Take Off the Masks

 

Since I was a child, many moons ago, you always knew who the bad guys in the old movies were because they were the ones who put on a mask to hide their identities.  In fact, I seem to remember a couple of those old westerns where you didn't know exactly who the bad guys were until one bunch pulled bandanna masks up over their mouths and noses to make it difficult to identify them later.  Masks were always a prelude to criminals committing crimes.

That changed in 2020 with the pandemic, and the soon following George Floyd riots.  Suddenly, we were instructed to wear masks whenever in public, even though some of us questioned their effectiveness from the very beginning.  Then, once the moral outrage at the unnecessary death of George Floyd became considered the one issue more important than fighting Covid, large gatherings of masked political protesters became more than okay.  Accepting them became mandatory.

The summer of 2020 witnessed seemingly innumerable masked protests, often accompanied by some violence, destruction, and theft.  Sadly, the organizers of these protests could not figure out how to schedule them during the middle of the day, but instead almost always chose the late afternoon or evening, which timing often bled into the (itself a kind of mask) dark of night.

Since that happy summer of love, with its multiple deaths and billions of dollars (with a B) in damages, any group who feels like it, especially those of the left, treat masks and dark hoodies as the standard uniform to wear to political demonstrations.  They seem to be asserting that the only way to be free is as part of an anonymous threatening mob.

No, no, a thousand times no.  Masks really are the historical face of crime, and we would be wise to once again make wearing masks at public gatherings against the law.  All it would take would be to legislate wearing a mask at a political gathering be a primary offense, so as to empower the police to detain anyone wearing a mask.  Additionally, mandate that such an offense carries a punishment above any other punishment which the perpetrator might receive for other infractions.  It would only take one or two mass arrests for this method to vastly reduce the numbers of those going masked to public gatherings.

Some might object “freedom,” but think about it.  Making everyone go bald faced won't stop radical speech, nor should it.  But continuing to allow masked bands of toughs in our cities and on our college campuses, which will and is happening, invites the kind of brown shirt political violence that brought the Nazis and Fascists to power in Germany and Italy.  We would be most unwise to continue allowing our underclass criminal culture to be politicized in this manner, especially since we could more clearly hear those same voices if we insist on civilized standards.

That is what I am talking about too; civilized standards, the standards upon which civilized society rests.  Free and open debate, and the ability to petition the government are two of those standards, but both of them work well only if all the participants are known and afforded equal stature.  Anonymity, especially if it is afforded or assumed by only certain groups, is not equal, and can easily lead to intimidation via implied violence, or  the modern equivalent, doxxing, 

The point is that there is no good reason to wear a mask to a public gathering, and maybe there never was.  If a person is concerned about contracting a germ by being in public, then they ought to stay home and write letters.  Likewise, if a person fears that they might have a disease, and they don't want anyone else to get it, they should keep the mask off and stay home.  Writing letters and being active online can be very effective. Our physical presence is no longer required for us to have a political impact.  So let's make it illegal (again, as we did with the Klan in the 60's) to wear a mask at a political protest.

And while we're at it, let's stop holding those rallies into the night, every night.  Especially, when there was a riot the night before.  Certainly, the state, usually in the form of the local city government, has a legitimate power to issue permits for rallies, and conversely to not allow rallies which don't have permits.  So they could, and should, not issue permits for night time rallies when a riot seems likely. 

The power to regulate the place and time of rallies becomes necessary because there are only a few public spaces large enough to accommodate large public gatherings.  Since not every group can have a rally in that limited space everyday, they have to take turns.  Keeping that process orderly is why the people give  the state the power to control the permitting of rallies. Of course, the people must be vigilant in preventing any government from abusing that power.

What's more, there really are only some few spaces where it is appropriate (civilized) to convene large public gatherings.  Public parks located close to government buildings are usually the best venues, and in a lot of cities smaller parks, in other parts of the city, with advance permitting and notice, can be civilized places to organize politically.

In front of the headquarters of some evil corporation, blocking the sidewalk, or worse, is another matter, and deserves a slight aside.  Things can get really stupid with adversarial unlawful gatherings being seen as legitimate forms of protest.  Honestly, shutting down a freeway during rush hour is an incredibly obnoxious and hurtful thing to do, even if  it does get big press and your group does have enough numbers to make it work. 

When any non lawful public gathering occurs, any offended party, such as the supposedly evil corporation, or the city, or some citizens who wish to use their local park in a normal manner, or some really angry commuters, can complain, and if it is found to be an unlawful gathering, the police can be tasked to peacefully disperse said gathering.

Now, here is the way it is supposed to go in a civilized society, since we seem to have forgotten. When the cops show up, with hopefully not too much show of force, they inform the crowd, via loud speaker, that this has been declared an unlawful gathering, and therefore will the people please peacefully disperse. 

