Does it take a Bigot?

Before I post this blog, I want to inform the reader that I speak only for myself. Do not take my views as, necessarily, the views of many people in the Tea Party Movement.

Recently, there have been several media attacks against Tea Party organizations. I have explained the basis for these attacks in my blogs entitled “Understanding Obama”, “The Altruism Bomb” and “Whose Shilling for Dictatorship?” to name a few. Finally, some American citizens have stated openly that President Obama is a socialist. More and more intelligent people are saying it. This is progress for the fight against slavery. But, in my opinion, the truth is that he is destroying the capitalist system and replacing it with a fascist dictatorship.

One point the left keeps making is that it represents the height of bigotry to connect Barack Obama to Adolph Hitler. They claim that only a bigot would make such a connection. I say we are in the “smiley face” stage of the coming dictatorship, when the leader must make us think he is really just a nice person who loves his country and wants to make a better world. This is the stage when the killer disarms his intended victim so he can strike.

Leftists all over the country are howling at people who think that the Obama administration is moving us toward a fascist state. Yet, I’m certain that many responsible people have been thinking similar thoughts and they wonder at what Dr. Leonard Peikoff called “The Ominous Parallels” between post-Weimar Germany and our country in his famous book.

You should wonder, like me, why, even today, we have a tremendous curiosity about Nazi Germany. Thousands of documentaries have been made about Hitler and the Nazis during the 65 years since we defeated them in World War II. We ask ourselves, how did this madman manage to fool one of the most advanced and sophisticated cultures in history? Remember, we are an advanced and sophisticated culture too. How did he get away with his blind barbarous murder of innocents? Is this sort of thing in our future? Why didn’t anyone stop him as he gained more and more power? No one seems able to stop President Obama while his policies increase government power. How was he able to just take over and rule by decree? President Obama seems to be making lots of unilateral rulings too. Why did the Germans allow Hitler to violate the rule of law? Why are we allowing President Obama to violate the rule of law?

We tell ourselves that we want to understand what caused Hitler’s ascendancy so we don’t repeat the same mistakes. Dr. Leonard Peikoff has told us about the basic premises of the Nazis and how they exploited the cultured philosophy of the Germans. He tells us of their view of morality, that they considered proper action to be based in sacrifice. He tells us of their collectivism, and how they tied German morality to sacrifice for the collective. He tells us of the Nazi’s aversion for capitalism and how they used anti-capitalism in order to denigrate, isolate and murder the Jews. And he tells us of the various ideas and principles that enabled the Nazis to argue for dictatorship. In fact, the book is peppered with quotes from Hitler and leading intellectuals of the age that sound remarkably similar to the ideas being broadcast today in the media.

Today’s intellectual and political establishment, like that of the Nazis, practices a grim pragmatism that sees all issues and events as merely about politics. They tell us that those who question the administration just hate the President. They tell us that in our time, in our country, it is not possible for an American leader to be a fascist.

While the Nazi’s preached sacrifice as the highest ideal, President Obama speaks of shared sacrifice as the highest ideal. While the Nazi’s preached anti-capitalism and denigrated successful Jewish businessmen and intellectuals, President Obama preaches anti-capitalism and promises to make the rich pay more taxes (and he is thought to favor the Palestinians and Iranians over the Jews). While the Nazis created emergencies in order to justify their pursuit of dictatorial power, President Obama proclaims numerous emergencies that justify immediate action without the support of law or the Constitution. While the Nazis sought out large industrial enterprises to help build its massive army, President Obama seeks out large industrial enterprises to fight a "collective" war against carbon emissions. While the Nazis used propaganda to justify their power grabs, President Obama uses a compliant and propagandistic media to keep the facts from reaching the public. While the Nazis sought to enlist and educate youth in Nazi principles, President Obama uses the educational system to teach young people that the Democrats are cool and the Republicans are in the pay of capitalists. And he suggests that young people should choose to serve (sacrifice) for the sake of the collective rather than pursue productive careers.

The left tells us, through countless articles and blogs, that using the “fascist” charge is a vicious political slur. They want to ensure that the American people do not discover that the term is really a description of a sinister political and economic system that has destroyed several societies. Fascism is a political and economic system that allows private property but determines, through government, how that property will be used. They don’t want you to know that fascism is the actual system that we have in our nation today. They are afraid that if you recognized it, you will reject them wholesale.

