Is there hope for freedom zealots in politics?

We all know polls and surveys can be hopelessly misleading. Their results depend on who is being asked, what is being asked, how it is being asked, when and where it is being asked, even the mindset of the one asking. A logical person never chooses to base actions on poll results. "Objective" surveys vs. "Push" polls is actually a false dichotomy. All surveys and polls might just as well be called "pulls" because they all pull answers from respondents to some degree or another according to their creator's way of categorizing the world.

That said, we don't need a poll or survey to know that Ron Paul's ideas voiced in numerous public speeches as well as television debates aired nationwide have vastly increased the influence of libertarian ideas within the Republican Party. No such wild fire as the Ron Paul fervor could have spread before 2011.

This year the Republican Liberty Caucus, chaired by libertarian Representative Justin Amish of Michigan, led at least 35 libertarian-leaning Congress members in campaigning among fellow Republicans for the leadership candidacy of libertarian Representative Paul Labrador of Idaho. Nothing remotely like this could have occurred in Congress before 2014.

Now we see arising new opportunities for spreading the freedom message. In various states, high level candidates of one of the major parties (which we call the Dictatorship Party) have called for Libertarian Party candidates to be included in their state-wide debates because they imagine libertarian debaters will not suck voters away from their own party, but rather from the Republican Party, the only other party that can beat them in an election. The Dictators recognize the Republican Party's growing libertarian element, and they are thinking "divide and conquer."

But the Dictatorship Party cannot gain from this "allow them in debates" strategy. With two doctrinaire ideologues on the stage, the Dictator and the Libertarian, the contrast will be obvious and the Dictator will no longer be able to disguise his or her dictatorship mentality. At the same time, any mediocre Republican on the stage will shy away from sounding like the Dictator and will thus create a vacuum on the stage into which the Libertarian's view will flood. A voter listening to the debate might enjoy most of what the Libertarian is saying (because mankind's deep inner spirit rejoices over freedom) but will then likely end up voting for the Republican who by now looks less dangerous than the Dictator (and who actually has a chance to win the election).

But libertarians would not have lost (provided they don't sabotage themselves on stage). The overall result of such debates is: the true nature of the Dictatorship Party has been more exposed, the Republican Party has considered some new ideological possibilities, and the Libertarian Party is no longer seen so much as an immature fringe association of idealists who are out-of-touch with reality.

Of course if history is any indicator, Libertarians refraining from sabotaging themselves might be a lot to hope for. But it has to be assumed that the Dictatorship Party wants Libertarians on the debate stage who might actually draw votes away from the other major party, so would not propose such debates in races where the Libertarian candidate was obviously head-in-the-sand or inarticulate. So is there hope?

Those who have been in rapport with the libertarian movement for many years have often been astounded at the Libertarian Party's mind-boggling propensity for reaching the heights of political self-sabotage. Yet the muses of freedom rejoice over progress on the heels of Ron Paul's two recent presidential runs, and in the wake of the Republican Liberty Caucus of Justin Amish and Paul Labrador.

Unlike the Dictatorship Party's message which is guaranteed failure except with lies, trickery, and highly charismatic demagogues, the freedom movement's message washes less charismatic but honest messengers along in its tide. The promise of freedom wields great sweeping power.

For example, Jesus Christ stated (in a wholly unrelated context): "Remind yourself that you are making a declaration of independence in the name of your own freedom. And in your freedom lies the freedom of the world." Even those who haven't the slightest idea of what Jesus is really talking about can read such a statement and feel the infinite motive power of mankind's desire for freedom.

By the way, those lucky ones who do have an inkling of what Jesus is talking about would read the original question of this article and laugh. And while still smiling, they would reply happily: "Why ask about hope, when there is certainty?"


To understand the insane psychology of modern "liberal progressives," read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."


