The Euro was a bad idea from the get go. I know that's no revelation for most people who follow this. You can't take the tool of currency manipulation away from sovereign nations and expect them all to hold hands and play nice. One is always going to try to benefit at the expense of another. A unified Europe was an ambitious plan, one that if successful would have equalized the international trade markets and given Europe the purchasing power of the US, but carried such inherent risk that the only predictable beneficiaries would be the banks, who set themselves up to win regardless of the score at the end of the game.
Since the economic torture room called the great recession has prodded the truth out of its Greek prisoners - that the party is over - there is a choice to be made and it's really the same choice that just about every struggling middle class family facing foreclosure needs to make. Do we continue burning through our productive capacity to support a mountain of debt or do we hit the reset button? The average person faces the specter of poor credit for a period of time where they will be forced to rent their home and live below their means in order to scratch and claw their way back to fiscal responsibility. Greece faces the same decision, on a much larger scale of course, but essentially comparable. What Iceland proved is that you can say "Yes!" to all the offers of credit coming in the mail, then flip your creditors the bird when it comes time to pay. A couple banks will bear the brunt of the blame/pain - in this case MF Global, while others will exercise credit default swaps and move on to the next sucker. Furthermore, creditors will not stay away nearly as long as they threatened. Once a country is no longer burdened by a crippling debt service, they are actually more likely to pay a small debt, so the first creditor in the door would be fairly secure and can earn a healthy return by lending to a formerly irresponsible borrower at high rates.
While I do think Papandreiu's referendum move was political, it was also smart to, like Pontius Pilate, give his people a say in their future so he could wash his hands of whichever decision is made. I don't think anyone wants to be the guy in charge when faced with two bad alternatives. If I was a Greek citizen I'd vote to go back to the Drachma and reinstate the Greek central bank, break from the Euro, default on the debt, and start from scratch. Creditors would come back eventually and the Greeks could pat themselves on the back for pulling one over on the economic imperialists running the show in Brussels.
Of course, I don't believe this will happen as I think the relentless pressure of the EuroZone partners will scare Greeks enough to make them adopt wicked austerity, in which case, they're just delaying the inevitable collapse long enough to pay back some well-connected bankers and give the Germans more economic and political power than they already have, which is considerable. In other words a more orderly, long-term default is still a default but at least it doesn't trigger dominoes and allows the Euros to build their "firewall".
Regardless of the decision made, the Dollar is only going to get stronger because it is the least bad alternative, not because of any fundamental strength in the US economy. This bodes well for precious metals and commodities in general in the long run, but I think it will be a wild ride in the short term, with several dives to come and plenty of opportunities to beef up the portfolio with real strength.
It's also a good time to reconsider what prophets and apostles have told us for years about being prepared personally for the inevitable collapse of Babylon. Get your house in order. Beef up your personal security portfolio with food, fuel, medical supplies, tools, and guns. With these five categories covered you'll survive any Mad Max scenario and give yourself and your family a feeling of comfort and peace.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
My Take on President Obama's "Job Speech" - 09/08/2011
In the president's speech last night, he conceded the following:
1) America was founded on rugged individualism.
2) We need to tax cuts to stimulate spending and hiring.
3) We need to shrink the size of government.
4) We need to do away with onerous and redundant regulations to free up businesses and give the market more certainty.
5) We need to close loopholes, which implies simplifying the tax code and moving away from the lobbyist-controlled corporatocracy that exists now, where his own buddies, Warren Buffett and Jeff Immelt (GE), pay almost no taxes as a pro rata share of income.
I, and every other, conservative/libertarian American should be encouraged that the President has become aware of the above truths. It is a testament to just how far we've fallen as a result of the failed policies of both parties.
However, not to be overly conciliatory, President Obama was quick to qualify all of his concessions with a "double down" on big-government, Keynesian, labor theory of value fiscal policy, which almost immediately negated any respect he seemed to have for the idea of limited, constitutional government:
1) We have a shared fiduciary responsibility for the financial well-being of all Americans.
2) We need to spend more money at the federal level on infrastructure. (additional stimulus)
3) By ignoring the Constitution we now have Social Security, Medicare, Interstate Roads, Railroads, National Parks, etc. Therefore, we can't be so stingy about our adherence to the Constitution.
4) Government is better at creating jobs than the private sector and needs to do more of it.
5) Collective bargaining is a right that needs to be protected.
The assumptions that must be granted for the above proposals to be effective/true are many and varied, but can basically be reduced to the following statist maxims:
Those in government are smarter than you. Government is the source of your rights and has the authority to define them, so there is no need for a code of law to enumerate those rights. Profit belongs to labor, not entrepreneurs. Government is better at educating children, creating jobs, organizing large scale projects, judging the worthiness of charitable pursuits and administering charitable funds.
President Obama demonstrated last night that he is an exceptional speaker who wields considerable power over an audience and has mastered the debate tactic of softly conceding small points to win larger arguments and delivering rhetorical darts with precision. He will be very formidable in a general election, not because he is a capable executive, but because he knows how to speak what the people want to hear... I'll feed you. I'll clothe you. I'll keep you safe.
Bread and Circuses...
1) America was founded on rugged individualism.
2) We need to tax cuts to stimulate spending and hiring.
3) We need to shrink the size of government.
4) We need to do away with onerous and redundant regulations to free up businesses and give the market more certainty.
5) We need to close loopholes, which implies simplifying the tax code and moving away from the lobbyist-controlled corporatocracy that exists now, where his own buddies, Warren Buffett and Jeff Immelt (GE), pay almost no taxes as a pro rata share of income.
I, and every other, conservative/libertarian American should be encouraged that the President has become aware of the above truths. It is a testament to just how far we've fallen as a result of the failed policies of both parties.
However, not to be overly conciliatory, President Obama was quick to qualify all of his concessions with a "double down" on big-government, Keynesian, labor theory of value fiscal policy, which almost immediately negated any respect he seemed to have for the idea of limited, constitutional government:
1) We have a shared fiduciary responsibility for the financial well-being of all Americans.
2) We need to spend more money at the federal level on infrastructure. (additional stimulus)
3) By ignoring the Constitution we now have Social Security, Medicare, Interstate Roads, Railroads, National Parks, etc. Therefore, we can't be so stingy about our adherence to the Constitution.
4) Government is better at creating jobs than the private sector and needs to do more of it.
5) Collective bargaining is a right that needs to be protected.
The assumptions that must be granted for the above proposals to be effective/true are many and varied, but can basically be reduced to the following statist maxims:
Those in government are smarter than you. Government is the source of your rights and has the authority to define them, so there is no need for a code of law to enumerate those rights. Profit belongs to labor, not entrepreneurs. Government is better at educating children, creating jobs, organizing large scale projects, judging the worthiness of charitable pursuits and administering charitable funds.
President Obama demonstrated last night that he is an exceptional speaker who wields considerable power over an audience and has mastered the debate tactic of softly conceding small points to win larger arguments and delivering rhetorical darts with precision. He will be very formidable in a general election, not because he is a capable executive, but because he knows how to speak what the people want to hear... I'll feed you. I'll clothe you. I'll keep you safe.
Bread and Circuses...
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
A government created job is like...
...hitting into a double play.
...choosing a cup of pee over a cup of tea.
...killing a single dandelion in a pristine yard with Roundup.
...putting a Picaso in a single-wide trailer.
...cutting down a tree to make a pencil.
...filling a hot air balloon with a Bic.
...brushing your teeth with pumice.
...choosing a cup of pee over a cup of tea.
...killing a single dandelion in a pristine yard with Roundup.
...putting a Picaso in a single-wide trailer.
...cutting down a tree to make a pencil.
...filling a hot air balloon with a Bic.
...brushing your teeth with pumice.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Notice To My Creditors
To Whom It May Concern:
I hereby demand that you increase my line of credit. The reason for this is that I want to be able to make the existing minimum, interest-only payments on all my other debts from the increased line amount you give me.
Sincerely,
Brock O'Bombya
Dear Mr. O'Bombya,
We received your letter from last week regarding your credit limit. This is an unreasonable request to give someone with your spending history more money to blow through. For this reason we are denying your request.
Sincerely,
FRB Card Services
Dear FRB Card Services,
This is not an unreasonable request. You see, my credit report shows I have an 800 score, so there's no way I can default. I know what you're thinking; I don't make enough money to pay all my debts. Again, I don't see this as a problem. As long as I can keep that great credit score and other companies keep giving me larger lines, all is well. You'll get your payments and so will my other creditors. I've never missed a single payment to you or anyone else, and have been a good borrower ever since joining the Federal Reserve Bank. I ask you to reconsider before my next payment deadline.