And they don’t want you to predict the future. If you truly knew the direction in which they are taking us you will see the coming nightmare. You see, fascism requires an evil enemy…the group or person who is to be made responsible for all the “emergencies” that the fascists promise to fix. Fascism needs you to hate this enemy and see him as someone who must be crushed (as the Nazis crushed the Jews). The enemy who the fascists offer up for you will be the successful, the rich and the intelligent. They need you to hate this person so they (the fascists) can make you into slaves. And since this enemy is really the individual who provides value in society, you are destined to starve when he is destroyed. This is the future they don’t want you to predict.

We are in the midst of a new McCarthy era. Once again, the fighters for freedom are being denigrated and disenfranchised in order to protect the advance of tyranny. Today, they call us bigots and racists in order to silence our voices. Today, in the midst of the one administration that has gained unprecedented control over our lives, they tell us everything is getting better, nothing really has changed and it is a crime to say that our leaders are fascists.

This effort to silence and discredit the Tea Party protesters has nothing to do with black and white, Democrat or Republican; it is an effort to bury the individual rights for which the protesters stand. It is an effort to establish a fascist dictatorship.

There I’ve said it and I won’t take it back.

Does it take a bigot to see the truth today?

My Community Organizer

Below is a fictional scenario. This scenario may be starting now all over our country and may be the outcome of the strategies being put into effect by President Obama. It is happening under the guise of creating a better world, but it requires the acceptance of the idea of collectivism which has historically been a very destructive idea. The beginning stages today involve the government’s takeover of financing of all college loans and the government's creation of massive government-funded volunteer programs. It represents a future that must not become reality.

I received a visit today from a disheveled young man who asked me if I would support President Obama’s plans for healthcare. I asked him which organization he represented and he said that he had just graduated from college with a political science degree and was being considered for the post of community organizer of the local “Citizens” group.

I told him that I disagreed with the government being responsible for health care. He told me that was a lie; that the health care program would only provide more choice for Americans.

I shut the door in his face.

Fast Forward:

I received a visit today from the same young man who had come before. He was now wearing a suit and had cut his hair to look more “business-like.” He told me that he was now the local community organizer and he wanted to sign people up to come to an event supporting the President’s Cap and Trade Bill. He asked me if I wanted a cleaner planet. I told him “No”; that I disagreed with the President’s policies on climate change and didn’t think it was necessary for the government to interfere in our energy choices.

He told me that was a lie; that the President was only trying to be a good global citizen of the planet.

I shut the door in his face.

Fast Forward:

I received a visit today from a man who asked me to volunteer for the local Citizens group. They were gathering over the weekend to clean up the local homeless shelter. He stated that we should all volunteer to help the homeless. I told him this was a free country and I did not have to volunteer for anything. He asked me if I cared for the homeless. I told him I had more important things to do. He told me that the homeless should be more important than anything. They are homeless, he said, because of the greed of big corporations.

I began to shut the door in his face and he stuck his foot in the door. He told me that I was being talked about by other volunteers, it was being said I was not a good citizen and there were certain reports being made about me.

I planted my hand firmly on his chest and pushed him away from my door and closed it.

Fast Forward:

I received a visit today from our community organizer. He told me he was collecting information about every home in order to determine what the community group could do to improve the neighborhood. He asked me if it was ok if he took a walk around my home to take some notes. I told him “No”. He said that he had an order from the mayor to conduct the survey. I shut the door in his face and watched him as he took a walk around my property and made notes on a clipboard.

Fast Forward:

I received a visit from my community organizer and was told that he was collecting information about the inside of every home to assess whether there were any possible conditions that might contribute to disease in the neighborhood. He showed me an order from the mayor that authorized him to conduct the survey. I tried to shut the door in his face but he wedged his body in the door and stopped it from closing. He told me the survey was mandatory and was for the good of the community. He pushed me back and I fell onto the floor. He came into my home and began taking notes. After he finished, he told me he would be back.

Fast Forward:

I received a visit from my community organizer and was told that the local women’s shelter needed a television set. He reminded me that during his last visit he had noticed I had a nice television set. He wanted to know if I’d like to donate it to the shelter and I said “No.” He told me that I was being very anti-social and that the entire neighborhood hated me for being so negative about having a better community. I told him that this was a free country and he told me that I was being old fashioned.

Fast Forward:

I came home from work to find 10 people in front of my house carrying signs. They began yelling at me that I was anti-social. One of the signs said that “Anti-social behavior is strictly punished.” Another said, “We are watching you.” Another said, “Obama wants you.” I looked at the community organizer and he said, “It may be mean but it is very clever.”