"God's laws will keep your minds at peace, because peace IS His Will, and His laws are established to uphold it. His are the laws of freedom, but yours are the laws of bondage. Since freedom and bondage are irreconcilable, their laws CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TOGETHER. The laws of God work only for your good, and there ARE no other laws beside His. Everything else is merely lawLESS, and therefore chaotic." -Jesus Christ in A Course in Miracles

 
"I think of myself as a freedom zealot."

Libertarians Burned at the Stake

Posted by Christian Prophet | 6/11/2014


How many times have you heard libertarians proclaim with thoroughly ego-pleasing self-righteousness, "We never compromise our principles," using such refusal to compromise as an excuse for allowing their values to be compromised by those who are smart enough to really not let their principles be sabotaged?

Principles only exist to serve values. Your spirit's highest value is the fullness of life. Your ego's highest value is your destruction and ultimately your death. So facing every decision, wondering if a principle applies, a question must be asked: does following this principle in this instance serve life or death?

It is believed Joan of Arc refused to compromise her principles. It is said her fate of being burned at the stake was due to her uncompromising stance. So was death her highest value? Or did she maybe fail to question whether there might be an even deeper principle she wasn't seeing, or whether her ego was tempting her to inflexibility in order to destroy her?

Individuals become libertarians because they are sensitive enough to be in-touch with their natural soul-level urge to experience freedom from being ruled by the ego-vested interests of others, which is the same as saying libertarians feel strongly the deep inner desire to experience life in it's fullness.

It is not logical and hardly life-serving to worship principles in and of themselves, divorced from the context of one's highest goal. When faced with a decision, does adhering to a particular principle serve life or death?

Let's imagine in our modern American context a Democratic Party candidate unabashedly favors dictatorship by his favored class of elitists. He justifies his stance by believing that it serves "every one's highest good." But he nonetheless clearly favors dictatorship. This Democrat is unashamedly a "dictator at heart."

Meanwhile, a Republican Party candidate, for all her faults, despite her seeming inability to take the Democrat's worship of dictatorship seriously, is obviously not a "dictator at heart." She may have a split mind confused by conflicting values and issues, but she would not support dictatorship if someone or some circumstance jolted her into seeing clearly.

These two candidates are polling evenly at about 48 or 49 percent each. One of them is going to win the election and rule.

Given this context and imagined scenario, a libertarian is faced with a choice. He can refrain from voting and wish the threat of dictatorship would magically go away. He can vote for a third party candidate "on principle" and hope that the election will not be won by the "dictator at heart." Or he can cast a vote in self-defense knowing that in such close elections sometimes the "dictator at heart" will actually be defeated with the help of votes like his.

If he chooses the third alternative, is he voting on principle? What if there is a principle that says, "Given the existing context in which I live, I will do whatever I can reasonably do to keep a 'dictator at heart' from winning an election and ruling my life!"

What if there is a principle at work in the electoral universe which says if libertarians fail to do everything within reason to keep dictators from winning ... then enough dictators will win to firmly establish their dictatorship?

Maybe libertarians need to ask themselves: "Would I rather discover the deeper underlying principle, or would I rather let myself be burned at the stake?"


To understand the insane psychology of modern "liberal progressives," read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."


"God's laws will keep your minds at peace, because peace IS His Will, and His laws are established to uphold it. His are the laws of freedom, but yours are the laws of bondage. Since freedom and bondage are irreconcilable, their laws CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TOGETHER. The laws of God work only for your good, and there ARE no other laws beside His. Everything else is merely lawLESS, and therefore chaotic." -Jesus Christ in A Course in Miracles

 
"I think of myself as a freedom zealot."


Many sports fans are familiar with the "Curse of the Billy Goat" which superstitious people believe caused the Chicago Cubs to lose the 1945 World Series and has kept the Cubs out of the World Series ever since. But a person does not have to be superstitious to wonder if the "Curse of the Nolan Chart" has kept libertarians out of serious contention in the league of politics for 45 years.

The Nolan Chart was created by David Nolan in 1969. Fast forward 45 years to 2014 and two U.S. Senators, Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, who are very liberty-minded conservatives (for example, both wanting to end today's police state and abolish the IRS), are hoping to use the 2016 Presidential race to influence the national debate and awaken people's minds.