Best Regards,
Brock O'Bombya
Mr. O'Bombya,
We realize you've been a long-time customer but what you've described above is called a Ponzi scheme. Now if it was up to the FRB you'd have the line extension already. In fact, they'd probably pay you for some of your debt as well. However, our department is an independent arm of the company and must make decisions based upon your ability to pay the PRINCIPAL, not just the interest. We're sure you understand. Perhaps you'd do better just to cut back your personal spending a little. Whatever you decide, we wish you only prosperity.
A. Paulista
Customer Service Representative
FRB Card Services
Dear Mr. Paulista,
Thank you for your kind response, but since you have been intractible and are threatening my life by putting a gun to my head like a terrorist, I can't help but go over your head. Therefore, I am contacting your supervisor, Mitch Peloski, an old comrade of mine that I've always been able to count on for a reasonable compromise. I'll be speaking with them privately this afternoon to solve this crisis before my payment due date. I'm sure he'll understand that interest payments are better than a total default. I do ask, however, that you not share this conversation with the credit bureaus or my other creditors. Remember, we all sink or swim together!
Respectfully,
Brock O'Bombya
Dear FRB Card Services,
I can no longer stand to be a part of the sort of gamesmanship I detailed above. I will not seek to extend my current contract in the service department. I've been blowing the whistle into your deaf ears for too many years and will be moving on. I'm taking my case directly to the shareholders of this company and will be attempting an un-hostile takeover.
Peace,
A. Paulista
I hereby demand that you increase my line of credit. The reason for this is that I want to be able to make the existing minimum, interest-only payments on all my other debts from the increased line amount you give me.
Sincerely,
Brock O'Bombya
Dear Mr. O'Bombya,
We received your letter from last week regarding your credit limit. This is an unreasonable request to give someone with your spending history more money to blow through. For this reason we are denying your request.
Sincerely,
FRB Card Services
Dear FRB Card Services,
This is not an unreasonable request. You see, my credit report shows I have an 800 score, so there's no way I can default. I know what you're thinking; I don't make enough money to pay all my debts. Again, I don't see this as a problem. As long as I can keep that great credit score and other companies keep giving me larger lines, all is well. You'll get your payments and so will my other creditors. I've never missed a single payment to you or anyone else, and have been a good borrower ever since joining the Federal Reserve Bank. I ask you to reconsider before my next payment deadline.
Best Regards,
Brock O'Bombya
Mr. O'Bombya,
We realize you've been a long-time customer but what you've described above is called a Ponzi scheme. Now if it was up to the FRB you'd have the line extension already. In fact, they'd probably pay you for some of your debt as well. However, our department is an independent arm of the company and must make decisions based upon your ability to pay the PRINCIPAL, not just the interest. We're sure you understand. Perhaps you'd do better just to cut back your personal spending a little. Whatever you decide, we wish you only prosperity.
A. Paulista
Customer Service Representative
FRB Card Services
Dear Mr. Paulista,
Thank you for your kind response, but since you have been intractible and are threatening my life by putting a gun to my head like a terrorist, I can't help but go over your head. Therefore, I am contacting your supervisor, Mitch Peloski, an old comrade of mine that I've always been able to count on for a reasonable compromise. I'll be speaking with them privately this afternoon to solve this crisis before my payment due date. I'm sure he'll understand that interest payments are better than a total default. I do ask, however, that you not share this conversation with the credit bureaus or my other creditors. Remember, we all sink or swim together!
Respectfully,
Brock O'Bombya
Dear FRB Card Services,
I can no longer stand to be a part of the sort of gamesmanship I detailed above. I will not seek to extend my current contract in the service department. I've been blowing the whistle into your deaf ears for too many years and will be moving on. I'm taking my case directly to the shareholders of this company and will be attempting an un-hostile takeover.
Peace,
A. Paulista
Friday, July 29, 2011
Luddism Is Alive And Well
I came across this comment on the investing message board of a certain Silver ETF today. This is standard conservative/liberal fare and is the reason why I can't stand either side.
"Politicians do not have any principles. The problem plain and simple is shipping all the jobs out of the country yo [sic] get cheap Walmart goods and high profits for the rich. The American worker was sold out by the politiians. Stand up for America and stop globalization."
Here's my reply:
"Yeah! I wish we still had those awesome wood console TVs too. I wouldn't mind paying $2000 for them, because it helps the American worker and kicks Wal-mart in the shins! Death to all those who make our goods less expensive!!!
Come on...the consumer shipped jobs overseas, not bureaucrats. Globalization is the natural effect of consumer demand in the market economy. If you can buy a blender for $19 made in China that would cost $80 made here...are you telling me you're going to buy the $80 blender? Give your pretense of patriotism a rest already.
Our future as a nation does not depend on employing millions of widget makers on an assembly line, that is a job for emerging economies. Furthermore, since all men are my brothers, I rejoice no less in improved well-being for a peasant farmer in Laos who gets a leg up than I do for a service rep in Texas who becomes a manager of an Indian call center. America's future is in innovation. We need to spend less time collectively doing tasks that other countries will eventually do cheaper and focus our efforts on 'what's next'. That doesn't mean our sole export should be finance...we all know that's a house of cards. Technology, improved business process development, enhancement of delivery channels, replication & augmentation, media, etc. A society concerned solely with subsistence level survival has no time for idea development. The great benefit of globalization is the amount of leisure time, surplus cash, and resources available to the innovator.
Nevertheless, Primitivist Neo-Luddites still bark loudly the refrains, 'Low tech or no tech!' 'no ware before its time!'. Seriously folks...get on the flying car or get left in the jetwash."
"Politicians do not have any principles. The problem plain and simple is shipping all the jobs out of the country yo [sic] get cheap Walmart goods and high profits for the rich. The American worker was sold out by the politiians. Stand up for America and stop globalization."
Here's my reply:
"Yeah! I wish we still had those awesome wood console TVs too. I wouldn't mind paying $2000 for them, because it helps the American worker and kicks Wal-mart in the shins! Death to all those who make our goods less expensive!!!
Come on...the consumer shipped jobs overseas, not bureaucrats. Globalization is the natural effect of consumer demand in the market economy. If you can buy a blender for $19 made in China that would cost $80 made here...are you telling me you're going to buy the $80 blender? Give your pretense of patriotism a rest already.
Our future as a nation does not depend on employing millions of widget makers on an assembly line, that is a job for emerging economies. Furthermore, since all men are my brothers, I rejoice no less in improved well-being for a peasant farmer in Laos who gets a leg up than I do for a service rep in Texas who becomes a manager of an Indian call center. America's future is in innovation. We need to spend less time collectively doing tasks that other countries will eventually do cheaper and focus our efforts on 'what's next'. That doesn't mean our sole export should be finance...we all know that's a house of cards. Technology, improved business process development, enhancement of delivery channels, replication & augmentation, media, etc. A society concerned solely with subsistence level survival has no time for idea development. The great benefit of globalization is the amount of leisure time, surplus cash, and resources available to the innovator.
Nevertheless, Primitivist Neo-Luddites still bark loudly the refrains, 'Low tech or no tech!' 'no ware before its time!'. Seriously folks...get on the flying car or get left in the jetwash."
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
An Excellent Article on Israeli Border Strategy
Israel's Borders and National Security is republished with permission of STRATFOR.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Ruminations on Civil Disobedience
I took a little time the other night and read Henry David Thoreau's, Civil Disobedience. The key insight among many that I gleaned from the essay was that a man (or woman) living in a despotic regime can only be wealthy at the expense of their honesty. The reason being that we become so protective of our treasure, like Golum with the ring of power, that we are willing to sacrifice our conscience to maintain our financial security...knowing that a coercive government has the ability to take it away from us if we fall out of line. In this way, an autocratic or despotic regime continues to grow in power as the people become more prosperous. Our possessions inevitably become the source of our greatest fear.
Now wealth is not as big an issue if the society we live in proclaims peace and good will. If we are not threatened with loss of property for speaking our mind, the possessions do not hinder a good conscience. This seems to be the state of affairs in previous Zion societies.
Having stated a minor objection in Thoreau's very black and white logical sequence, it is also requisite that I express my agreement with his opinion of material wealth and express my absolute agreement with the undergirding principle of esteeming freedom and conscience above money, such as expressed here:
I've largely focused in this article on Thoreau's treatment of wealth and freedom. I'll probably revisit his concepts of non-violent resistance, in the context of the Book of Mormon, to highlight not only the effectiveness of the tactic, but its potential for lasting righteous outcomes as well.