When I got into my house I noticed that my television set was gone.

Fast Forward:

I received a visit from my community organizer and he told me that his previous visit had discovered some violations in my home and that he had gotten a court order to evict me and confiscate my possessions for the sale of the neighborhood. He was going to move a family into my home that had a more “socially acceptable” attitude. He told me that he had talked to my boss and they had fired me from my job and I had 30 minutes to get out of the neighborhood. I protested that I had rights and he said that no one had rights who was unwilling to help others.

I asked, “Who’s going to help me now that I’m homeless?” He told me I should have thought about that the first time I was asked to volunteer. He pointed to the local highway and said there were some places under the overpass.

You may think the above could not happen here. I’d like to point out that similar things have taken place in other countries when the government was empowered to impose “collective” solutions for individual problems. Collectivism empowers a government to destroy any individual who is not willing to sacrifice his time, energy and property to the collective.

Collectivism invalidates individual rights, contract rights and property rights. It creates a government with no limits. Under the guise of making better communities, collectivism demands sacrifice and, through this demand, destroys society and the basis of civil cooperation. In a collectivist society, all citizens are required to do what the government demands or suffer the ostracism that goes with “anti-social” behavior. Beware of community organizers.

Certainly, many people think that the above scenario betrays a tinge of paranoia and fear about what are often considered valuable programs that make for a better community. But I remember a time when the idea of the government doing anything other than defending the rights enumerated in the Constitution was a matter for grave concern. Today, many of us have been indoctrinated to accept the idea that the government is our caretaker rather than our protector. We've taken the idea of "the common good" and used it to empower government to do, at first, benign things, while we set the precedent that opens the door for the use of coercive force to expropriate our time, energy and property. Do we really want to lose our freedoms? When we get beyond benign things like cleaning homeless shelters, we may not like what we are required to do.

You may not agree, but I think it is true that Barack Obama is the leader of a totalitarian movement. Anyone who pushes a large number of collectivist programs, like those pushed by the President, who demands that we impose those programs without question, without debate, without even reading the bills, as a matter of historical timeliness ("Now's the time..."), is trying to deceive us; is trying to bring totalitarian control without giving us the time or the right to stop it. Anyone who denigrates and belittles principled opposition, who claims that such opposition is nothing more than political obstruction, cannot have our best interests at heart. In her famous book, Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, she writes:

“Totalitarian movements are mass organizations of atomized, isolated individuals. Compared with all other parties and movements, their most conspicuous external characteristic is their demand for total, unrestricted, unconditional, and unalterable loyalty of the individual members. This demand is made by the leaders of totalitarian movements even before they seize power. It usually precedes the total organization of the country under their actual rule and it follows from the claim of their ideologies that their organization will encompass, in due course, the entire human race.”(1)

There is hope. We can stop the future that Obama wants for us, the organized community-based collectivism that will make slaves or homeless people of us all. If we do not stop it we will be plunged into decades of resistance and drudgery that will destroy many lives. As Arendt says:

“Nothing is more characteristic of the totalitarian movements in general and of the quality of fame of their leaders in particular than the starling swiftness with which they are forgotten and the startling ease with which they can be replaced.”(2)

(1) Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt, Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich
(2) Ibid

Plucking Out the Parasites

The criminal who presumes he has a right to cheat others out of their property is not so different from the professional parasites who ask for handouts from the government. The criminal is only more honest in his hatred of those who "presume" to own property that he can easily take.

Consider the “incrementalist” approach taken by many radicals today. Their goal is to establish the ideological framework (economically and educationally) for a complete radical change of our society; they want to start with small steps that first establish the principle that it is proper to “adjust” capitalism for the sake of the poor. They want to move toward ever larger government intrusions into our lives until they’ve stressed the system enough to collapse. Then, with the groundwork established, they’ll invalidate the Constitution, kill their enemies and begin their reign. Incrementalism will make the people too ignorant to challenge their authority since the people won’t notice that the small steps were part of a pattern leading to a complete takeover.

Along the way, they must destroy capitalism. They know, from history, that capitalism improves the lives of people. A happy, affluent people will not want to lose the economic and Constitutional foundations that create their good lives; so their prosperity has to be reduced slowly until they are no longer happy. Re-distribution is the means toward reaching this goal. Re-distribution is not the goal. The destruction of capitalism is the goal.

