (p. 216)
So there you have it. As long as the omnipotent cult of the State exists the State will attempt to control the children. Homeschooling, as the State has already recognized, contains an explosive and potential force for change, possibly away from statism in the direction of voluntaryism. If there is to be a change, it must originate within the individual, and must proceed from individual to individual. Homeschooling certainly follows this method. There can be no mass conversions. Only as the philosophy of voluntaryism is passed down from father to son, from mother to daughter, will the situation change.
Original article at the Voluntaryist website, here —
By Quintus Dias, with Concern and Attention to Harney County Oregon.
The Labeling Theory of Crime and Impact
ALIEN TO THE COMMUNITY
Avoid being labeled and tagged by the establishment’s MSM as a dangerous alien to the community (Nazi criminal construct). Who does this?
The courts, the police, moral entrepreneurs, friends, schools and family perceiving you as an alien to the community.
The Nazi/Soviet institutions attempted to do this in classifying and categorizing people under the construct of a national security state. Aliens were problematic people and likely enemies of state.
If we don’t, then the establishment can basically shove us to the margin with pejorative words, and initiate a long-term criminalization process that may result in your imprisonment or death.
III. I used to teach my law and justice students that the establishment has the power to
create criminals, deviants, crazies, militants, extremists, radicals, pedophiles, rapists, killers, and other problematic people out of thin
tagging them with long-term denigrating labels (you just read some of them) that serve to discredit you and to marginalize you.
Social groups (the elites and moral entrepreneurs, who perceive you to be a threat may pass criminal legislation-targeting you…THEN
organizations (schools, police and the criminal justice system, who are supposed to do something about crime), will jump on you and THEN
your friends, parents, and others, who may
disapprove of your behavior have the latent power to label you as a dangerous social threat based on their reactions to your behavior, words, and attitude.
TAGGING and APPLYING THE LABEL
IV. Once the label is applied and tagged on to you by the press and becomes common in the public domain, the consequences can be hugely dramatic. SUCH AS
You may be fired by your employer (disruptive or undesirable employee), OR
prosecuted (terrorist, sexual deviant, revolutionary), OR
jailed, or killed by police (dangerous criminal or radical) without credible evidence to support the charges…KEEP IN MIND-
once you are tagged… the public could care less about you or your fate (good riddance to bad shit!). THIS CAN RESULT IN-
PERVASIVE CRIMINALITY AND SOCIAL CHAOS
V. Those labeled often turn to crime because they have no other
alternative–“they made me a criminal” mindset APPLIES-therefore, I will be the next Bonnie and Clyde and go Clyde or Bonnie one better.
THE CHIEF TAGGERS
VI. The MAIN taggers are: the press, sociologists, psychiatrists, police and judges. Consequentially, the taggers react to
perceived threats caused by a person’s actions, words or general disposition that appears at odds to the norm or to their perception of what the norms should be.
There may be no actually criminal offense. Consider the consequences if the
press, a psychiatrist, or a girlfriend (husband), a physician, or a judge labels you as a likely sex-offender.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN TAGGED?
VII. What happens when the tag is successfully applied? Absolute hell! And that follows you around, especially if it makes the press, or becomes chat on the Internet, or winds up in a file in the police’s criminal intelligence section.
ORIGINS OF LABELING AS CRIME THEORY
VIII. Labeling crime theory became popular during the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960s. But actually, it goes back a lot further, especially to the
intense outlaw period of American history (reconstruction post-civil war: the carpetbagger era, the bank and train robbers, cattle rustlers era to the mobile car bandits of the 1930s).
Back then, elites and “Robber Barons” controlled the justice system and the press, as they do now. Thus, if you refused to sell your land, your business, our your water rights, and sought help from friends or others so dispossessed-
The establishment labeled you as BANDITTI-to be killed
on the spot by putting you on a criminal wanted list as bounty.
Once the label was applied and with the innovation and use of the telegraph and telephone [followed on by the computer and the Internet] there was no place you could hide to escape the label.
Bounty hunters and professional killers, like the Pinkerton Agency did not care if you were innocent. They collected fees by either capturing you or killing you
(wanted: dead or alive).
Think the criminal justice system a hugely profitable establishment business.
THE CJ SYSTEM IS A BUSINESS
This is why you see the MSM and establishment officials constantly tagging people they do not like or are afraid of as: militant, deviant, Constitutionalist, sovereign citizen, revolutionary, criminal-minded, extremist, armed, radical, crazy and so on. It fuels the justice system as a vast business enterprise where lawyers, police, technicians, prison wardens, jailers, judges, coroners, funeral homes, and prosecutors can make money.
