Saturday, 1 September 2007

Everything I knew was wrong : A case in point Ronald Reagan

When I was growing up, I belonged to a good family, but a family that struggled to make ends meet. I was taught that socialism was good, that government should look after us and that the rich should be penalised.

However, the reason we were in the state we were, was because of socialism. Our reliance on the state, was keeping us reliant. When Thatcher came along, I was taught to despise her, not because she sold Britain out to the EU like the rest, but because she "took away" our benefits.

Yes it seemed tough at the time, but that reality made me realise that relying on benefits, was a one way route to misery and reliance. Reliance on a body that is totally unreliable WHEN it gets too big. Government is no different to any other organisation, in that the bigger it gets, the harder it is to keep control of. The most ruthless, lying, cheating scum always seem to rise to the top in the end. The whole system becomes a decaying bloated disaster and the people who suffer the most in the end are paradoxically the poor.

So while I can't stand Thatcher for selling my country out to the EU, I have to thank her for cutting back the welfare state at the time, making me determined not to be reliant on the state and becoming a much more independent individual. The fact Blair and now Brown are destroying Britain again, is still partly her fault though. They are following the same EU socialist/communist blueprint that she helped sign Britain up too.

So what about the title of this subject? Where does Ronald Reagan fit in? Well when I was a kid, Thatcher and Reagan were thought of as ideological twins. As a kid I would watch Spitting Image, which while being funny, set ideas in your head about people. To be fair, it did the same for all sides, painting Michael Foot as a senile old buffoon, Kinnock as a ginger loudmouthed windbag and Thatcher as a hard nosed, bordering on fascist cow.

Reagan didn't miss out either and they painted him as a stupid old man, who had lost his marbles. Here is an example of what I mean.



Well while they got the other characters semi right, they had Reagan down badly wrong. That programme set me back years, by making me refuse to see him in a serious light. Remember I was an impressionable kid at the time, but if I had seen this speech below then, I would not have wasted my time on socialism and I certainly would never have voted for Bliar in 1997. Reagan was a man of FREEDOM and limited government. There are very good reason to have limited government and that is to

1) Keep it in check and prevent it from becoming TOO powerful, which in turn ends up in it being corrupted. The exact same principles should probably be applied to all organisations involving human beings.

2) Encourage people to look after themselves, being independent and respect all they have, because they had to work for it. Give people things and they don't respect it. This lack of respect then breeds lack of respect for other things too. Why are the poorer, more reliant areas the ones most blighted by crime and anti-social behaviour? Because it is in the vicious circle of reliance, that KEEPS them poor and prevents them becoming self reliant.

3) The fundamental root of socialism, big government and collectivism (they all go hand in hand), is that the individual is not free, but owned by the collective. This means the collective has a right to tell the individual what to do, take their money and basically confine that individual to an ever tightening set of rules. Now even if you don't care about freedom, and I seriously believe a lot of people are not fully aware of what freedom is and what it means, then you at least expect the "collective" to be fair. What is fair though? Who defines it? Democracy? How can democracy ever work, other than on a very small scale. The more people involved in the decision making, the less influence the individual has on anything. Then we get back to human nature and the fact the people at the top of the collective, become more and more corrupt and controlling.

You actually never have a true collective, just a block that is CONTROLLED by a few people at the top. Look at how communism has turned out throughout the ages. The masses in poverty, being treated badly, with the elites at the top living it up and ignoring the rules the rest of the collective have to obey, under more and more harsh punishment threats. So even if you don't believe in freedom, you have to see that the route to collectivism always and I mean always ends up in the gutter.

Anyway, listen to what the stupid old man Reagan had to say here.



Now Reagan understood where not having freedom isn't a life worth having. He understood that fighting for his nation's freedom, to show it as a beacon to the world was the only way. Yes, this means having a very strong defence to prevent other collective thinking nations trying to absorb the USA, but that does not mean ATTACKING those nations in a pre-emptive way. After all, if you attack another nation, you are trying to impose YOUR way on them!! The only way people can truly have freedom, is if they fight for it themselves. Communism collapsed in the USSR, not because America went in and destroyed it, probably destroying most of the world on its way, but by Russians looking at their underground media and seeing that people in the States had more freedom and wealth than they could ever have. Once the collective mass sees how crappy their lives are, compared to those that are free, how can you fail to want the freedom option?

Yes it takes courage to break the grip of the hive thinking fascists and yes that is what collectivism is too. Fascism and communism are just too sides of the same coin. Both demand that people follow an agenda and both in reality see that agenda set by a few corrupt liars and cheat at the top.

This is why freedom of the individual is the only way. Yes you have to have SOME collective decisions, because we all have to live together at the end of the day, but these have to be limited and pushed to as local a level as possible. One World government is a one way ticket to hell and this it truly the fight we are in now. The EU, the NAU and all the other organisations that are trying to centralise power, making us more and more into slaves have to be defeated.

There is only one person running for the US elections who gets this. That man is Ron Paul! We are having to get our information on Ron Paul via grassroots methods, just as people who have been oppressed have had to throughout history. The fascism most of us are getting may well have the velvet glove on at the moment, but by the day that glove is coming off. Ron Paul winning is ESSENTIAL for the States and the world. The collapse of the EU, NAU and other centralising powers that remove individual liberty is also a battle we HAVE to win.

The collectivists will use any method they can to try and con us into believing we have to give up freedom. Whether this is from the Right Gatekeeper's "Terrorism" or the Left Gatekeeper's "Global Warming". Both methods are designed to scare the individual into a collectivist responses, when in reality people when given freedom, will tend to make the right choices in a voluntary way anyway. You can never have utopia, but at least the individual approach isolates the bad eggs, while collectivism spreads them.

As a last thought, sometimes I think you have to look at films to get some clues of where collectivism leads. The Borg from Startrek, the Empire in Star Wars, you name it. You never see a Libertarian force trying to enslave others, but you sure see them fighting back and eventually winning!

Voting Ron Paul now, will save us a lot of pain in the future!

2 comments:

Fabio Bossi said...

Hi Matt,

do you know this BBC documentary:
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=8372545413887273321

(or search for "the trap bbc").

I don`t agree with all the conclusions but it shows how many "blowbacks" we had to cope with due to our trust in the state and "our" benevolent social engeneers.

Cheerio

Fabio

Matt Davies said...

Hi Fabio,

No I haven't seen this one. I will check it out.

All I know, is if I went around hitting everyone I thought look a bit dodgy, I am pretty sure I would be dead by now.

Pre-emptive action is out of order. Make it clear you are ready to defend yourselves and have the capability to do it, but attacking others first is 100% wrong.

I like the idea of NATO. Voluntary organisation, that says you attack one of us, then you deal with all of us. However, NATO has been abused to attack, when none of it's members have been attacked.