If I just happened by the rally out of curiosity, when I hear that announcement, I start immediately leaving.  If I came down to the rally to support the cause, but did not know they didn't have a permit, I start immediately leaving.  If I came down to the rally knowing it was not permitted, and I don't plan on getting arrested, I immediately start leaving.

If I went to the rally expecting to be arrested because that was how I chose to be heard, then when the others have left,and the police officer comes up to me and once again tells me to leave, and I refuse or just ignore the officer, then they are mandated to arrest me.

Here comes the most important point about once again civilizing ourselves.  Me, and you, and all of us have a civic duty to submit to arrest.  We have, to the detriment of our civilization, forgotten this standard.  The basis for this is that in our society the laws are decided by us, we the people, and so there is a proper time and way to challenge a law. That time and place is never out in public when a duly authorized officer of the law has informed you that you are under arrest.  Every resistance to arrest is, at its heart, a form of insurrection; a challenge to the very legitimacy of the law.  No resistance to arrest should be tolerated.

This must apply to all forms of resisting arrest.  All forms of resistance, even passive forms like letting your body go limp, should carry mandatory jail time, even if it's just a couple of hours.  Actively resisting arrest, such as running away into the crowd or refusing to get into the squad car or refusing to be handcuffed, should be at least a couple of weeks.  Any assault on a police officer should be a minimum of  two years.  It has to be something people think twice about doing if we are to maintain any kind of rule of law. Maintaining that rule of law is necessary for any civilized society.

So there it is.  If we are to survive as a civilization we must regain the civic habits necessary to any free society.  Instead of falling for the anti-American Marxist lie that we have to keep living in the past, fixing all the old problems before we can move forward, we should boldly look directly to the future.  Instead of trying to fix some former version of America, we must work on cobbling together a new American nation, recognizing that the one past mistake we must remedy is to be honestly sincere about the “all” part of liberty and justice for all. 

Then we can forge together a new nation, conceived anew in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.  Then we can make a melding stew of all the groups, new and old: with, this time, real input from India, China, all of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, the Pacific, and all the world.  Simply put, those are the demographics of the America of the future. Even those who came here through the side window instead of the front door should eagerly join in this effort, because we all came here for the same reason, which is that this nation stumbled on a form of liberty which offers a better life for all.  We have a chance to make this American project work again, and truly for all this time. 

One of the first things we must do to become that once and future America is to once again insist on that noble American tradition of peacefully working out our political differences.  Taking off masks at political gatherings will be a necessary and constructive step in that direction.

 

2nd Amendment Truth

 

U.S. Representatives Nadler and Massie went at it this last week (5/6-10/2024) about the Second Amendment, with Rep. Nadler neglecting to include all the words of the amendment when he presented his analysis of its' meaning. Generally, this debate comes down to a disagreement about whether the founders were trying to make sure the militias had sufficient numbers of muskets, or if the 2^nd somehow applies to individuals. Most of the time, even the conservatives miss the real point because the 2^nd Amendment has, like much of our Constitution, been twisted almost completely out of shape and meaning. It is time we go back to the beginning and get to the truth of the matter.

At the time the 2^nd Amendment was written, late in 1789, militias were an official part of our governing structure. Local militias were under the authority of the local sheriff, and could be called on to suppress crime and insurrection, and to repel invasion. Their most important function, however, was to be the ultimate check on tyrannical government. While some local sheriff and his militia could not mount much of a defense against federal tyranny on their own, it was reasoned that if the government in Washington DC did become despotic, the various counties, their sheriffs, and their militias, when united in action, could muster sufficient force to deter a tyrant. This structure, resembling a Swiss style army of the people, also ensured, because power was delegated to a multitude of counties, that some rogue sheriff or two would not get extremely out of hand.

Nonetheless, since this arrangement allowed for locally controlled military force, the question comes up of how is such military force to be regulated so that it does not become a tool of local tyranny, with the local authorities running roughshod as bullies over the local populace?

 This problem is not easily solved, since simply allowing central government authorities to regulate the militias defeats the most important purpose of the militias. It is highly doubtful that a local military force which is regulated out of DC, like our modern National Guard, will ever get orders to oppose a tyranny arising out of DC.

So the question is; How do you regulate the militias (which is necessary if we are going to continue to have a free nation) if we can't allow the central government to do the regulating? The answer was to ensure that all individuals have the right to keep and bear arms. This guarantees that the local militia, and the sheriff that leads it, do not have a monopoly on firearms, which will keep them from getting too pushy toward local residents.

