<!–

–>

January 20, 2023

Friends of freedom generally agree about four points:

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); }

(1) Protections for expansive individual liberty and respect for limited government are essential for the promotion of human rights, self-determination, and prosperity.

(2) Over the course of American history, the U.S. government has strayed far beyond the original limitations of its enumerated powers as set forth in the Constitution.

(3) Globalism, international government, plutocracy, rule by “elite” experts, unchecked bureaucracy, and the steady erosion of inalienable rights all work to maximize the power of centralized authority while minimizing the power of individual citizens.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); }

(4) The most important conflict raging today is between individual liberty and coercive State control.

Where defenders of liberty disagree is in their assessment of the future.  Some believe that so much ground has now been lost in humanity’s centuries-long struggle for freedom that centralized government control over each individual is all but certain.  Technology’s rapid intrusion into the private sphere, the exponential expansion of the national security surveillance State, the rise of government-directed mass censorship, the successful efforts of multinational corporations and banks to influence national government directives, and the Intelligence Community’s vast programs for manipulating public opinion on a global scale all lend support to this admittedly pessimistic point of view.  

On the other hand, there are those who see the ebb and flow of human liberty as a natural occurrence, technology as a set of instruments that can just as ably expand freedom as curtail it (conquerors and liberators use the same weapons, after all), and encroaching totalitarianism as a necessary precursor for sparking popular revolt.  From this vantage point, the darker things get, the more likely real change is afoot.  I fall into this latter camp, and I will repeat a couple truths I hold dear: (1) before any system can be overhauled, there must first be a revolutionary shift in social consciousness, and (2) transformational change often occurs when people least expect it.  

This age in which we live — although remade again and again over the last century through the introduction and rapid dissemination of once unimaginable technologies — would still be strikingly familiar to all the liberty-seeking generations that came long before us.  Our struggle, like theirs, is one between a great majority being ruled against its will and a small minority insisting on ruling.  Monarchs, emperors, international governments, and World Economic Forum–type clubs are all the same.  And if you think today’s technocracy is more immune to being overthrown than in the days when dissenters were summarily burned, hanged, impaled, or beheaded, then you are giving too much credit to today’s tyrants and too little credit to the great freedom fighters of the past.

For great change to commence, all you need is one domino that strikes another and another until all the marble prisons built to constrain human freedom come crashing down.  You’ll notice two things about that analogy: first, it implies that most of totalitarianism’s structure is built before people think to tear it down, and second, once the cascading demolition begins, totalitarianism’s once-impressive column of dominoes falls fast.  As the old proverb goes, it really is darkest just before the dawn.

As an important example of how quickly social revolutions can upend entire systems, I encourage you to take a look at a recent article on The Conservative Treehouse in which intrepid intellectual warrior Sundance has asked his readers a simple question: if you did not take the COVID-19 shots, why not?  The impetus for his inquiry comes from an informal poll he had conducted showing that 85% of CTH’s Twitter followers remained un-jabbed.  Even though his readers have always had a healthy skepticism of government, Sundance was surprised that such a high percentage would have withstood the years-long pressure campaign for universal “vaccination” from the combined efforts of government, news media, medical authorities, and corporate proselytizers.  What he got in response to his question is nothing less than stunning.