ISOLATION AND CONTAINMENT
X. Today, labeling agencies and taggers center on isolating you from the mainstream, turning people against you, and prompting you to commit desperate acts just to survive. If you commit a crime in your survival quest, then they have you and there is no escape! How do you escape from being tagged as an EX-CON?
Aamon Bundy is now forever engraved in people’s minds aone or more of the following-
Unsavory (based on views that his friends are unsavory low-life trash).
XI. My sense is that we need to turn around the tag applied to a good and decent man-LaVoy Finicum is now forever labeled as an armed and crazed militant (nobody wants to get shot unless they are crazy, right?).
NOTE: the alternative media also has the power to label and tag AND WE MUST DO THIS because-
the establishment just killed THE QUINTESSENTIAL AMERICAN COWBOY HERO (The rugged, independent, brave and stoic horseman–the Marlboro Man [forget the cigarettes]), and right before our eyes.
Always keep this in mind… The establishment’s Illumines always kill you twice. In the first instance, they kill you physically. In the second, they kill your reputation.
We can do the same with the independent media…and must stop playing nice.
We are in a war and the enemy is shooting and killing us.
WHERE shall we seek for a hero, and where shall we find a story?
Our laurels are wreathed for conquest, our songs for completed glory.
But we honor a shrine unfinished, a column uncapped with pride,
If we sing the deed that was sown like seed when Crispus Attucks died.Shall we take for a sign this Negro-slave with unfamiliar name—
With his poor companions, nameless too, till their lives leaped forth in flame?
Yea, sorely, the verdict is not for us, to render or deny;
We can only interpret the symbol; God chose these men to die—
As teachers and types, that to humble lives may chief award be made;
That from lowly ones, and rejected stones, the temple’s base is laid!When the bullets leaped from the British guns, no chance decreed their aim:
Men see what the royal hirelings saw—a multitude and a flame;
But beyond the flame, a mystery; five dying men in the street,
While the streams of severed races in the well of a nation meet!
O, blood of the people! changeless tide, through century, creed and race!
Still one as the sweet salt sea is one, though tempered by sun and place;
The same in the ocean currents, and the same in the sheltered seas;
Forever the fountain of common hopes and kindly sympathies;
Indian and Negro, Saxon and Celt, Teuton and Latin and Gaul—
Mere surface shadow and sunshine; while the sounding unifies all!
One love, one hope, one duty theirs! No matter the time or ken,
There never was separate heart-beat in all the races of men!
But alien is one—of class, not race—he has drawn the line for himself;
His roots drink life from inhuman soil, from garbage of pomp and pelf;
His heart beats not with the common beat, he has changed his life-stream’s hue;
He deems his flesh to be finer flesh, he boasts that his blood is blue:
Patrician, aristocrat, tory—whatever his age or name,
To the people’s rights and liberties, a traitor ever the same.
The natural crowd is a mob to him, their prayer a vulgar rhyme;
The freeman’s speech is sedition, and the patriot’s deed a crime.
Wherever the race, the law, the land,—whatever the time, or throne,
The tory is always a traitor to every class but his own.
Thank God for a land where pride is clipped, where arrogance stalks apart;
Where law and song and loathing of wrong are words of the common heart;
Where the masses honor straightforward strength, and know, when veins are bled,
That the bluest blood is putrid blood—that the people’s blood is red!
And honor to Crispus Attucks, who was leader and voice that day;
The first to defy, and the first to die, with Maverick. Carr, and Gray.
Call it riot or revolution, his hand first clenched at the crown;
His feet were the first in perilous place to pull the king’s flag down;
His breast was the first one rent apart that liberty’s stream might flow;
For our freedom now and forever, his head was the first bid low.
Call it riot or revolution, or mob or crowd, as you may,
Such deaths have been seed of nations, such lives shall be honored for aye.
They were lawless hinds to the lackeys—but martyrs to Paul Revere;
And Otis and Hancock and Warren read spirit and meaning clear.
Ye teachers, answer: what shall be done when just men stand in the dock;
When the caitiff is robed in ermine, and his sworders keep the lock;
When torture is robbed of clemency, and guilt is without remorse;
When tiger and panther are gentler than the Christian slaver’s curse;
When law is a satrap’s menace, and order the drill of a horde—
Shall the people kneel to be trampled, and bare their neck to the sword?
Not so! by this Stone of Resistance that Boston raises here!
By the old North Church’s lantern, and the watching of Paul Revere!
Not so! by Paris of ‘Ninety-Three, and Ulster of ‘NinetyEight!
