[1-25] of 7827

Posts from E Archer, NYC

E Archer, NYCE Archer, NYC
E Archer, NYC

Why does the average American not know this?

E Archer, NYC

"The Socialist believes individuals in control of themselves and the governing force that promotes this course"  sounds more like individualism.  Does a socialist individual control himself, or does he/she control "themselves" as a group? 

Fred, you do not explain the 'how' of socialism  you explain in general terms that can be applied to libertarians, for example.  The difference between socialism and individualism is that socialists act as a group, where the majority dictates to the minority; whereas individualism places the rights of the individual above the desires of the group  the individual does not have to obey the group. 

The individual has rights he/she is born with  rights are not granted by the group.  What does socialism say about that? What is the "governing force" of Socialism, Fred?

E Archer, NYC

Governments, and rulers of all stripes, need obedient citizens and spend years teaching them "their place."  Ignorant are they that do not seek the truth hidden from them  this is by design.  Schools are the battleground for the minds of the people.  The rich and powerful design the programs to promote their power at the expense of the common people.  The people are taught that they must follow the dictates of the ruling class  true individuality is prohibited.  Ignorant Americans do not know who they are, the power and responsibility they have, the gift of Freedom never before achieved in hundreds of years now being ignored.

How many cover-ups are holding the people hostage?  How many cures have been buried by the medical establishment?  How many usurpations by government?  How many murders and assassinations covered up?  How many elections stolen?  How many lies are being taught in school books?  How many politicians are corrupt?  How many newspapers and TV stations are owned by the ruling classes, and what is their agenda?

The most striking example is the lie of Climate Change.  Without ignorance and constant propaganda, the lie could never stand.  This is being pushed on all the nations by the rulers of the world to subjugate them and the depopulate them.  Power grabs continue in order to fight this phantom, and the Western world is only too happy to play along as people like Al Gore become rich on carbon credits and fluorescent light bulbs.  Now we are seeing the world get squeezed over oil  you can't have any!

Who likes ignorant individuals? Other ignorant individuals, because the price they have paid for the lie is too high  like a losing gambler who keeps doubling down, facing reality is too tough.  A false religion is unfulfilling and disempowering, and that is what the people are fed everyday ... hard.

But pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

E Archer, NYC

Prove it.  Trump lost money.  Unlike Obama who became enormously rich from his donors  2 oceanfront houses in Hawaii and Nantucket worth over $25 million.  The Hawaii property was a gift from a grateful Democrat.

E Archer, NYC

Why?  Because that's the way the rulers like it.  The republic has long since been supplanted with a statist theocracy that appropriates the power of the People with a flick of the pen.  Making the world "safe for democracy" has been the impetus, and voting for the money in the opposition's pocket has become the de facto purpose of 'democracy.'

If you believe in Climate Change, you are ignorant and superstitious.

If you believe in BLM and LGBTQI+, you are ignorant and superstitious.

If you believe white supremacy is the biggest threat to the country, you are ignorant and superstitious.

If you think inflation is NOT caused by government printing trillions in currency, you are ignorant and superstitious.

If you think capitalism is evil and socialism is good, you are ignorant and superstitious.

If you think gender is a concept, use weird pronouns, and cannot admit that sex is biological, you are ignorant and superstitious.

Good question: why?!

E Archer, NYC

No doubt.  Your arrogance is sure to meet with much resistance.  It is the choice between free will and servitude.

E Archer, NYC

"The Socialist says no more playing, the time for constructive labor has arrived."  You are certainly right about that, the socialist claims authority over people and dictates what they may do, what is deemed 'constructive' for the state, no more 'playing around' making your own decisions about what is constructive or not. 

I'm torn as to what this sounds most like, fascism under Hitler or communism under Stalin and Mao (or Xi, Castro, Maduro, Kim, Trudeau, etc.).

E Archer, NYC

If you want people to grow up and take responsibility, the nanny-state is no way to go.  Socialism is a bunch of folks claiming to be the 'adults' (like Fred) in whom the rest of us 'children' are to be under their guidance perpetually.  The nanny-state does not let people grow up, it conditions people to be dependent, so the man with the slop bucket gets voted as swine herder every time.  Socialism is the appropriation of the very spirit of humankind.

E Archer, NYC

I refer to republicans (small 'r') as those that profess a republican form of government, as has been established by the US Constitution.  I refer to a democrat as one who believes that everything is up for vote, majority rules  you have only the rights the leaders have granted and can be as easily taken away.  Whenever a democrat warns of "losing our democracy" they mean losing their power.

