Security

  Security and freedom. Two concepts that are often confused. In order to retain freedom, you have to remain insecure. Freedom is ever a precarious thing. Ronald Reagan said, " Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. "  It wasn't a new idea, it wasn't the first mention of this. Adolf Hitler said, " He alone, who owns the youth, gains the future. " The very reason for the Hitler youth movement and the full support of the Nazi party. National Socialist German Workers party is the official name for the ideological mechanism that created that Nazi party. Train the youth to follow the government blindly, without question and remain loyal to that government. And what was the promises made? In it's basic form it was security that was being promised. Really no different than the " chicken in every pot " promise made by Herbert Hoover during his election campaign. But did he ever really say that? The answer is no, he did not. That was attributed to him by the Democratic party during the 1928 presidential campaign. Its' intent was to disparage Hoover, what we call misinformation these days, or fake news if you prefer that description. Doesn't make any difference, they are the same thing. It's true that the Republican party used that phrase in their "advertisements" for the period of Republican prosperity prior to the 1928 campaign. But Hoover himself never used that phrase in any speech he gave. Funny thing is Hoover was more of a Democrat than a Republican when it came to managing the economy. Hoover didn't trust in the free market , instead choosing to tax the wealthy, imposing high tariffs on the importation of goods, and making a deal with the auto makers and Dupont chemical corporations to keep wages at current levels, and not to lay off workers. That was during the great depression and only exasperated that whole situation. Government spending soared and the general population suffered. Hoover was deeply worried about the influence of the labor Unions and so kowtowed to their demands. Security in exchange for freedom. The freedom of the free market was sacrificed. it was a disaster. 

 What are we teaching the younger generation today? Think about that. Who "owns" the youth as Hitler put it? Our youth has slowly been taken by the liberals in this country. The conservative values and traditions being pushed aside. It's a slow process but a steady one. It began, in my opinion, shortly after WW2, at least in earnest it did. Liberalism used to be the bastion of those high priced Universities like Harvard and Yale. There was a reason for that. Those families could afford that. Conservatism is the way of the middle class, those willing to do the manual labor, the hard work to get things done. Those that have traditionally been viewed as, less educated. The educated people get the desk jobs, the management positions, and as a consequence higher salaries. That the way it works. 

 So what changed? Our youth have been taught that you aren't successful unless you have a lot of money. They need that money, to buy stuff from those "educated" folks that own the businesses. It wouldn't do to have a population that just does for themselves, you know, self sufficient, independent thinkers. No, we need to educate those folks, and by doing so create that dependence on others. The only problem is, we will run out of others sooner or later. To solve that problem we import cheap labor. Sound familiar? It should, it is an age old model. At the same time all those "educated" people will support that because, well, they are too educated to do that work! They have a degree! They are just too smart for that. The bottom line has become, money is security. Security dependent upon the stock market, dependent upon the ability to buy stuff. And you do have to have the latest stuff, that's the sign of success. You should never have to deny yourself anything. That's when you insist that everyone else be charitable! You become adept at giving away other peoples money, while retaining your own. You can do that because you're educated. 

 But what of freedom? Is freedom dependent upon security? The answer is no, it is not. Freedom is by nature, insecure. That is why we have to continually guard against those that would subvert our freedom. It's true a society requires government. Government, governance, intent is to limit. It shouldn't restrict  freedom however, it should enable that. Those in a position of power naturally wish to retain that power, indeed  to increase that hold if at all possible. That's one reason for the second amendment, an armed citizenry is a free citizenry. They can not just be bullied into compliance. You have to fight to keep freedom! And it isn't smart to bring a knife to a gunfight. The fight isn't over stuff, it is over freedom to act. Beware a politician offering security. When politicians begin to tell you they will take care of you, that they want is best for you, and that there only concern is for you, beware. You will have to exchange a bit of your freedom in exchange for that security. Yes, it will be taken in small bites, just a nibble here and there so you hardly notice. After a time you even begin to support that. Soon you are convinced you are doing it for others! Yes, you are making a sacrifice for others by surrendering your freedom, but you have security. And yes you will have security until those holding the cards decide to call in the debt. Freedom once surrendered will not be returned without a fight.