Now wealth is not as big an issue if the society we live in proclaims peace and good will. If we are not threatened with loss of property for speaking our mind, the possessions do not hinder a good conscience. This seems to be the state of affairs in previous Zion societies.
ALMA 1 “…and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength. 27. And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely. 28. And thus they did establish the affairs of the church; and thus they began to have continual peace again, notwithstanding all their persecutions. 29. And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceeding rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need-and abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of all manner of good homely cloth. 30. And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need. 31. And thus they did prosper and become far more wealthy…”
MOSES 7 "And the Lord blessed the land, and they were blessed upon the mountains, and upon the high places, and did flourish. 18. And the Lord called his people ZION, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteoiusness; and there was no poor amond them."While I love the spark of thought that was generated by Thoreau's premise, I was nevertheless halted by another logical conclusion that must be likewise drawn from such a line of reasoning. What if our treasure lies not in temporal wealth, but is nevertheless still vulnerable to seizure or destruction? In this case, I'm referring to our families and our freedom. If we peacefully resist that which is legal, yet unjust, we run the risk of separation from our families through extended imprisonment. Is it then "dishonest" for a man to either have a family or treasure his family above resisting injustice? The Declaration of Independence states:
"...all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."Sometimes, despite conscientious objection to certain government policies, we make calculations about the cost of resistance (non-violent or otherwise) and decide that the risk is not worth taking action. Is this then "dishonest" or can it be in some instances wise and prudent? I guess it all depends on where you draw your line in the sand. I look at this like the functioning of a market economy. In the Misesian tradition of individualism, value is not a fixed quantity but instead a personal preference. When an individual decides that injustice outweighs continued inaction they will act. When many individuals feel likewise you have the beginnings of a popular uprising. Again from the Declaration of Independence:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government."It is also interesting that Thoreau has become a liberal hero since he largely proclaimed an anarchic state of individualism, while acknowledging the necessity of governments, citing potential loss of private property as a hindrance to civil disobedience, the very acknowledgement of which implies the right to hold and direct that private property, something liberals would prefer to redistribute according to the wisdom of an anointed intelligentsia, putting them solidly in the camp of despots, and unworthy of the obedience outlined in the 12th Article of Faith and D&C 134.
"12. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."
"2. We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life. 5. We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while preotected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments..."A government tending towards anarchism (if such can even exist) would be travelling in the opposite direction of the centrally planned, coercively egalitarian utopias envisioned by today's liberals.
"'That government is best which governs not at all and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have."I couldn't agree more with Thoreau here. At the present moment I recognize, as did Thoreau, that this state is far from practical, yet it should be the ideal of every man to live in a society which abides natural laws (which are, fundamentally and naturally, God's laws), not by coercion, but voluntarily according to justice and wisdom, choosing "the better part" as a consequence of their own "mighty change of heart".
Having stated a minor objection in Thoreau's very black and white logical sequence, it is also requisite that I express my agreement with his opinion of material wealth and express my absolute agreement with the undergirding principle of esteeming freedom and conscience above money, such as expressed here:
"The opportunities of living are diminished in proportion as what are called the "means" are increased. The best thing a man can do for his culture when he is rich is to endeavor to carry out those schemes which he entertained when he was poor."This brings to mind Christ's likening of the rich man to a camel passing through the eye of the needle, and reminds us to place our treasure in that which does not tarnish or fade.
I've largely focused in this article on Thoreau's treatment of wealth and freedom. I'll probably revisit his concepts of non-violent resistance, in the context of the Book of Mormon, to highlight not only the effectiveness of the tactic, but its potential for lasting righteous outcomes as well.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Keeping Our Second Estate
"...and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.”
Abraham 3:26
Understanding Our Second Estate
Mormons are taught from a young age about the heavenly council and war over agency that highlighted our pre-mortal existence, or First Estate. These events, taken along with the millennial reign, resurrection, and subsequent judgment, form the bookends of our mortal existence, or Second Estate. This life on Earth is the proving ground that will determine our eternal inheritance, or Third Estate. Therefore it is of singular importance to understand what it means to "keep (our) second estate".
It would seem that the answer would be relatively simple to understand. Keeping our Second Estate is obeying the will of our Heavenly Father in all things; easy enough. Yet, it is the quest of a lifetime to put into practice the ideals that form the basis of the eternal plan of happiness; to truly know his will and make it our own through individual human action, despite the temptations of immediate gratification. Some, including: Enoch[1]and the city of Zion[2], Elijah[3], Moses[4], John the Beloved[5], Alma the Younger[6], and the Three Nephites[7] have been able to reach that point, referred to as translation, where they can no longer be forcibly kept within the limited bounds of the telestial kingdom, as they have mastered the principles and practices of higher kingdoms; being brought into the bosom of the Father, or themselves given power over death to await a general resurrection. This state of translation highlights the possibilities of positive or righteous human action versus negative or destructive human action. As we abide certain laws of nature and principles of righteousness our understanding and hence the scope of our agency is enlarged.
It makes one wonder how these individuals (or in the case of Enoch’s Zion
Considering the central battle of our First Estate was over agency, i.e. the freedom to act for ourselves with the attendant responsibility for the consequences of our actions, it is not so great a leap to assume that agency plays a central role in our progression towards Zion, having our calling and election made sure through the confirmation of the royal anointing we receive in the Holy Temple, and, ultimately, receiving the greatest of all gifts: eternal life and exaltation. President Benson recognized the ongoing battle over agency,
“It was the struggle over free agency that divided us before we came here. It may well be the struggle over the same principle which will deceive and divide us again."
Ezra Taft Benson, BYU Speeches of the Year
Acknowledging the importance of agency[8]in the struggle between good and evil is pivotal. All God-given rights are derived from agency. Agency is an a priori right that precedes all human action outside of involuntary, chemical body function. It was in our affirmation of God’s plan for individual agency, with its resultant actions and consequences, that we received our bodies and live a mortal life in the first place. Hence, even life itself is a result of our acknowledgment of the importance of agency. Contemplating, then exercising our agency through individual human action to merit further blessings or curses is the exclusive province of mortal man as opposed to the animal or plant kingdom which operates primarily on instinct and environmental triggers. Consequently, our charge in mortality is be agents unto ourselves, not to be acted upon or commanded in all things[9].
"Usually the Lord gives us the overall objectives to be accomplished and some guidelines to follow, but he expects us to work out most of the details and methods. The methods and procedures are usually developed through study and prayer and by living so that we can obtain and follow the promptings of the Spirit. Less spiritually advanced people, such as those in the days of Moses, had to be commanded in many things. Today those spiritually alert look at the objectives, check the guidelines laid down by the Lord and his prophets, and then prayerfully act—without having to be commanded in all things.' This attitude prepares men for godhood.”
Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson
Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson
Given the fact of God’s deference to self-determinism and human action, it then becomes the goal of the man interested in eternal progression to understand the Plan of Salvation (the “what”) and then prayerfully act (the “how”) according to our several desires for the promised blessings.
Agency and Accountability
When it comes to eternal inheritances (heavens or degrees of glory) I believe we go to the heaven we choose; that we judge ourselves according to the understanding we possessed at the time we made our decisions. In those instances where we made judgments in ignorance of consequences, the Savior atones for our lack of knowledge as we accept his offer to do so, and enter into a covenant relationship with Him (with its own attendant consequences).
At various times in our lives we are confronted with a choice whose consequence has been purposely augmented to achieve a different result. This is commonly done by parents and governments to call attention to a particular action, when the natural consequence doesn’t achieve the level of significance that the authority figure desires for it. More nefariously, the alteration of consequences is intended to inculcate behaviors with the stamp of moral approval or disapproval, which otherwise the actions would not justify, thereby changing completely the natural cause and effect expectation. It is in these increasingly more common instances that we see the usurpation of the Father’s prerogative and glory. It is through this operation that Satan subtly leads the children of men captive to his will, by blinding them to the real consequences of their actions; giving them a choice that appeals to their pride, in contrast to what the Father would have them do; ultimately causing them to establish a habit of spiritual deafness through transgression.
How difficult it must have been for the father of the prodigal to indulge his son’s profligate request![10] Unfortunately, that’s what it took for the boy to experience his mighty change of heart. Even more instructive for us is the reaction of “the good son” upon his brother’s return. His anger revealed a personal longing for the chance to “live it up” like his brother had. He’s angry that he did what he was supposed to and yet now, with the return of his brother, his own inheritance was subject to possible reduction. However, if we take the rich father as a type of our Heavenly Father we realize that there is no end of his possessions (or power, or knowledge), and no need for us to increase only at the expense of another.