E Archer, NYC

Lofty ideals.  I don't have a problem with people pursuing non-violent solutions as their 'way' in life.  The issue is how socialists will 'make it so.' 

A republican knows that morality cannot be legislated and thus works to improve himself and bear witness to the history of the follies of men, so that all of us may learn to avoid the pitfalls.  A democrat (socialist) simply follows the herd — 51 may enslave the 49 if they vote to do so. 

A republican is personally responsible, a democrat can only blame the leaders of the group and to change anything, they need their leader in power. 

A republican respects the rights of others as innate and a faculty of birth.  A democrat only has the rights the group leaders allow — some are 'more equal' than the others.

Socialists favorite slogan is 'change' but never identify what that change is.  "You can make a difference."  Yes, but what difference and should that difference actually be made?  Why?  The common good has been the excuse for every despot, and it is the go-to excuse for totalitarianism all with the help of democrats who have granted themselves the right to vote on how much of your property and labors will go to the state.

The promises of socialism have never and can never be kept.  It is the very trick of socialism to treat a promise as the real thing, but eventually it is just hot air, and power is sucked from the people in exchange for empty promises.  It is plain as day for anyone who is not invested in the lies...

E Archer, NYC

It sounds like you are talking about the spiritual development of the individual, awakening, pursuing truth and harmony with natural law.  And whatever our views may be, the truth is the truth whether we become aware of it or not.  This is referred to as 'the Way,' 'the Tao,' 'the Path,' and 'Dharma' in various religions and philosophies.

These are honorable and worthy pursuits for any person who chooses it.  However, the problem arises when those that claim authority or special status attempt to compel others to follow a specific 'way,' for their own good of course, often for the same reasons, Fred, that you justify your position: 

"I am the only individual versed in what I express, that is explained in fact that I alone possess the maturity for any substantial meaningful human expression, sad to say."

Despotism has reigned for centuries upon that premise.  It is the co-opting of personal power to rule the world.    From the Catholic Church to communism, the power hungry have enslaved the masses to forever tithe to their 'lords' and obey the ruler as an incarnation of Truth itself to whom we all must genuflect.

Socialism and other statist forms of collectivism, serves this hierarchy.  Socialism is a religion to the god of Power; there is no truth, it is whatever we say it is.  The common people are ruled and kept in a state of disempowerment through dumbed-down excuses for why this is for our own good.  We've heard it for the last 3 years as the global authoritarians have compelled the world to inject themselves with experimental gene therapy that has killed (and will kill) millions.  'Climate change' is the rallying cry for socialists world-wide, threatening an Apocalypse if we do not obey (sound familiar?).

We often hear from the devout socialist that real socialism has never been implemented, and then they proceed to define what are in essence Christian ideals.  But bring that up and the vitriol begins showing their very anti-Christian nature and how those professing diplomacy and cooperative life are filled with rage against anyone pointing out their hypocrisy.

E Archer, NYC

Again, Fred, you won't simply explain 'social abilities'  as far as I can tell you are simply talking about honor, integrity, compassion, and simple manners which are all integral in a civilized society.  What you have not included is respect of other people's views and quite frankly the laws that protect their natural born rights. 

I believe you are under the impression that the government 'rules' and therefore laws can be amended to compel behavior of the unbelievers of socialist utopia.  Nothing could be further from the truth in America.  The Bill of Rights does not grant any rights, it specifically prohibits certain 'rule-making' by the government. 

The government cannot compel the people to speak or not speak, to posses arms or not posses arms, to believe a certain ideology or not believe a certain ideology.  The government has been given no authority to regulate any of that.

All of Fred's socialist dreams, cannot be adopted by the government, they are not authorized to do so.

E Archer, NYC

According to Fred, my "psychotic conventional mindset" precludes me from understanding what is meant by "social abilities" so he won't bother.  Somehow NO ONE understands diplomacy, sincerity, purpose, intention, cooperation, productivity except you alone.  Sheesh, who's the psychotic one.  And socialism is NONE of that.  Socialism is collective power claiming power over the individuals that comprise it.  It is the ultimate cultural appropriation of all.

E Archer, NYC

Classic narcissism.  If you can't define a euphemism, it has no meaning to anyone else.  Your motto is but a string of euphemism's meaning something that only you "alone possess the maturity" to comprehend.  Hence you are powerless, cannot lead anyone to your vision, and are indeed alone. 

