By Walid And Theodore Shoebat (Shoebat Sunday Special)
My definition of liberty versus tyranny is simple:
Unity under freedom is the process of uniting individuals that disagree, while Tyranny is the process of forcing everyone to agree – in unison. (Walid Shoebat)
We are either individuals with free will or we are a herd under only the free will of one tyrant.
We, our children, our nation, everyone are being led like herds. The media, the government, and all the socially corrupt are using pressure groups and are daily arm-twisting us to be forcing us to all agree in unison to the corrupt social agendas turning us to the decaying society we see daily.
Why not simply just stand up say NO!
How did this all happen? It happened because we are led to believe that dialogue, education, reasoning, the Constitution, love, and the freedom of speech, will always protect us from the downfall. Reality at times is that our fathers gave us a Second Amendment to ensure that these things are respected, and at times by sheer force, if we must. I am not currently advocating to fight in arms, but if decay continues, arms will be raised against us, where we must defend ourselves.
To make us all collectively like lemmings, to run to and fro, in a fast pace society, we are daily brainwashed to be laden with worship of material goods, we sit behind screens, and we forget that our grandparents had a much better life than we did, where survival was much tougher, but peace and personal joy was had in abundance.
We are pressured to send our children to get an education. The social pressure is overwhelming, and it tugs on us daily, to send our children to what we think are campuses not realizing these are nothing more than spiritual death camps. The holocaust begins, when they insist our children get an associate degree, with loads of psychological and social agendas, when all they want to do is learn something technical from engineering to medicine.
The unwary knows not that there has always been a Shinarian tug with the Biblical proclamation attempting to unite the peoples under a single mindset fighting against individuality and free will. This tug manifested itself in a spiritual struggle between the two camps; individualism and collectivism.
And there are only two. In life, God ordained the two: husband and wife (not husband and husband), parents and children, government and the people, God and Devil, Good and Evil, Peace or War, Frugality or Wild Spending (which our government is also doing), Night and Day, A God Who visited us, or a god who is a pie in the sky, like all the other heathen gods ...
The young minds enter college. They are taught to respect, not the likes of Chesterton or true history but the father of Modern Liberalism Jean-Jacques Rousseau and all the historic revisionism that comes with this lousy so-called education.
At face value, they are told that Rousseau is a Genevan philosopher, writer, and composer of the 18th century. His political philosophy they tell us influenced the Enlightenment in France and across Europe ...
Enlightenment? Ya, sure. The 17th century philosopher Rousseau was a devil in disguise. Rousseau in his book The Social Contract was the major influence for the French Revolution – a revolt that led the literal beheading by guillotine, tens of thousands of French Christians, who disagreed with their version of unity.
Today we sit behind our computer screens, disgusted with ISIS, but romanticize the death of Christians while ignoring these other very educated savages teaching your children greater deaths.
The educated savage, unlike ISIS with their Sharia, these start off with great sounding dogma. Rousseau, long before Karl Marx, called for unity, communalism, socialism and collectivism. He denounced private property and individualism. He aspired to build the ‘body politic’;
“At once, in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of association creates a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly contains votes, and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons formerly took the name of city, and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive, Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself. Those who are associated in it take collectively the name of people, and severally are called citizens, as sharing in the sovereign power, and subjects, as being under the laws of the State.”(01)
America is coming up for an election, the choices are obvious, to become collective or to keep our individual freedom.
This is a crossroad that will determine our destiny as a nation.
Don't kid yourself, nothing is new under the sun, and all supposedly new ideas are cellophane wrapped old ideas. They are continually sold to the lost, in the name of deism and the enlightenment.
Deism is the belief in the existence of a supreme being (it sounds good), but such 'supreme being' does not intervene in the universe. It is all guised under being 'intellectual'. The term 'deism' is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
It is sort of like Allah, a pie in the sky, never had a son, and never came down to earth to interact with humankind. Whoever said that Allah is not worshipped in the West believes in a myth. The name of the deity is meaningless. What we believe as God is what counts.
Under Rousseau there is no individuality or private property:
“EACH member of the community gives himself to it, at the moment of its foundation, just as he is, with all the resources at his command, including the goods he possesses. This act does not make possession, in changing hands, change its nature, and become property in the hands of the Sovereign; [...] For the State, in relation to its members, is master of all their goods by the social contract, which, within the State, is the basis of all rights; but, in relation to other powers, it is so only by the right of the first occupier, which it holds from its members.”(02)