Contrast For My Brothers Across the Sea

Compare that, to the quoted message below from Baron (seen above) I received today.

Subject: Ron Paul…

With an open mind I clicked on the YouTube link. I didn’t really know what to expect from the next ten minutes of political ideas.

*********

Being British I am sometimes questioned on my love for America, my interest in her government, her people and her ideas. I think it all stems back to a over a decade ago when I used to watch American tv shows wishing I could visit the land of the free, wanting to visit New York, hold the money and speak to the people.

People never understood why I had this obsession with The States and neither did I really, not until I took Modern World Politics in school.

*********

The reason is quite simple; the principles that America were founded upon are as close to perfect as a nation could hope for.

This gives me hope.

I read and I watch and it seems the country has yet to fulfil it’s potential or simply put; it should be doing a hell of a lot better.

Watching Ron Paul highlights for three hours last night on YouTube was a pleasure. From watching Bill O’Reilly to Sean Hannity, listening to the tea party movement, by contrast his points, views and rational arguments made perfect sense. They’re so simple and obvious, yet they seem so groundbreaking because these arguments are so rarely discussed in the mainstream American media.

Apologies Dream for the long post, I’ve been up a long time with work and realise I am 1) rambling 2) telling you what you already know. I suppose the purpose of my message was to say thanks for introducing me to Ron Paul and to please keep the great content and book recommendations coming on The Dream Lounge. I have been a keen reader for all of a week ;-). In other news I am now obsessed about living the nomad life after reading yours and Tynans blogs.

How are things across the pond, hope you are well?

J

The message especially provides contrast for Josh’s comment on “American arrogance at it’s best”. Josh, as far as I know, was born in the United States. He’s also extremely intelligent, academically and otherwise. Never the less, his comment reflects a thorough degree of brain washing against his own country, against it’s founding (and eternal) principles, and against some of the greatest men to have ever lived.

It is no coincidence that these appeals are found together. Feminism as we know it, is communism with a gender slant — and “for the common good”, is one expression of the root of all evil — initiations of force (read: violence) under the guise of good intentions.

Some of the greatest men in history stood up against that undefinable glob of evil, and won. They deserve to be revered for as long as a single individual is still breathing. Of course, their feats, and the men themselves, represent the polar opposite of where do-gooders without an understanding of and invincible devotion to, life and liberty, want our country — and the rest of the world — to be heading.

In short: it’s all connected. With one poison comes it’s other.

Short Refutation

Gregory: the only proper role of any government — and especially our federal one thanks to it’s supreme written law and the foundation upon which that supreme law derives it’s power — is to protect the rights of individuals (the only rights that exist, can exist, and have ever existed).

Those rights, stem from an individual’s right to life. Unless filtered through this basic premise, our federal government is 100% out of line, needs to be put in check, and back into it’s proper place.

As for the “common welfare” you refer to, you need to understand that the individual is the unit of society. So when one refers to “society”, you are only referring to the sum of a certain number of individuals. In this sense, the life and liberty of the individual is the only “common welfare” that exists. Anything else is an attempt to provide “welfare” for something no more real than a unicorn.

Even the national defense, which is certainly a role of our federal government, is at it’s core, a protection of the rights of individuals.

Regarding the “General Welfare” which I know you love about our supreme written law, it’s only purpose was to grant the federal government minor and insignificant powers that could not be conceived at the time, and that were prohibited under the Articles of Confederation (our first plan of government). For example, under the AOC, the federal government couldn’t grant a passport.

Now think about how granting a passport parallels with what we see today, such as the recent attempt to force individuals to purchase a private product “for their own good”. This implies ownership of the individual, which is a power never delegated to the federal government.

As such, it is profoundly unconstitutional, and illegal. I know this escapes you, but that’s reality, no matter how “good” your and everyone else’s intentions are.

Daniel: the natural rights of man are not up for debate. A man has a right to his life, a right to exist, a right to exist for his own sake,  a right to his liberty, and a right to pursue happiness in accordance with his own values.

No man has the right to infringe upon the rights of others.

“Collective rights” do not exist.

“Individual rights” is redundant.

All men have a right and duty to themselves to defend their life and rights stemming from that right with any and all force necessary.

Renzo: it is the betrayal to your own soul and “do-good” intentions that are the bane of civilization.  I am right, you are wrong, and this is never changing. To acknowledge the possibility of that fact changing would be to deny the natural rights of man, and consequently, reason as man’s only absolute — which rests upon the shoulders of the right to exist.