E Archer, NYC

It is the law for the government: you may not question the right.  The rights are and forever shall be out of the hands of government.  The Constitution does not grant rights  rights are not from government.  Therefore the law for the government is that the government may not question the right  they are not authorized to do so.  They may question the prohibitions, but the very foundation of the republican government (not a democracy) is that people are born with their rights, and the government's job is to protect them and may not write laws that abridge them.  That is the Bill of Rights.

So it is a violation of the Maine Constitution for an elected official to question whether the people have the right or not  they DO, and always will.  If Maine congress people swear to uphold the Maine Constitution then THEY MAY NOT QUESTION THE RIGHT.  Clear as day.

E Archer, NYC

Do you actually realize that your statement does not say anything?  It is filled with jargon that only you know the meaning of.

"Socialism is the vision of social abilities to create" means nothing.  Socialism is socialism, it is not a vision.  What the heck is a 'social ability'?  And how would one create without social abilities? All of us can create, certainly without socialism.

Your motto means nothing, so repeating it over and over does not change anything.  I bet not even an avowed socialist could interpret it.  You are obviously on your own with this, and there is no way for a fellow socialist to join you.

E Archer, NYC

Bullshit.  There are 100+ million gun owners in America.  All should have had some training and many will develop their marksmen skills throughout their life.  Who are the militia?  The people.  It is the American reponsibility to be armed and ready to defend themselves against thieves and murderers, even if they are government officials laying claim to what is not theirs.

E Archer, NYC

Nonsense, Mick.  Crime is highest in gun-controlled cities.  Heck in England these days, knives and machetes are the tools of the criminals  and gun crime still exists even thought guns are illegal.  In the American cities and towns where gun rights are respected, there is very little crime.  Statistics prove over and over again, that an unarmed populace will have higher crime and 'illegal' guns run rampant.  If you want to destroy a city, pass laws that dis-empower the people from taking responsibility for themselves. See NYC, Detroit, Baltimore, SF and other shit-holes.  The government keeps it that way on purpose because victimhood pays off.

E Archer, NYC

Actually, prior to American independence, the King owned all the land in the colonies.  In the British system, no one may own land except the Crown who will grant title to it with conditions, usually a requirement to collect and pay taxes on it.  The Crown may give and may take away because the land is not for sale, it is the King's land, the King's highway, and the King's deer.

For the first time in recent history, a man could lay claim to land, register his land patent, and no one could lay claim to it or tax it, even the government.  This was unheard of throughout Britain and Europe  even today, the Queen owns all the land of every British Commonwealth and it is not for sale, only for lease by title.

I also have not found in the law where a woman could not hold land in allodium.  I think the 'women couldn't own land' argument is based on the understanding of British law at that time.

E Archer, NYC

Provide one example of a people without arms liberating themselves from oppression?  China is literally a slave state.  Hong Kong has been completely disarmed and now have a communist government that they cannot resist.  This is the natural progression of statist rule.  Look at New Zealand, Australia, and Canada all adopting fascism openly, their citizens locked down with mandates and more coming for every leftist cause now.  If you ever wondered how the German people could allow a Hitler to rise up, you are witnessing the technique right now throughout the Western world.

E Archer, NYC

Just another example that power corrupts when people forget the foundational principles of liberty and the responsibility that comes with it.  The American Revolution threw off the monarchy, but we can never expect that the war is over.  The lust for power will never be completely extinguished and we must forever be on our guard from within our own ranks.  It is war still  if you do not see that, you have already been conquered.

E Archer, NYC

Please understand that the Constitutions do not grant rights!!  They are rules for the governments and specify a few red lines that they may not cross ever.  We the People have many, many, more rights than those enumerated in the Constitution.  

E Archer, NYC

Wrong again, the Constitutions state and federal do not grant rights!  We already HAVE the rights. 

The Constitutions are rule books for the government, and to prohibit governments from restricting those rights  even so far as to say the government may not even question this prohibition because the governments have not been granted the right or power to restrict arms in the hands of the people. 

The state Constitutions are modeled after the federal Constitution, and yes, the US Constitution requires states to observe the restriction as well.

E Archer, NYC

What part of "and this right shall never be questioned" is not clear?

E Archer, NYC

Can this be any clearer?

Get a Quote-a-Day!

Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box daily.