In my early twenties I served as an Elders Quorum President of a low-income ward in South Salt Lake , Utah
I remember him telling me once that it isn’t merciful to shield people from the natural consequences of their actions. It’s been 11 years but that has stuck with me, not because it agreed with my own feelings at the time, but because I watched one after another of those people walk out of his office with rent paid and pantry orders in hand. When I remarked on the apparent contradiction, he told me he was willing to be taken advantage of once by anyone for the opportunity to teach people at their most humble moments. He opened up the scriptures and read the following to me: “Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves; be ye therefore as wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.”[11]
We had several baptisms and countless opportunities for fellowship that came as a result of those interviews. What words were spoken in his office, I’ll never know, but the standards of provident living he held them to, tempered appropriately with a bit of mercy, ultimately led to the changes I saw repeatedly in the circumstances of some who visited with him. In all cases along with the mercy came the accountability of knowledge. Eventually, we will all approach the bar of The Judge as beggars.
The Plan Of Progression - Coming To Zion
I wouldn’t pretend to fully understand the operations of a Zion society, but I believe it will require quite a paradigm shift, one which we can learn more about in another terrestrial habitation: the Holy Temple Zion Zion Zion Zion
The first chapter of Alma
“…and thus they were all equal, and they did all labor, every man according to his strength. 27. And they did impart of their substance, every man according to that which he had, to the poor, and the needy, and the sick, and the afflicted; and they did not wear costly apparel, yet they were neat and comely. 28. And thus they did establish the affairs of the church; and thus they began to have continual peace again, notwithstanding all their persecutions. 29. And now, because of the steadiness of the church they began to be exceeding rich, having abundance of all things whatsoever they stood in need-and abundance of flocks and herds, and fatlings of every kind, and also abundance of grain, and of gold, and of silver, and of precious things, and abundance of all manner of good homely cloth. 30. And thus, in their prosperous circumstances, they did not send away any who were naked or that were hungry, or that were athirst, or that were sick, or that had not been nourished; and they did not set their hearts upon riches; therefore they were liberal to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, whether out of the church or in the church, having no respect to persons as to those who stood in need. 31. And thus they did prosper and become far more wealthy…”
Agency is a tool for prosperity or destruction. When exercised properly through righteous human action, devoid of idolatry and covetousness, it can provide us with surplus (“enough and to spare”), even luxuries (“abundance of gold, silver, and precious things”); which state, though short of the spontaneous provisions provided without labor in the Garden of Eden, nevertheless demonstrates faithful stewardship[13]over that which we’ve been entrusted, and justifies our appointment as “lord over many things” which may lead to the reestablishment of Zion. Book of Mormon communities frequently, though always temporarily, enjoyed the peace that comes with economic prosperity and mutual consideration, i.e. no poor amongst them. Pride, covetousness, jealousy, and lust for power were the enemies of prosperity and Zion Zion
Latter-day Saints acknowledge the part that contrasting choices play in exercising our agency. Heavenly Father, in allowing Lucifer to tempt Adam and Eve in a terrestrial sphere, did so with the understanding that He cannot reclaim his children (or in Satan’s case, lure them away) without consent, and consent requires agency. In the temple we are told that we must partake of the fruit so as to comprehend that everything has its opposite: good and evil, virtue and vice, light and darkness, health and sickness, pleasure and pain…that our eyes may be opened to the ultimate choice between liberty and captivity that we each must make alone.
We fought to protect our agency pre-mortally, so that we would have the inborn right to choose Him who is “mighty to save”[14] in mortality. However, we need to look beyond simply securing our agency.
"We who hold the priesthood must beware concerning ourselves, that we do not fall in the traps he lays to rob us of our freedom. We must be careful that we are not led to accept or support in any way any organization, cause or measure which in its remotest effort, would jeopardize free agency, whether it be in politics, government, religion, employment, education, or in any other field. It is not enough for us to be sincere in what we support. We must be right!"
Elder Marion G. Romney
It is most important, in the context of keeping our Second Estate, that we learn how to act, not just how to choose. Our choices are not made one time for all future decision points; they are the impetus for actions not yet performed and must be made repeatedly. I’ve often thought on this principle that is taught frequently in the church, i.e. that we can determine who we are going to be many years from now if we just make all the important choices now, such as: mission, temple marriage, word of wisdom, celestial kingdom, etc. While going through this practice of envisioning future goals and setting one’s bearings on those future goals is a healthy and important one, these choices we make only matter if they are followed by repeated actions, often in the face of stiffer-than-anticipated opposition.
I’ve been playing guitar for a number of years and I’ve acquired a good ear for music. I’ve come to appreciate a guitar with new strings because the sound is so crisp and sonorous. Unfortunately, new strings constantly have to be adjusted so any purity of pitch is short-lived. So, I prefer playing on older strings that I don’t have to tune up every single time I play. The older strings aren’t as bright and flashy, but they have more tensile consistency because they’ve been through everything from heavy strumming in campout-cold air to sticky-fingered kids, being recalibrated slightly with each new experience. Our goals, like the initial tuning of new strings, may set the ideal, but without the steeling, sometimes harsh, experience of choice, action, and consequence, they won’t be realized.
I am like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else…all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus I will become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty…"
Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 304
This is the process of sanctification that must precede any sojourn in Zion
[1] D&C 107:49; Genesis 5:24; Hebrews 11:5
[2] Moses 7:21,31,69; D&C 38:4; D&C 45:12
[3] D&C 110:13; 2Kings 2:11; Matthew 17:3
[4] D&C 84:25; Alma 45:19; Deuteronomy 34:5-6; Matthew 17:3
[5] D&C 7:1-8; John 21:20-24; Matthew 16:28
[6] Alma
[7] 3 Nephi 28:4-9, 36-40; 4 Nephi 1:14; Mormon 8:10-11
[8] I’ve chosen not to bother here with semantic arguments about the appropriate usage for what I refer to in this essay interchangeably as: agency, free agency, moral agency, free will, liberty, etc. Instead, I’d like to focus on agency, properly manifest in righteous human action, as an essential ongoing characteristic of and precursor to Zion
[9] D&C 58:26-28; 2 Nephi 2:27
[10] Luke 15:11-32
[11] Matthew 10:16
[13] Matthew 25:14-30 Parable of Talents
[14] Alma
Friday, December 31, 2010
Really...??
Now, I'm not typically the guy who makes someone an offender for a word, but when you're held up as some heroic policy wonk and yet you a) don't even know in which century the Constitution was written b) become confused by the strange, archaic language of the document, or c) can't see the value in reading the Constitution at the invocation of a Congress that, like all others, has sworn to uphold and defend it ... then I have to go all ad hominem and declare: This guy is dumb. I now fully understand the budget woes of newspapers. If they're reduced to getting their analysis from freshman journalists who don't have the first clue about American history, I can see why subscriptions are down. SHEESH!!
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Misguided Patriotism and the Pledge of Allegiance
“God provided that in this land of liberty…our allegiance and the only allegiance we owe as citizens or denizens of the United States, runs to our inspired Constitution which God himself set up.”
- President J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
- Francis Bellamy, 1892
I have to admit to a fair bit of nostalgia when I read the above words of our Pledge of Allegiance. They invoke memories of elementary school mornings. We would collectively stand together and while looking at the flag over the chalkboard recite in perfect unison our sacred oath of patriotic loyalty to the state. We spoke with a verbal cadence borne of vain repetition and rote memorization that belied a lack of full understanding but nevertheless firm resolve to…if nothing else, pledge allegiance. “I pledge allegiance…to the Flag…of the United States of America…and to the Republic…for which it stands…etc.”
For a young schoolboy or girl, the Pledge is a timeless, binding promise of national fidelity. Prior to Michael Newdow’s anti-religious, establishment clause case of 2002 no one had ventured to change the Pledge since the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic civic organization, persuaded Eisenhower to add “under God” 1954. No one with the authority to do so has dared strip it of any spiritual or patriotic significance since. Aside from that most consequential change, the Pledge had undergone a couple earlier revisions: a change from the Bellamy Salute to right hand over heart (more on that later); and, a change in the words “my Flag and the Republic” to “the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic”. There is more history which I won’t go into here, except to say, the author, Francis Bellamy, a self-described Christian Socialist and cousin of utopian socialist Edward Bellamy, may not have had the same pure motives as Francis Scott Key when he memorialized the Flag in “the Star Spangled Banner”.