Furthermore, military slavery is not allowed in our constitution — nor is slavery of any kind — because the federal government was never delegated the power to own an individual (it is impossible to delegate this power to the federal government, as we’ll explore in a moment).

The constitution of these States United is the plan of government on which our federal government operates, and as such, where it derives it’s power from.

The question no one seems to have the balls to ask is: where does the constitution — our supreme written law — derive it’s power from?

The answer of course is: the moral justification that “… to secure these [self evident, natural, unalienable] rights, Governments are instituted among Men”.

This is the purpose for which our federal government exists. And guess what do-gooders? I have it in writing, and will do all that is necessary to see our federal union return to such a principal.

Including the defense of my life, and the life of my loved ones, with any and all force required to repel acts of violence and slavery that you condone as “for the common good”.

Slavery is slavery — be it by the lash of a whip, or force of a gun. No such authority exists to use force against an individual unless he has violated the rights of another.

Get it through your thick skulls do-gooders: I’m right.

-Anthony/Dream

ps- in response to Baron’s original comment, what’s wrong with being “selfish”? In another wording, selfish can be read as “man’s rational self interest” — which I would argue, is man’s supreme source of happiness.

About Anthony Dream Johnson

CEO, founder, and architect of The 21 Convention, Anthony Dream Johnson is the leading force behind the world's first and only "panorama event for life on earth". He has been featured on WGN Chicago, and in the NY Times #1 best seller The Four Hour Work Week.    His stated purpose for the work he does is "the actualization of the ideal man", a purpose that has led him to found and host The 21 Convention across 3 continents and for 6 years in a row. Anthony blogs vigorously at TheDreamLounge.net and Declarationism.com.

23 Responses to Contrast For My Brothers Across the Sea

  1. James Steele II November 13, 2010 at 1:47 pm #

    Good to see another person from my side of the water excited to hear what Ron Paul has to say. I have watched that documentary you posted Anthony several times and have sent the link round to loads of people. I feel hope everytime I hear him. I hope that he makes it in. Perhaps it will at least signal the route this country should be taking.

    “As for the “common welfare” you refer to, you need to understand that the individual is the unit of society. So when one refers to “society”, you are only referring to the sum of a certain number of individuals. In this sense, the life and liberty of the individual is the only “common welfare” that exists. Anything else is an attempt to provide “welfare” for something no more real than a unicorn.”

    ‘Common welfare’ – Welfare in most minds is a modern concept pertaining to the act of someone (government) ‘providing’ them with something for their good.
    I’d suggest throwing the concept of welfare out of the window entirely, as far as morality goes, in the same way as charity.

    Individual rights, as they stem from the moral premise “…an individual’s right to life” are common to all in that each individual exists and has them. However the common is a redundancy if this premise is accepted anyway.

    The government should only exist in order to protect those rights. They should not exist to ‘provide’ (welfare) individuals or collectives with anything but a protection of those rights.

    Therefore ‘common welfare’ is a redundant concept in its entirety.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson November 13, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

      “Therefore ‘common welfare’ is a redundant concept in its entirety.”

      Bingo. Thanks for pointing this out.

  2. Milo November 14, 2010 at 2:05 am #

    Hello. This has nothing to do with your post, but I was watching footage of you speaking in 2009 and I have to ask, have you considered working on your public speaking with someone who knows what they’re doing? I’m just 15, but I noticed several problems with your body language and voice on stage. If you’re interested I could give information, but if you don’t want my help because I’m so young you should talk to someone with experience about it.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson November 14, 2010 at 12:38 pm #

      I improved significantly in 2010 with over half a dozen speaking engagements. I have no interest currently in further improving my speaking ability. I am an event architect, not a public speaker.

  3. Milo November 14, 2010 at 2:08 am #

    By the way, I think you have a very strong voice in your writing, but there’s hardly any carryover when you get up on stage. IF you gave me 15 minutes of your time in email correspondence I think we could make you a much better public speaker.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson November 14, 2010 at 12:42 pm #

      I took this into account at T21C 2010 Orlando, by typing and reading my speech verbatim. It took 15 minutes, and I looked at the audience a total of one time. It is not exciting to watch, and I have been criticized for it heavily. All the same, I love the speech, carry no regrets, and will consider doing it again.

      The few who matter will listen, those who don’t, will tune out.