These two political firebrands are making it possible for the 2016 Presidential race to offer the best chance for at least some important liberty ideas to really permeate the minds of average people who rarely think about political principles. But will the promising work of these two liberty-minded senators be sabotaged by the "Curse of the Nolan Chart?"

What is the "Curse of the Nolan Chart?"

Is a curse really only a false mindset which influences people in the direction of self-sabotage? What if all these years there was a temptation in the minds of many Chicago Cubs players and fans to "leave the door open" to the possibility there just might a force barring them from the World Series? Could such a mental seed planted be just enough to sabotage success?

The Nolan Chart asks people to do more than merely "leave the door open" to a false mindset. It encourages libertarians to sabotage their minds in two ways. Consider the foundation premise of the Nolan Chart:

"Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom more than social freedom, liberals tend to favor social freedom more than economic freedom."

In the first place, this characterization is false because it is far too broad a generalization. In order to hang onto such an idea in mind, one would have to resort to selective perception, seeing those situations which would supply evidence favoring, while "not seeing" those situations which supply evidence against such a characterization. One who sees clearly is hard pressed to find either a liberal or conservative who does not favor curtailing both conceptions of freedom. Selective perception in this respect is a form of self-sabotage, but it is not the entirety of the "curse."

The deeper falsity perpetrated by the Nolan Chart is the thought that economic freedom and social freedom are separate. In truth, there is only freedom. In every situation where a freedom perceived as "social" is taken away by political dictatorship, its economic foundation is also taken away. With every violation of economic freedom by politicians and bureaucrats, social possibilities become essentially only privileges granted permission. Again, in order to hang onto the belief that there are two separate kinds of freedom, social and economic, one would have to consistently ignore reality, since anyone seeing the entire picture of any situation recognizes that the situation has both economic and social aspects.

There are other problems with the Nolan Chart, but these two false conceptions mentioned above, and believed religiously by many, many libertarians constitute the "Curse of the Nolan Chart."

By seeing through the colored lenses of pigeon-holed generalities, many libertarians fail to realize that underneath the surface appearances presented by the mistaken beliefs of those who are labeled "liberal" and "conservative" are individual human beings with the same interests on a deep level as themselves and everyone else. Because these labels are designed to foster a sense of "they are my enemies," many libertarians spend a great deal of time and energy resisting liberals and conservatives. But no one ever used walls of resistance to help another individual recognize his innate libertarian impulses and heal his faulty thinking. It doesn't work that way. Resistance creates resistance coming back at you.

Further, by refusing to see economic freedom as the root while social freedoms are the branches, many libertarians spend incalculable time and effort campaigning for the branches (and in the process resisting people whose mistaken ideas they could otherwise be helping to heal) while allowing the root to continue to be hacked away.

What is the solution to a curse? How about a change of the way one thinks?

What if libertarians were to associate with people without resistance, without labeling them as liberals or conservatives and putting up walls? With no walls present, deeper energies tend to come into resonance. Liberals and conservatives might inexplicably find themselves less able to ignore their own inner libertarian impulses. Some might even wake up in the middle of the night with the epiphany, "Shit! I'm a dictator!"

What if libertarians campaigned entirely on economic freedom, working to preserve a healthy root which would by nature nourish healthy branches for everyone in every respect? What dictatorship is possible in social behaviors when dictatorship itself is not economically feasible?

The liberty movement proceeds by fits and starts, by steps forward and momentary faltering, by the efforts of those who are not always perfect and pure, like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul. The question each libertarian must ask is, "Will I flow with the flow of this natural movement ... or will I buy into the curse and sabotage those who would help far more than hurt my cause?"


To understand the insane psychology of modern "liberal progressives," read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."