Capitalism must be destroyed because it is too good. So they promise affluence over the next few years while they chip away at that affluence through re-distribution. When the economy falters, they will tell us it is because man is too greedy; so the solution is more re-distribution. The strategy against affluence continues. Eventually, people will be so poor and so disenchanted with capitalism, that it will be willingly discarded.

This strategy requires that young people be educated as anti-capitalists. Toward this goal, businesspeople are portrayed as concerned with getting money at any cost. The caricature of an evil monster with distorted face and ugly nose who is interested only in exploiting the innocent for the sake of jewels and gold is just that; a caricature. The businessperson in a capitalist country is you and me, people who have worked our way up and done it through honest work and honest trade; people whose genius has been released through the possibility of living a better life.

The radicals, through their anti-capitalist propaganda in our schools and in the media, have placed businesspeople in a position where regulations, rules and arbitrary standards make it difficult to be honest. This is part of their strategy to corrupt all values, especially economic values. Government intrusions allow men who would otherwise be criminals a chance to legitimize their plunder by controlling and manipulating government bureaucrats. They seek to portray themselves as builders who care passionately for people. The truth is, in order for these radicals to “care” for others, they need the money made by honest people.

And this is where the Tea Party protesters come in. We are made up of producers who are being denigrated and minimized by media and government spokespeople…because we are the very people who provide the banquet for the professional parasites. They want us to think of ourselves as a minority of slaves that has no real power. They want us to feel guilty for defending capitalism.

What happens if we refuse to accept the guilt? What happens if we stand up for our right to prosper and succeed? What happens if we withdraw our sanction from these parasites? What happens if we refuse to provide the money for all these government boondoggles and social engineering schemes? What happens if we refuse to give power to professional thieves?

What happens?

They lose the ability to control the debate. They lose the docile slaves they thought they were educating. When men refuse to buy into the idea of service to the collective, when they stand up for their right to pursue happiness, the professional parasites will lose their university seats, their government jobs, their grants and their stimulus bills. If men refuse to be enslaved in their own minds, then the schemes of the parasites will not work.

What they don’t realize is that the parasite always dies when the host plucks him out.

Moral Authority

This article is about moral authority and how it influences people. What is moral authority? Who has it and why?

Moral authority is a major factor in many societies. It is the idea that one individual should be given the right to speak for and judge all others in a given group. Religious leaders, politicians and business leaders have tried to gain moral authority in order to inspire people to work toward a particular cause that they promote. Their moral authority testifies to the value and importance of their ideas and exhorts people to participate in the grand plan. Here are a few statements made by some of history’s most influential moral authorities:

“There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of the Fatherland.”[1]

and

"It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole.., that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual.... "

"This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... The basic attitude from which such activity arises, we call—to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness—idealism. By this we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men."[2]

and

“We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another — that we cannot measure the greatness of our society by the strongest and richest of us, but we have to measure our greatness by the least of these. That we have to compromise and sacrifice for one another in order to get things done.”[3]

and

“When you’re really trying to make serious change, you don’t want people to get caught up in emotion because change isn’t emotion. … Its real work and organization and strategy.. that’s just the truth of it. I mean, you pull people in with inspiration, but then you have to roll up your sleeves and you’ve got to make sacrifices and you have got to have structure.”[4]

and

“The wise and virtuous man is at all times willing that his own private interest should be sacrificed to the public interest of his own particular order or society.”[5]

and

“We demand that the State shall make it its first duty to promote the industry and livelihood of citizens…. We demand extensive development of provision for old age. We demand creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class…. We demand development of the gifted children of poor parents, whatever their class or occupation, at the expense of the State. The state must see to raising the standard of health in the nation….”[6]

Moral authority is fostered, most often, by people that we trust. Yet, sometimes, charlatans define a cause and decide to seek the moral authority that would enable them to obtain participation in their cause. Religious charlatans, and even leaders of nations, often use the language of moral authority in order to steer men in a direction of their choosing.

The tactic behind many political movements is to muster the moral authority that will enable them to obtain the support of a large number of people and, presumably, accomplish much good. The theory is that a group of people, working together, and sacrificing their time, money and energy, can create a better world. According to this view, collective goals pursued by collective action mean good works and tangible results. If we all get together, they think, we can solve the world’s problems. How many times have we heard that?