      • James Steele II November 14, 2010 at 2:39 pm #

        You mean like Dmity Orlov?

        You’re right though. Those who want to listen will listen, and the way something is said should not alter the impact of the message.

        • Anthony Dream Johnson November 14, 2010 at 3:30 pm #

          Yes. Didnt think about Dmitry at the time, but it is very similar to the speech you are referring to.

          The title is “Changing the Course of a Generation”.

  4. Milo November 14, 2010 at 9:13 pm #

    That’s all well and good as a slogan but if you want to affect change in this world then you need to be able to inspire people with both your words and actions. James you say “… and the way something is said should not alter the impact of the message.” This may be true, but as I’m sure you both know, it’s not a question of ‘should’.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson November 16, 2010 at 12:06 am #

      And I am here to make that “should” a reality.

      The world is not changed by submitting to it.

  5. Ben November 17, 2010 at 10:41 am #

    This is a fantastic post. I’ve read it 4 times and haven’t been able to find a solid counter-argument.

    Well, the only thing that comes to mind is that some men might give up their happiness (and thus their “rational self interest”) in order to help progress humanity. These “world-historical individuals” may be unhappy, but they do what they do because it greatly contributes to society. I personally disagree with this rationalization but whatever. I don’t think happiness and consummate success are mutually exclusive. (I also don’t think happiness is esoteric.)

    I would disagree with the quip about feminism, however. I think it’s just the natural reaction to the women’s rights movement. Manliness will come back to the mainstream, along with eating natural foods. It’s just a phase.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson November 17, 2010 at 6:40 pm #

      “Man’s ego is the fountainhead of human progress”

      Sacrifice man’s ego, man’s rational self interest, man’s achievements, and you sacrifice _________…

      A=A

    • Anthony Dream Johnson November 17, 2010 at 6:44 pm #

      On feminism, check http://www.the-spearhead.com

      Also, if collective right’s don’t exist, “women’s rights” don’t exist. At best, we should be talking about “women’s issues”.

      At the end of the day though, those issues are secondary to real rights – rights of the individual.

      When those are ignored, we all suffer. When one group suffers, it’s not likely due to discrimination, but an ignorance or dismissal of man’s self evident rights.

      While feminism may have had some valid points, long long ago, those went out the window before either of us were born. It’s excessive collectivism at it’s finest.

  6. James Steele II November 17, 2010 at 11:18 am #

    “And I am here to make that “should” a reality.…The world is not changed by submitting to it.”

    All that needs to be said.

  7. Milo November 17, 2010 at 9:59 pm #

    “And I am here to make that “should” a reality.

    The world is not changed by submitting to it.”
    You interest in the quality of your writing on this blog is a bit inconsistent with this position, no? But if you want to limit yourself for some arbitrary, impossible standard that you don’t even keep, be my guest. What it comes down to in this case, is your comfortable writing, but your not comfortable speaking in front of a large group.

    • Anthony Dream Johnson November 18, 2010 at 12:55 am #

      No. My writing can have integrity, just like me, or any other man. I write for I — not polish for and approval from the masses.

      Regarding speaking/writing ability, you noted previously that you were 15 years of age. Considering how frequent you’ve brought up speaking in the comments of this post, I have to ask, have you ever spoken to a large audience? I ask because I remember being young and thinking I knew everything about things I knew nothing about.

      Low and behold, you don’t know quite everything till your about 22. Then you know everything. =)

  8. Milo November 18, 2010 at 9:29 pm #

    I’ve done theater in front of upwards of 500 people several times, and given speeches at school and other communities I’m involved in more than that. But whatever. I’m sure you’ll be perfectly happy never being a good public speaker, but maybe one you’ll ask yourself…what if.

  9. Anthony Dream Johnson November 18, 2010 at 9:58 pm #

    If you wouldn’t be willing to say something — or speak in a specific tone — in person, it doesn’t belong on my blog.

    This is a first and final warning.

  10. Milo November 18, 2010 at 11:11 pm #

    Sorry if I insulted you.

  11. Peter M. May 2, 2014 at 3:23 am #

    America is most emphatically not the freest country in the world anymore. It is no longer an exceptional country. It’s devolved into just another nation state.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Individualism | The Dream Lounge - January 4, 2011

    […] on the principle of individualism. This, our country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of […]

  2. Patriotism | The Dream Lounge - March 4, 2011

    […] Contrast for my Brothers Across the Sea […]

Make your mark