Historic evidence that this plan worked comes to us from the early days after the Civil War, and the rise of the Ku Klux Klan. The Klan got away with their campaign of terror mostly in states where the Black former slaves were unconstitutionally prohibited from owning guns. Then unregulated local military force could and did run roughshod over the community.

Bill Russell, he of basketball fame, related a story from his family history. The Klan came calling one night at the home of his Grandfather. When he met them at the door with a rifle, and the obvious ability to use it, the Klan left and never came calling again. Proving that the best way to regulate militias is to ensure that every citizen can be armed. This also means that the 2nd Amendment was always intended to apply to the state and local governments, as much as to the federal government, because that local level is where regulation of local militias is most probably going to be needed. 

What's more, the abiding truth remains that the best way to prevent national tyranny, to secure freedom, is to have local militias.

Now, in light of this foundational thinking, let's look again at the actual words of the 2^nd amendment. Keep in mind that this interpretation uses all the words written there, it doesn't add any other words, and it does not have to change the meaning of the word “regulated” to pretend it means “supplied,” as some misinterpretations do.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Death Spiral and Social Security

 

Lots of folks seem concerned about declining birth rates in the civilized world, and well they should be. If we don't resume forming ourselves into families, our cultures will disappear. Simple as that. Many bold but ineffective solutions are being hoisted into view this week, but none of them are likely to reverse the downward trend because none of them even mentions the obvious cause of the declining birth rate in the welfare state nations.

The root cause of our declining birth rate (and incidentally, also the cause of our national moral decline) is Social Security. Not how that federal program is run, or its solvency, but rather the very existence of Social Security itself is what is causing birth rates to decline.

The logic behind this claim is simple. Before the age of Social Security (big government funded old age pensions being the product of Kaiser Wilhelm's socialist mind in the 1880's, or was it Bismark?) the normal person saw the family, and especially the children, as our old age insurance. That is why we wanted to have a lot of children, and why we put so much effort into strengthening their moral character. Our future well being was dependent on both their healthy strength and their good morals.

With the advent of Social Security, all of that changed. By making big government, and not the next generation, the central pillar of old age planning, Social Security diminished the vested interest people had in the well being, morality, and even existence of their children. While the deeper cultural effects took a few decades to get strong purchase (the Generation Gap of the 60's), the existence of Social Security in their personal future changed, or allowed the change to happen in, the way that original generation with Social Security in their future envisioned the long arc of their lives. They would have immediately sensed that the only relationship that they had to maintain for their entire lives to ensure a decent life is the relationship with that same federal government. The family, and the communities families formed, became no longer the only, or maybe even the primary, provider of last resort: The provider of last resort being the institution which must and will respond to our vital needs. Since the establishment of Social Security in 1935, being the provider of last resort has increasingly become the role of the federal government and less and less the role of natural families. Or the communities families compose..

Since its beginning, Social Security has behaved like a kind of corrosive poison, acting on the family at the molecular level, tending to separate each individual from every other individual. It doesn't force the separation, but it allows it. It is like a string. You can't push something with a string, but if the string that is holding things together is cut, then it allows that separation. By cutting the materialistic, self interested bonds of family, (as cynical as that sounds) the bonds that really hold families together, Social Security has allowed the natural forces of selfishness to drive the component familial members apart. Especially in the lower and middle classes where materialistic needs seem better served by government.

What's more, Social Security is also, obviously, the untouchable third rail of American politics so much so it is going to be well nigh impossible to terminate. The great resistance this will raise is, in itself, evidence of why we simply must terminate it. The great hysterical passion aroused by the idea of ending Social Security is due to so many people feeling that they are dependent on it to live. In fact, we as a society should start by admitting that we are totally addicted to it and we will behave like addicts if our dope supply is imperiled. Then we must realize that it is our addiction to the federal tit that is eroding our will to procreate. It is killing us as a people. Then we must, for that vital reason, snap ourselves out of this spell and terminate Social Security.

As a Boomer, now in my early 70's, I am still adamant, as I always have been, that when we move away from Social Security, we do it in phases, taking care for those who are already on it. But those changes can be accomplished compassionately without keeping the federal government in charge of our lives.

To sum all this up, we must end Social Security because it is an addictive, corrosive social poison which is surreptitiously draining us of our will to live.

It is not clear if we came to this happy pass by shear happenstance or if someone had this scenario in mind from the beginning, but that does not matter. Yes, we have been rendered, via socialism in general and Social Security in particular, into a people ripe to fall to totalitarian tyranny. Maybe it is a plot, maybe not, but honestly, that does not matter and it is not the point.

The only thing that matters, the only point to be made about Social Security is that we must acknowledge it is the single reason for declining global birth rates. With that acknowledgment we must also realize that the only way to reverse this civilizational death spiral is to end Social Security.

Should be easy. It's just a matter of life and death.