Moral authorities also tell us that selfishness and greed are the enemies of mankind...and they should be punished for the harm they do. The problem in the world, the thinking goes, is that some people do not want to participate in collective action toward collective goals. These few, not only cause the world’s problems, they also refuse to participate in working to solve them. Our moral authorities are perceptive enough to see this, and for members of the collective, it makes sense.

A person with moral authority, because he is given much power and a position of trust, has the ability to affect the lives of people in significant ways. He gives beautiful speeches, uses eloquent phrases and has learned the skills necessary to convince millions to go along with him toward social justice and equality. The goal is utopia.

Yet, the individual, the joiner in collective goals, gives up his own ability to judge what is moral. The person granted moral authority is considered to be more studied and with a superior ability to decide for the group. In many cases, this unique, superior knowledge comes as a revelation from God. At other times, it comes from his love of humanity and/or his past suffering for the people.

Indeed, moral authority is an extremely powerful strategic tool in a variety of areas. For instance, in war, if the general of one army is seen to be a great leader and a powerful moral agent, that fact alone may intimidate an opposing army and tilt the balance of victory. The astute general will use that power, not only to intimidate his opposition, but to motivate his own soldiers.

The god that a particular army worships may also be a strategic advantage. If that god is seen as powerful and capable of intervening in the events of the war, he could have a powerful influence on both sides. Here an astute general will do all he can to convince the soldiers of both sides of the power of his special God.

Oftentimes, leaders with moral authority use that authority to disarm dissent. Anyone who questions the moral authority of a leader is branded as evil and subversive, an enemy who wants to stop the progress of the group…the group cannot be wrong.

Why do moral authorities always talk about the need for sacrifice? Why do their goals always involve people sacrificing their own wishes and desires for the group? This is because the idea of sacrifice itself has a tremendous moral authority. Today we call it altruism but it is essentially the view that it is good to live for others. The leader with moral authority appeals to victims who have been oppressed by the self-interested enemy and he declares himself to be fighting for the downtrodden and helpless. This gives him tremendous credibility and power among people who don’t want to think too much…who would rather see the riches given to them instead of earned by them.

Income re-distribution is altruism applied to the income of working people. Those who produce goods and services that people want are required to give up part of their income for the sake of others who are not able to produce as much. The moral authority who advocates this idea thinks that it makes everything better to have income re-distribution.

One moral authority put it like this:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”[7]

and another said:

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody. If you’ve got a plumbing business, you’re gonna be better off if you’ve got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."[8]

But there are some people who understand that the above words are merely empty promises. The idea of altruism, of sacrifice, makes it possible for people to declare that it is moral to re-distribute wealth - but no one has bothered to look at history to see if wealth is ever created in a society based upon that principle. No one has analyzed the Soviet Union, Fascist Italy, Communist China, Socialist England, New Harmony, Indiana and a whole host of other utopian failed societies to see if altruism and collectivism actually made things better. In fact, these societies experienced a progressive decline into collective poverty because they disenfranchised the productive (which forced them to produce less) and enfranchised the less productive (which encouraged them to produce nothing) - while the entire group descended into bickering and finger-pointing. Yet, even after a whole century based upon that premise, we are still promised affluence and better lives if only we would sacrifice for the vision.

Yet, some utopians understand that utopia is not the goal of re-distribution. Words like “sacrifice for the common good” are merely code words used to obtain power, to deceive people…just like in the societies mentioned above. One advocate of collective action said it this way:

"You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments."[9]

Re-distribution/sacrifice/altruism continues to be the motive power behind the advance of fascism. Fascism is the control of the nation by the politicians; it is a society where the citizens own most of the property but the politicians dictate the social goals toward which the property owners should work. In this system, the government manipulates certain (successful) enterprises or industries in order to re-distribute income to government favorites. Whenever government manipulation forces a particular enterprise to fail, it rescues the enterprise and takes it over - using money it has extorted or stolen from other productive sectors of the economy. Fascist politicians think they are too smart to fail...as did Hitler and Mussolini. When they bankrupt a country, they enlist further support by starting wars.

Collectivism and altruism are the stock in trade of fascist politicians; the result historically has always been dilatory acquiescence (slavery) or revolutionary dissent (concentration camps and/or armed struggle). In either case, destruction was the result. Along the path toward fascism you will find, strewn along the side, burned out factories and homes, bombed cities, decaying concentration camps engaged in genocide and groups that destroyed each other out of hatred. You see victims…not utopia. The only thing that fascism destroys is the people. After it has reached its destructive goal, its leaders commit suicide or are punished by the people they have exploited. This is the path upon which the Obama administration and its moral authority are taking us . I've said it...history will prove me right...my children and yours will be the pebbles ground under to make up this path. Do you really want that?