By Toussaint in St. Domingo! by the horror of Delhi’s gate!
By Adams’s word to Hutchinson! by the tea that is brewing still!
By the farmers that met the soldiers at Concord and Bunker Hill!
Not so! not so! Till the world is done, the shadow of wrong is dread;
The crowd that bends to a lord to-day, to-morrow shall strike him dead.
There is only one thing changeless: the earth steals from under our feet,
The times and manners are passing moods, and the laws are incomplete;
There is only one thing changes not, one word that still survives—
The slave is the wretch who wields the lash, and not the man in gyves!
There is only one test of contract: is it willing, is it good?
There is only one guard of equal right: the unity of blood;
There is never a mind unchained and true that class or race allows;
There is never a law to be obeyed that reason disavows;
There is never a legal sin but grows to the law’s disaster,
The master shall dropp the whip, and the slave shall enslave the master!
O, Planter of seed in thought and deed has the year of right revolved,
And brought the Negro patriot’s cause with its problem to be solved?
His blood streamed first for the building, and through all the century’s years,
Our growth of story and fame of glory are mixed with his blood and tears.
He lived with men like a soul condemned—derided, defamed, and mute;
Debased to the brutal level, and instructed to be a brute.
His virtue was shorn of benefit, his industry of reward;
His love!—O men, it were mercy to have cut affection’s cord;
Through the night of his woe, no pity save that of his fellow-slave;
For the wage of his priceless labor, the scourging block and the grave!
And now, is the tree to blossom? Is the bowl of agony filled?
Shall the price be paid, and the honor said, and the word of outrage stilled?
And we who have toiled for freedom’s law, have we sought for freedom’s soul?
Have we learned at last that human right is not a part but the whole?
That nothing is told while the clinging sin remains part unconfessed?
That the health of the nation is periled if one man be oppressed?
Has he learned—the slave from the rice-swamps, whose children were sold—has he,
With broken chains on his limbs, and the cry in his blood, ‘I am free!’
Has he learned through affliction’s teaching what our Crispus Attucks knew—
When Right is stricken, the white and black are counted as one, not two?
Has he learned that his century of grief was worth a thousand years
In blending his life and blood with ours, and that all his toils and tears
Were heaped and poured on him suddenly, to give him a right to stand
From the gloom of African forests, in the blaze of the freest land?
That his hundred years have earned for him a place in the human van
Which others have fought for and thought for since the world of wrong began?
For this, shall his vengeance change to love, and his retribution burn,
Defending the right, the weak and the poor, when each shall have his turn;
For this, shall he set his woeful past afloat on the stream of night;
For this, he forgets as we all forget when darkness turns to light;
For this, he forgives as we all forgive when wrong has changed to right.
And so, must we come to the learning of Boston’s lesson to-day;
The moral that Crispus Attucks taught in the old heroic way;
God made mankind to be one in blood, as one in spirit and thought;
And so great a boon, by a brave man’s death, is never dearly bought!
— Posted in dedication tothe life and deeds of Lavoy Finicum, a cowboy, rancher, husband, grandfather, who stood and died in the fight against tyranny when the time came – January 26, 2016 Burns Oregon. He wielded the Sword of Renewal in the finest tradition of the natural man, upholding the part of the Oath that says, against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. May he rest in peace.
The sword of Renewal, Cliamh Solais, out of Old Irish legend is more than a weapon: A find tucadh claidhim nuada, ni thernadh nech uadha, O dobetha as a intig bodha, ni gebtha fris?
Translation from Old Irish: “From that bright place (origin of the people) came the Sword of RenewaI, Its singular spirit cannot be escaped.Oh wretched life, (how) you increase when (the sword) is drawn from its sheath.Is it not deserved?” or “It is greatly deserved.”
No longer does the sword seem merely an instrument of battle. A thought or implication of something far greater and considerably more mysterious…In origin, the sword comes from the source of the people. It is of the people and by the creative forces of the people. Its brightness is a signal of illumination of the people, either as source or reflective element. It has a singular, unique spirit. It is also a powerful, immutable force that cannot be overcome. Danann.org
In similar Old Irish vein the Stone of Resistance mentioned in the Crispus Attucks poem, is another somewhat more obscure reference to the Lia Fail. More commonly known as The Stone of Destiny, it is the ancient stone beside which an elected King recited his Oath as a servant of the People, and then placed his hand upon it to which if he gave his Oath truly, it would reciprocate with an affirming cry. To ‘raise the Stone of Resistance’ is metaphor, to give the affirming cry to the Oath given or ‘paid for’ via the death of a hero or Champion in a just cause.