More to the point, I’d like to examine the importance of the Pledge of Allegiance, and perhaps, in so doing, patriotism itself. The Pledge like any other oath carries significance beyond words and it is important to honestly appraise our willingness to carry out the implied promises we make as we recite it. Of course, as children, we act on blind faith, motivated by feelings of unity and national superiority (along with a fear of being criticized for sitting out the Pledge). We were rightly taught that America is the greatest nation in the history of the world. Who then would dare to refuse such an affirmation of loyalty to “the Flag…and to the republic for which it stands”? (Not me! I didn’t want to be like that J.W. kid who never had a birthday or got Halloween candy). Fortunately, children usually don’t struggle with those kinds of existential conflicts. Adults, however, should take a more considerate approach to something as important as oath-taking.
Let’s examine the Pledge’s component parts.
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America…”
A pledge of allegiance, first and foremost, is a statement of intellectual or emotional commitment; a binding affirmation to a particular course of action. Pledging allegiance to a flag alone is not a very compelling proposition. It must be strengthened by deeper explicit and implicit meaning, which we’ll look at below. However, if we were to try and glean something from this phrase alone, we could look to the design of the flag and what it represents. We all know from junior high civics that the stars on the flag represent the individual, sovereign states of the nation, while the stripes represent the original 13 colonies which unanimously declared their independence from Great Britain becoming sovereign states. As for the colors of the flag, there was no originally prescribed meaning. Certain colors have been used throughout history to represent different ideals or virtues (white=purity, red=valor, blue=integrity/truth), but these were never officially adopted. The implied commitment here is to follow the Flag of the United States of America into any conflict or cause.
“…and to the republic for which it stands…”
We make an oath to uphold the republic. There was a time when “republic” meant something more specific than: “everything but a monarchy”; when the word was not freely interchanged or co-opted by democracies, dictatorships, communists, socialists, and theocrats. This confusion is plainly manifest in those taking the Pledge of Allegiance. If the Pledge was taken seriously, we wouldn’t be living in a functioning socialist democracy. The erosion of language to the lowest common denominator has led to a host of doublespeak substitutes that confuse and alter our discourse, which, in turn has led to the gradual devolution of our political and philosophical understanding. Present circumstances notwithstanding, the propriety of pledging allegiance to a republic is, for most people, pretty innocuous. Even if we don’t do anything about it, it’s a noble ideal, especially, if the republic is seen as the logical extension of the Constitution.
“…one nation under God, indivisible…”
Here we begin to see more clearly what exactly Francis Bellamy had in mind when he wrote the Pledge. Remember, “under God” was not originally included in the Pledge. Bellamy’s daughter, Marion, remarked that he would not have been pleased with the change (google it). The addition interrupted what Bellamy intended to be a coherent, continuous phrase with a specific meaning. In 1892, Bellamy was not far removed from a Civil War fought over the right of individual states (as outlined by Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions) to nullify their compact if the federal government overstepped its enumerated powers, as outlined in the Constitution; a position that would challenge the superiority of the nation-state over the commonwealth or individual. I’m not going to bother taking a position on this argument here as it’s now settled history. Lincoln won and the Union was forced back together. However, during and after the war’s conclusion the federal government effectively disenfranchised thousands of voters, would-be public servants, and even private business owners through the use of loyalty oaths similar in meaning to our Pledge of Allegiance, by asserting the indivisibility of the Union, punishing all who took even a philosophical stand in support of the right of individual states over the Union.
Loyalty oaths are not a 19th century novelty. They have been used repeatedly throughout history; in WWI, WWII, during the Vietnam era, and even at the 2004 campaign speeches of George W. Bush. Latter-day Saints (and many other religious groups) are very accustomed to oaths and covenants. We make them weekly in sacrament, in the temple, at Boy Scout meetings, and in private prayer with our God. Oaths and pledges are not inherently evil or coercive. They can serve as a reminder of personal goals and ambitions, unite groups in a common cause, and even serve as a contractual bond for legal purposes…protecting the franchises of liberty and free enterprise. Pledges become problematic when used as a token of feigned devotion or when taken in ignorance of the obligations, hence, serving only to make the affiant a liar, or disingenuous at best, when not taken seriously.
At worst, the above phrases from the Pledge represent nationalist propaganda delivered with the stamp of government authority to a compliant audience of children educated in a mandatory school system. The idea of a union of sovereign states was as much a non-sequitor in 18th century America as federal supremacy seems to be in mainstream America today. Bellamy and other avowed socialists sought to encourage loyalty to the nation-state over the local commonwealth, God, family, or any other individual interest. There’s an axiom in public discourse that as soon as you compare anyone or anything with the Nazis, you effectively stamp out any civil debate. However, in rare cases, the comparison is apt. Observe this photograph of schoolchildren making the Bellamy Salute during the Pledge of Allegiance.
This sort of genuflection before the supreme state characterized above is no different than what happened in German schools prior to and during WWII. My grandmother grew up in Germany during this period and the pressure to join the Hitler Youth was intense. My grandmother recalls begging her mother to let her join, so great was the nationalist pride and sense of belonging. She was forbidden to do so by a wise mother who properly recognized the danger of indoctrination into a burgeoning cult of personality.
“…with liberty and justice for all.”
This sounds like another high ideal extolled in the Pledge of Allegiance. However, the continued message is that our right to liberty and justice is granted by government (at the very least as a mediator “under God”). The reality is that our government is supposed to derive its just powers from the consent of the governed, not the other way around. The order of importance should not be God, State, Individual, but God, Individual, State. Rather than pledge our allegiance to the state as the mediator of liberty and justice, we ought to be more mindful of scriptural history and give credit where credit is due (Moses 3:17, Hebrews 9:15).
According to LDS theology, justice is an eternal law that cannot be violated without throwing the universe into a tailspin. Thus, the only way to protect God’s children from damnation is to provide a Savior. Thereby man’s agency would be held inviolate while satisfying the demands of justice. The war in heaven was not fought through the artifice of a nation-state. It was a contest of ideas between those who would make us slaves and those who laid claim to liberty, and that same battle rages today. Man’s birthright to freedom is a testament to the outcome of that pre-mortal struggle. When we fail to recognize that liberty is a birthright and instead make an oath of obeisance to a substitute benefactor, we give God’s glory to another claimant, namely: Government.
It has taken me a while to outgrow that boyish enthusiasm for reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, but I’ve gradually become uncomfortable with this sort of unqualified patriotism. Having said that, I didn’t write this article to declare myself morally superior or drive a wedge between believers. Also, because I hold personal liberty in such high regard, I would never campaign against the right of any person to pledge their allegiance to the flag. I’ve simply come to the conclusion, for me, that the high ideal of patriotism implied by the act of pledging allegiance to the flag has been used in recent decades as a convenient excuse to sidestep arguments on principle and, perhaps, ignore what should be the object of attention and loyalty. I know the pledge is held sacred by many today, but consider that George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson never made a similar pledge to the flag and no one would call into question their credentials. It’s speculation, but I think I can safely say Jefferson would have even found such a thing repugnant.
The closest synonym of patriotism is nationalism. When our leaders can no longer convince the people of the merits of a cause on principle, they appeal to love of country. For example, if you’re a patriot you can’t possibly be against the Patriot Act! Charges of being “unpatriotic” effectively stamp out all rational debate. Patriotism is the reason we’re embroiled in a never-ending, worldwide war against an ill-defined enemy (see also War on Drugs, War on Poverty). How can you possibly wage war against a battle tactic? Have we lost our minds? Well, according to the Behavioral Correlates of War Project, there is a link between high levels of perceived patriotism and proclivity for war. I believe this is probably most common when nationalism has become a substitute for patriotism. Whereas true patriots made every effort to avoid conflict, even acknowledging in the Declaration of Independence the prudence of patiently suffering through usurpations for a time, before taking an oath of such gravity as to require their “Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor.”
The sort of patriotism our Founders exhibited has to do with protecting the life, liberty, and property of “family & fellow countrymen” (Greek: patriṓtēs, literally fellow countrymen or lineage member) against oppressive forces. This sort of zeal is not only forgivable but admirable. I have a great amount of respect for those military men and women who put their lives on the line for this cause. “Greater love hath no man than this” is an apt description of their selfless service. To the extent that a man uses their righteous desire and sworn loyalty as a tool for oppression, he alone is responsible. He is guilty of unrighteous dominion and should be removed.