Moral authority, and the blind acceptance of moral authorities, is the all-consuming cancer on our society. It is the idea that kills the intellects of millions of people and opens them to the exploitation of fascists like Hitler and Obama. When we give moral authority to any individual leader, we give up the responsibility that each of us has to be moral, the responsibility we have to judge and question our leaders; and we allow these leaders to turn us against each other. There should be no moral authority over any individual except the individual.

[1] http://quotations.about.com/od/morepeople/a/Hitler1.htm
[2] Speeches of Adolf Hitler, quoted by Dr. Leonard Peikoff, “Ominous Parallels”
[3] Michelle Obama, http://www.veerite.com/favorite-barack-obama-quotes/
[4] Michelle Obama, http://www.woopidoo.com/business_quotes/sacrifice-quotes.htm
[5] Adam Smith, “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” quoted by Dr. Leonard Peikoff in “The Ominous Parallels”
[6] “Twenty-Five Points”, Nazi Party, 1920, quoted by Dr. Leonard Peikoff in “The Ominous Parallels”
[7] Karl Marx, 'Critique of the Gotha Program'
[8] Barack Obama, conversation with Joe the Plumber
[9] Saul Alinsky “Rules for Radicals”

The Peoples' Great Republic

I wrote this poem in the mid-1970s.
Was I prophetic?

The sky is still so blue here,
and the earth is still quite green.
That today could come from yesterday
no one could have then foreseen.
The sun should not be shining
upon any grassy scene.
There is nothing good to live for
since the ego quarantine.

The People's Great Republic
is but someone's pretty dream.
But it does not follow quite that way.
It is but a bad regime.
The people never sensed that
it was someone's wretched scheme
to bind all men to masters
and to steal their self-esteem.

The People's Great Republic
overruns with death's disease.
A man knows not and never knows
the men whom he must please.
And the whims of all his leaders
float like dust upon the breeze.
But the words of their commandments
are like roots of giant trees.

The People's Great Republic
is but gangster rule gone wild.
It is full of punks and pipers
and of Hitlers all self-styled.
And the people all know nothing.
But although they've been defiled,
they remember with affection
when their leader turned and smiled.

The People's Great Republic
is but mindlessness berserk.
While they tie each man to every man,
they make sure that he will work.
That no man should rise to greatness
is a massive statist quirk.
They give the loam to farming men
and the numbers to the clerk.

The People's Great Republic
keeps the power to its own.
It keeps men bound in silence
and no coup has ever grown.
And to rule with fear is their one way
that they stay upon their throne.
And to turn men on each other
makes the state into a stone.

Copyright 2009 Robert Villegas

The Savages

The savages
are standing 'round the tree,
after killing the man
who planted it,
all clamoring for a pear,
all screaming for a share,
because, they say,
they've been oppressed.

The savages
will whine about their need,
with not the sense
to save the seed.

Copyright 2009 Robert Villegas

The Individual vs. the Collective

He stood one day upon a hill.
The crowd was standing very still.
He said something that startled them.
He said it once and then again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”

The crowd, of course, then drew away.
Some asked with fear, “What did he say?
He said a word we do not know.
Quick, I think we’d better go.
He may be insane.
He may be insane.”

His structured face was very proud.
His eyes were blue without a cloud.
He looked around at mindless men.
He said it once and then again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”

A scared, confused young man then came;
with eyes that held a hint of shame.
he reassured the startled throng.
“Please, now folks, let’s move along.
This man is insane.
This man is insane.”

The bloody soldiers came at once.
Their words were made of mindless grunts.
“We’ve found the hated enemy,
a man with his own sovereignty.
He must be insane.
He must be insane.”

The man, of course, made his escape.
The soldiers stood around agape.
They looked off to the distance when
they heard it once and then again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”

The scared, confused young man then said,
“That man has lost his bloody head.
Yes, he is full of many words.
They fly inside his head like birds.
He must be insane.
He must be insane.”

He must have caught some mind’s disease.
We must prevent his mindless pleas.
If he meets many people then
those hateful words may ring again.
“I want to be free.
I want to be free.”

Copyright Robert Villegas 2009