“It would be a cruel God that would punish His children as moral sinner for acts done by them as the innocent instrumentalities of a sovereign who He had told them to obey and whose will they were powerless to resist.”
- Pres. David O. McKay, General Conference Address, 1942
Ron Paul lamented,
“We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.”
This is hardly the type of loyalty Washington would have commanded as general and president. So, until our flag and republic stand for more than false freedom and aggressive militarism, I will stand, cover my heart, and silently mourn the loss of liberty, justice, and lives that so many have fought righteously to protect. If that makes me unpatriotic…so be it.
- President J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”
- Francis Bellamy, 1892
I have to admit to a fair bit of nostalgia when I read the above words of our Pledge of Allegiance. They invoke memories of elementary school mornings. We would collectively stand together and while looking at the flag over the chalkboard recite in perfect unison our sacred oath of patriotic loyalty to the state. We spoke with a verbal cadence borne of vain repetition and rote memorization that belied a lack of full understanding but nevertheless firm resolve to…if nothing else, pledge allegiance. “I pledge allegiance…to the Flag…of the United States of America…and to the Republic…for which it stands…etc.”
For a young schoolboy or girl, the Pledge is a timeless, binding promise of national fidelity. Prior to Michael Newdow’s anti-religious, establishment clause case of 2002 no one had ventured to change the Pledge since the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic civic organization, persuaded Eisenhower to add “under God” 1954. No one with the authority to do so has dared strip it of any spiritual or patriotic significance since. Aside from that most consequential change, the Pledge had undergone a couple earlier revisions: a change from the Bellamy Salute to right hand over heart (more on that later); and, a change in the words “my Flag and the Republic” to “the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic”. There is more history which I won’t go into here, except to say, the author, Francis Bellamy, a self-described Christian Socialist and cousin of utopian socialist Edward Bellamy, may not have had the same pure motives as Francis Scott Key when he memorialized the Flag in “the Star Spangled Banner”.
More to the point, I’d like to examine the importance of the Pledge of Allegiance, and perhaps, in so doing, patriotism itself. The Pledge like any other oath carries significance beyond words and it is important to honestly appraise our willingness to carry out the implied promises we make as we recite it. Of course, as children, we act on blind faith, motivated by feelings of unity and national superiority (along with a fear of being criticized for sitting out the Pledge). We were rightly taught that America is the greatest nation in the history of the world. Who then would dare to refuse such an affirmation of loyalty to “the Flag…and to the republic for which it stands”? (Not me! I didn’t want to be like that J.W. kid who never had a birthday or got Halloween candy). Fortunately, children usually don’t struggle with those kinds of existential conflicts. Adults, however, should take a more considerate approach to something as important as oath-taking.
Let’s examine the Pledge’s component parts.
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America…”
A pledge of allegiance, first and foremost, is a statement of intellectual or emotional commitment; a binding affirmation to a particular course of action. Pledging allegiance to a flag alone is not a very compelling proposition. It must be strengthened by deeper explicit and implicit meaning, which we’ll look at below. However, if we were to try and glean something from this phrase alone, we could look to the design of the flag and what it represents. We all know from junior high civics that the stars on the flag represent the individual, sovereign states of the nation, while the stripes represent the original 13 colonies which unanimously declared their independence from Great Britain becoming sovereign states. As for the colors of the flag, there was no originally prescribed meaning. Certain colors have been used throughout history to represent different ideals or virtues (white=purity, red=valor, blue=integrity/truth), but these were never officially adopted. The implied commitment here is to follow the Flag of the United States of America into any conflict or cause.
“…and to the republic for which it stands…”
We make an oath to uphold the republic. There was a time when “republic” meant something more specific than: “everything but a monarchy”; when the word was not freely interchanged or co-opted by democracies, dictatorships, communists, socialists, and theocrats. This confusion is plainly manifest in those taking the Pledge of Allegiance. If the Pledge was taken seriously, we wouldn’t be living in a functioning socialist democracy. The erosion of language to the lowest common denominator has led to a host of doublespeak substitutes that confuse and alter our discourse, which, in turn has led to the gradual devolution of our political and philosophical understanding. Present circumstances notwithstanding, the propriety of pledging allegiance to a republic is, for most people, pretty innocuous. Even if we don’t do anything about it, it’s a noble ideal, especially, if the republic is seen as the logical extension of the Constitution.
“…one nation under God, indivisible…”
Here we begin to see more clearly what exactly Francis Bellamy had in mind when he wrote the Pledge. Remember, “under God” was not originally included in the Pledge. Bellamy’s daughter, Marion, remarked that he would not have been pleased with the change (google it). The addition interrupted what Bellamy intended to be a coherent, continuous phrase with a specific meaning. In 1892, Bellamy was not far removed from a Civil War fought over the right of individual states (as outlined by Jefferson and Madison in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions) to nullify their compact if the federal government overstepped its enumerated powers, as outlined in the Constitution; a position that would challenge the superiority of the nation-state over the commonwealth or individual. I’m not going to bother taking a position on this argument here as it’s now settled history. Lincoln won and the Union was forced back together. However, during and after the war’s conclusion the federal government effectively disenfranchised thousands of voters, would-be public servants, and even private business owners through the use of loyalty oaths similar in meaning to our Pledge of Allegiance, by asserting the indivisibility of the Union, punishing all who took even a philosophical stand in support of the right of individual states over the Union.
Loyalty oaths are not a 19th century novelty. They have been used repeatedly throughout history; in WWI, WWII, during the Vietnam era, and even at the 2004 campaign speeches of George W. Bush. Latter-day Saints (and many other religious groups) are very accustomed to oaths and covenants. We make them weekly in sacrament, in the temple, at Boy Scout meetings, and in private prayer with our God. Oaths and pledges are not inherently evil or coercive. They can serve as a reminder of personal goals and ambitions, unite groups in a common cause, and even serve as a contractual bond for legal purposes…protecting the franchises of liberty and free enterprise. Pledges become problematic when used as a token of feigned devotion or when taken in ignorance of the obligations, hence, serving only to make the affiant a liar, or disingenuous at best, when not taken seriously.
At worst, the above phrases from the Pledge represent nationalist propaganda delivered with the stamp of government authority to a compliant audience of children educated in a mandatory school system. The idea of a union of sovereign states was as much a non-sequitor in 18th century America as federal supremacy seems to be in mainstream America today. Bellamy and other avowed socialists sought to encourage loyalty to the nation-state over the local commonwealth, God, family, or any other individual interest. There’s an axiom in public discourse that as soon as you compare anyone or anything with the Nazis, you effectively stamp out any civil debate. However, in rare cases, the comparison is apt. Observe this photograph of schoolchildren making the Bellamy Salute during the Pledge of Allegiance.
This sort of genuflection before the supreme state characterized above is no different than what happened in German schools prior to and during WWII. My grandmother grew up in Germany during this period and the pressure to join the Hitler Youth was intense. My grandmother recalls begging her mother to let her join, so great was the nationalist pride and sense of belonging. She was forbidden to do so by a wise mother who properly recognized the danger of indoctrination into a burgeoning cult of personality.
“…with liberty and justice for all.”
This sounds like another high ideal extolled in the Pledge of Allegiance. However, the continued message is that our right to liberty and justice is granted by government (at the very least as a mediator “under God”). The reality is that our government is supposed to derive its just powers from the consent of the governed, not the other way around. The order of importance should not be God, State, Individual, but God, Individual, State. Rather than pledge our allegiance to the state as the mediator of liberty and justice, we ought to be more mindful of scriptural history and give credit where credit is due (Moses 3:17, Hebrews 9:15).
According to LDS theology, justice is an eternal law that cannot be violated without throwing the universe into a tailspin. Thus, the only way to protect God’s children from damnation is to provide a Savior. Thereby man’s agency would be held inviolate while satisfying the demands of justice. The war in heaven was not fought through the artifice of a nation-state. It was a contest of ideas between those who would make us slaves and those who laid claim to liberty, and that same battle rages today. Man’s birthright to freedom is a testament to the outcome of that pre-mortal struggle. When we fail to recognize that liberty is a birthright and instead make an oath of obeisance to a substitute benefactor, we give God’s glory to another claimant, namely: Government.
It has taken me a while to outgrow that boyish enthusiasm for reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, but I’ve gradually become uncomfortable with this sort of unqualified patriotism. Having said that, I didn’t write this article to declare myself morally superior or drive a wedge between believers. Also, because I hold personal liberty in such high regard, I would never campaign against the right of any person to pledge their allegiance to the flag. I’ve simply come to the conclusion, for me, that the high ideal of patriotism implied by the act of pledging allegiance to the flag has been used in recent decades as a convenient excuse to sidestep arguments on principle and, perhaps, ignore what should be the object of attention and loyalty. I know the pledge is held sacred by many today, but consider that George Washington, Ben Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson never made a similar pledge to the flag and no one would call into question their credentials. It’s speculation, but I think I can safely say Jefferson would have even found such a thing repugnant.
The closest synonym of patriotism is nationalism. When our leaders can no longer convince the people of the merits of a cause on principle, they appeal to love of country. For example, if you’re a patriot you can’t possibly be against the Patriot Act! Charges of being “unpatriotic” effectively stamp out all rational debate. Patriotism is the reason we’re embroiled in a never-ending, worldwide war against an ill-defined enemy (see also War on Drugs, War on Poverty). How can you possibly wage war against a battle tactic? Have we lost our minds? Well, according to the Behavioral Correlates of War Project, there is a link between high levels of perceived patriotism and proclivity for war. I believe this is probably most common when nationalism has become a substitute for patriotism. Whereas true patriots made every effort to avoid conflict, even acknowledging in the Declaration of Independence the prudence of patiently suffering through usurpations for a time, before taking an oath of such gravity as to require their “Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor.”
The sort of patriotism our Founders exhibited has to do with protecting the life, liberty, and property of “family & fellow countrymen” (Greek: patriṓtēs, literally fellow countrymen or lineage member) against oppressive forces. This sort of zeal is not only forgivable but admirable. I have a great amount of respect for those military men and women who put their lives on the line for this cause. “Greater love hath no man than this” is an apt description of their selfless service. To the extent that a man uses their righteous desire and sworn loyalty as a tool for oppression, he alone is responsible. He is guilty of unrighteous dominion and should be removed.
“It would be a cruel God that would punish His children as moral sinner for acts done by them as the innocent instrumentalities of a sovereign who He had told them to obey and whose will they were powerless to resist.”
- Pres. David O. McKay, General Conference Address, 1942
Ron Paul lamented,
“We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.”
This is hardly the type of loyalty Washington would have commanded as general and president. So, until our flag and republic stand for more than false freedom and aggressive militarism, I will stand, cover my heart, and silently mourn the loss of liberty, justice, and lives that so many have fought righteously to protect. If that makes me unpatriotic…so be it.
Geostrategy and the Future of Dollar Dominance
For the earth is full, and there is enough and to spare; yea, I prepared all things, and have given unto the children of men to be agents unto themselves.
Doctrine & Covenants 104:17
There is a global war at hand. It is primarily an economic war which has ramifications that run much deeper as we’ve witnessed over the last 10 years. The genesis of the conflict began long ago and is coming to its fullest expression as we speak.
Very few believe, without qualification, the pure motives of the military campaign we’re currently prosecuting under the label “War on Terror”. Put bluntly, we’re not fighting isolated bands of terrorists to ensure domestic safety and tranquility; we’re fighting the whole world to maintain economic dominance.
I don’t want to speculate about which parties are behind many of the unstated objectives of our aggressive geopolitical strategy, but instead define the objectives, their ramifications, and a possible prescription for returning to a more humble foreign policy with as little short-term pain as possible.
The Objectives
"Who controls the food supply controls the people; who controls the energy can control whole continents; who controls money can control the world."
There is really only a singular overarching objective for the geopolitical strategist – secure, for the longest term possible, national economic superiority (not merely opportunity, freedom, or contentment), national security, and prosperity by whatever means necessary, not excepting the schadenfreude of base exploitation. For the last forty years the United States has experienced the greatest degree of strategic success. While the value or advisability of these strategic ends, in the context of a fallen world and consequent survivalist instinct, are a matter of conjecture, a study of the means employed should be closely examined as we consider a future course of action.Henry Kissinger
In 1971, the United States, under President Nixon, backed out of the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement. This agreement, made between the Allied Nations, following WWII set up a cascading currency standard for all nations to follow, pegged to gold (and by extension the US Dollar as a function of its huge trade surpluses and military strength), which they supposed, would provide for greater international stability and broad economic prosperity.[1] Like most centrally planned economic protocols, it failed miserably beginning in the mid-50s when the US was forced to cure balance of trade surpluses by essentially giving money to Europe to rebuild their infrastructure, industry, and ostensibly “help them catch up”. The Marshall Plan drew a line in the sand in the nascent battle of East/West powers and repaired Europe's ailing infrastructure, but the gesture would not be enough to save the Bretton Woods agreement and in the late 60s, primarily as a result of huge Vietnam War expenses, European members of the UN/IMF began demanding payment for trade imbalances in gold instead of dollars. Since we didn’t have enough dollars to make these payments at the $35/ounce price, we were forced to send our gold reserves overseas. Gold flowed out of the US steadily for 20 years under a policy of “benign neglect”, reducing our stockpile to somewhere between $9B and $20B.[2] The writing was on the wall and the Bretton Woods Agreement was formally broken unilaterally by the United States, to avoid further hemorrhaging of our gold reserves.
It was at this critical juncture that one of the great strategic geniuses (evil, pragmatic, or both?) of our time, Henry Kissinger, stepped in to engineer a partial replacement for Bretton Woods that would reestablish US Dollar world reserve status and consequent US economic dominance for decades to come. He brokered a deal with the Saudis which extended to all of OPEC to make mandatory a new protocol for payment of international oil purchases in a single currency: the US Dollar. Demand for US Dollars instantly quadrupled. Oil is unique in that it drives industrialization, production, and trade between nations (due to its volume and impact on current account balances).[3] Without it, an economy cannot prosper, at least while utilizing the predominant fossil-fuel dependent technology. This set up a de facto system where demand for the US Dollar was linked with the ever-increasing demand for oil. Furthermore, New York and London banks became the depository of oil revenues, allowing them to take advantage of even more leverage.
One begins to see how the great economic booms we’ve experienced have come primarily as a result of trade and finance, not innovation and productivity. Following the latest round of quantitative easing, Ben Bernanke’s announcement of $600B to keep the presses busy, there was an outcry from the rest of the world about the unfairness of such a move. One has to wonder, if not informed about the real power of the US Dollar, why other countries’ central banks wouldn’t just match in earnest any monetary move we make, effectually nullifying its effects. These central bankers know why, so they impotently bristle to anybody who will listen,
The US Dollar has not been a purely fiat currency since PetroDollar recycling began. Whether the PetroDollar protocol is still fully functional or not is irrelevant. The US Dollar may be backed by oil, to an extent, but more importantly by F-16’s.[5] Try to mess with profitable arrangements like the former and you get a visit from the latter.“[Our] exporting success is based on the increased competitiveness of our companies, not on some sort of currency sleight-of-hand”.[4]
The Ramifications
Understanding the global state of affairs without grasping the causes and history of economic warfare is like trying to do a 1000 piece puzzle without the box. It is the underlying reason for the fall of Soviet communism, the liberalization of the Chinese economy towards a capitalist manufacturing hub, the “lost decade” in Japan, development of the Euro as a competing currency, the color revolutions, the growth (and subsequent gradual decline) in power of the OPEC oil cartel, the new axis of Iran/China/Venezuela/Russia - and all other global political and economic developments.
Holding the status quo together has been a momentous challenge. We’re seeing it unravel as I write this; a trend that will surely continue. Just this week, China and Russia signed a pact to trade in their own currencies. Experts say this is not an attempt by the developing Sino-Russian alliance to provoke a global currency battle with the US Dollar, but it nevertheless weakens the US dollar's virtual monopoly on foreign trade payments. The US unofficially said today it would back an IMF European bailout that would cost American taxpayers something in the neighborhood of $250Bn.
In 2000, Iraq decided it would no longer abide the PetroDollar protocol. It deposited its Oil for Food revenues, $10B, in a French bank, effectively sidestepping PetroDollar recycling.[6] The US made plans for war (without the support of the French predictably) and invaded to protect our national security (even if the cited claims of WMD didn’t pan out, this was nevertheless true since demand for dollars is the cornerstone of our economic security and any threat to that had to be dealt with in order to avoid very severe economic consequences).
Once he took office and was “briefed”, Pres. Obama tempered his anti-war stance, taking the same pragmatic approach the last 6 presidents have taken; namely expanding our military influence to “protect our national interests”. War is, unfortunately, the only way to ensure the survival of the current protocol. We are admittedly unequal beneficiaries and other nations and groups of nations don’t think it’s fair. Do we care? Not so much. We protect the golden goose with Machiavellian zeal.
Arguments about the morality or even advisability of such arrangements notwithstanding, we as a nation are on the downside of world domination. Agreements are being struck almost daily between individual nations to weaken our position. China is buying oil from Nigeria, Venezuela, Iran, and other American antagonists to avoid PetroDollar recycling back to the US. Proposals are being made for replacement of the dollar as world currency standard with a basket of currencies. The chorus of calls for uniform global monetary control is widening. All of these actions will cumulatively weaken demand for our largest and most important export (dollar inflation) and lead to a severe correction based not on loss of manufacturing, decreased productivity, or domestic natural resource availability, but solely on reduced demand for the dollar. The inertia of four decades of militant economic warfare is extremely difficult to unwind but it is happening, largely against our will. It is clear that, for the United States, this will be a painful process.
We must understand the results of this changing economic paradigm:
1. Continued and magnified susceptibility to increased volatility in resource prices as a result of cartel pricing of exports to the US and political manipulations aimed at further damaging our world dominance.
2. Shifting to a defensive domestic security posture rather than our current preemptive military posture will surely reduce our bargaining power in many political and trade agreements as the credible threat of attack or promise of a protective presence abroad is, out of necessity, weakened.
3. We will no longer be able to rely on the sweat and natural resources of other nations for our prosperity. In order to regain our place as a formidable world power while turning away from aggressive militarism and economic warfare, we will need to exploit what domestic resources are available to us, including: cumulative technological advantages, natural resources, consumer demand for goods, and competitive free markets.
Even with a comprehensive market transition to greater domestic resource exploitation and alternative energy development, we will likely still experience a severe stagflation (inflationary interest rates as a result of crippling debt payments, hefty entitlement payments, and fewer foreign treasury purchases; coupled with negative consumption sentiment and diminished liquidity).
A Prescription for Change
The only way to reduce the pain of contraction of demand for US Dollars is to produce, exploit, and develop domestically enough goods, services, and natural resources to equal the margin (exported inflation, imported prosperity) we currently make from foreign oil contracts; in combination with decreasing the size and scope of government along with future entitlement spending. This presupposes the ability to provide for our own as well as foreign demand. Currently our stripped-down manufacturing base, while highly productive (efficient), does not produce enough goods to make up the difference for decreasing dollar demand, as our current account deficit today clearly attests. We’ve become primarily a service-based economy (even though much of it has been outsourced) with little opportunity for importing a profit margin against our material exports. We not only need to recognize what’s coming, but we need to move towards what’s next.
The American tradition of innovation and foresight needs to be rekindled towards a more positive future. This needs to begin with getting “our own house in order”.
The Lord works from the inside out. The world works from the outside in. The world would take people out of the slums. Christ takes the slums out of people, and then they take themselves out of the slums. The world would mold men, who then change their environment. The world would shape human behavior, but Christ can change human nature.
Our “nature” for the last forty years or more has been to look “outside in” for our prosperity. This has made us susceptible to forces outside of our direct control absent the deployment of military muscle to secure “national interests”. It is time to scale back the empire and capitalize on our native strengths to rebuild a healthy republic and domestic economy from the “inside out”; the hope being that, in time, our greatest export will be freedom – not by coercion, but through the medium of economic prosperity and peace.Ezra Taft Benson, “Born of God”, Ensign 1985
Here’s what I recommend (lowest hanging fruit first):
1) Bring home foreign military forces and reduce military budgets. Redeploy a modest percentage of these forces to defending our own shores and borders. Be the strongest, best defended nation in the world. Stay humble and commited to just war doctrine as outlined in the Book of Mormon[7]. Stop meddling in the internal affairs of sovereign nations.
“It will not be by sword or gun that this kingdom will roll on.”
2) Appraise and formulate a plan for responsibly utilizing our native natural resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This is largely a short-term stop-gap, but it is well-established that the US is one of the most resource-rich nations in the world and it is a matter of genuine national security that we not only have a strategic reserve of oil, but the infrastructure to support its replenishment. To be economically sustainable, these measures would need to be accompanied by development of alternative energy sources. Our dependence on fossil fuels has been artificially encouraged and subsidized by the above trading protocols and their many vested interests. As these disappear, we’ll likely see price inflation in oil. This will be a market signal and impetus for private industry to aggressively pursue alternative energy sources and utilization methods such as tidal, solar, wind, geothermal, shale oil extraction, fuel cells, nano-biological, electromagnetic, etc.Joseph Smith
3) Dramatically decrease the size and scope of the federal government through elimination of services and departments that do not provide directly for the protection of life, liberty, and property. To avoid massive human casualty as a result of being weaned from our current level of state dependence, we’ll need to phase out gradually, particularly in the case of entitlement spending, while at the same time shifting to local resource utilization (family, churches, civic organizations, charities). The very idea of Christian charity has taken a beating due to its being thoroughly, and rather poorly, co-opted by government. It won’t be resurrected overnight.
4) Eliminate the income tax and institute a consumption tax which at least respects our right to choose whether to spend. I know…it’s not ideal. Many times in the Book of Mormon the subject of taxation is broached[8] and it’s always cast negatively. I’m the last person to advocate “just a little bit of evil”, but just as Adam and Eve were faced with choosing the lesser of two evils (partaking of the fruit with its consequent physical and spiritual death, or disobeying the commandment to multiply), it has to be acknowledged that we live in a fallen world and as long as we are given a roadmap for redemption, we can put up with a little injustice (see: Declaration of Independence). The very relevancy of taxation has been called into question given the Federal Reserve Bank’s power to print money at will, but with the US Dollars decline as the currency standard of the world, the power to continue printing will be diminished and we’ll still need a source of income during the transition period to provide for basic services (see also #6 below). The elimination of direct taxation altogether should certainly be pursued later.
5) Eliminate all tariffs immediately. While some damage may be done temporarily to domestic manufacturing, the elimination of direct taxation should help to dissipate the effect of uneven trade arrangements or eliminate foreign import tariffs altogether. Further, the cost of consumer goods will decrease for the large majority of Americans helping them weather economic turmoil and giving them more money to spend. Profit margins for retailers could conceivably increase leading to more workers being hired. A necessary corollary to such an action is the elimination of all subsidies to farmers, industries, and special interests, licensure requirements, value-added taxes, and other barriers to entry & consumption.
6) Eliminate the Federal Reserve Bank and the FDIC stop loss for commercial banking. Doing so will force consumers to evaluate banks in the same light as they would any investment advisor/broker. Banks will be forced to compete for a limited pool of resource capital instead of having a compliant printing press in the Fed supply them with whatever funds they needed to support their ultra-risky bets. This will eliminate the systemic risks of having highly leveraged institutions rely upon the “too big to fail” doctrine of this and prior administrations. They’re on their own and so are we. Caveat emptor. Choose wisely where you put your money. Embarking upon new ventures and investments with more skin in the game can only mean better outcomes for banks, entrepreneurs, and taxpayers.
The concept of "peak oil" has been avoided in this essay as it's not entirely germane or even subjective. However, we can learn something from the dialogue surrounding peak oil. A definition of the concept is the point of highest output after which further extraction requires greater marginal input of energy. The United States passed "peak power" long ago and has been on a desperately escalating warpath to consolidate what is left ever since. We've followed the example of prior empires - increasing and flexing our military might in the hopes of procrastinating an unavoidable judgment. Our power is depleting rapidly.
Making the transition to a more honest, humble, independent economic system from our current exploitative posture can either be accepted willingly or forced upon us by processes already well under way. The world will not abide it much longer. In the interest of lessening the economic pain associated with this transition, I suggest we adopt the above recommendations. There will come a tipping point where the benefits and feasibility of doing so will diminish. The time to act is now.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_system
[2] What Has Government Done To Our Money, IV. The Monetary Breakdown of the West, Murray N. Rothbard, http://mises.org/money/4s5.asp
[3] For further information on recent flow of PetroDollars back to the United States, see: Recycling PetroDollars, Matthew Higgins, Thomas Klitgaard, and Robert Lerman, Fed. Res. Bank of NY Publications, June 2006 http://www.ny.frb.org/research/current_issues/ci12-9/ci12-9.html
[4] German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, Nov. 2010
[5] http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HC10Ak01.html
[6] PetroDollar Warfare, William R. Clark, 2005
[7] D&C 98:16, 23-48; Alma 43 & 48; “First Presidency Message” April & Oct. 1942
[8] Mosiah 2, 11, 19; Ether 10; et.al.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)