"God's laws will keep your minds at peace, because peace IS His Will, and His laws are established to uphold it. His are the laws of freedom, but yours are the laws of bondage. Since freedom and bondage are irreconcilable, their laws CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TOGETHER. The laws of God work only for your good, and there ARE no other laws beside His. Everything else is merely lawLESS, and therefore chaotic." -Jesus Christ in A Course in Miracles

 
"I think of myself as a freedom zealot."

Rand Paul Is Doing It Right

Posted by Christian Prophet | 3/27/2014


The fact that libertarians have consistently sabotaged their own cause in numerous ways over the years is surely a contributing factor in the takeover of America by the wrong-minded liberal-progressive dictatorship. Yet despite such continuous self-sabotage, libertarians stay alive in politics because they have working for them the spiritual guidance provided universally to all human beings in the form of deep inner impulses to create conditions of political liberty on earth.

The fundamental political battle on our planet is between: (1) political intellectualizing divorced from spiritual guidance, and (2) the guidance of our spirit which prompts and validates political intellectualizing.

Intellectualizing divorced from spiritual guidance leads to Utopian dictatorship (liberal-progressive fascism). Liberal-progressives will proclaim fiercely that the target of their Utopian programs is improving human life, but their government interference always produces in the long run their true objective, an ego purpose deeply hidden from their awareness by their addiction to intellectualizing without spiritual guidance: the ego's goal of difficulty, chaos, pain, and ultimately death. Forgive them ... for they literally know not what they do.

On the other hand, letting our spirit lead us in our intellectualizing, and always verifying our intellectual conclusions against the truth known inside ourselves at a spiritual level, creates a society of political liberty and serves the goal of life. This is called "doing it right."

Libertarians can't be totally wiped out in American politics because despite often sabotaging their own cause they at least begin at the deep fundamental level just discussed. In other words they start out by "doing it right." Long term success is assured for those libertarians who finally surrender to doing it right not merely in their beginning, but throughout the political fight.

Every once in a while in history a man or woman arises in politics who is doing it right. Pay attention to Senator Rand Paul.

Libertarians addicted to self-sabotage will of course find fault with Rand Paul. "He's not purely libertarian!" "He's romancing establishment Republicans." But if you want to further the cause of political liberty there is no better way than to achieve a position of enormous and widespread influence. And if you want to achieve a position of enormous and widespread influence there is no better way than to play the game as it has been set up ... and play to win. Here is a link to a Washington Post article which seems to imply that Rand Paul is doing it right: Rand Paul builds 50 state network.

To understand the insane psychology of modern "liberal progressives," read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."


"God's laws will keep your minds at peace, because peace IS His Will, and His laws are established to uphold it. His are the laws of freedom, but yours are the laws of bondage. Since freedom and bondage are irreconcilable, their laws CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TOGETHER. The laws of God work only for your good, and there ARE no other laws beside His. Everything else is merely lawLESS, and therefore chaotic." -Jesus Christ in A Course in Miracles

 
"I think of myself as a freedom zealot."

Libertarians Are Most Caring

Posted by Christian Prophet | 2/12/2014

A common faulty impression in our culture is that libertarians are selfish and uncaring. Such an impression is backward and up-side down. It is precisely because libertarians so deeply crave human interaction free of pain, fear and guilt, human interaction blessed by incredible love and joy, that they refuse to be dictators.

Many people who don't consider themselves to be libertarians might say, "Wait! I'm not a dictator!" Perhaps they have never voted for a politician whose vote in turn would dictate that everyone abide by some program or pay taxes to fund some program.

Of course it's not true that if you hold yourself back from being a freedom zealot you are thereby a dictator. Yet a man who would never consider himself a dictator but who hides behind the excuse that a program dictated by politicians is okay if a majority votes for it ... is enabling what? Freedom? Or dictatorship?

"But wait a minute! Wisdom dictates! Love dictates! The weather dictates! What's so bad about some things being dictated by rulers, or at least by politicians, to make society work?"

Libertarians have no problem with the dictates of love, or wisdom, or nature. They recognize that in fact it is love and wisdom and human nature that call for rulers and politicians to rise above their ego-urge to dictate because there is nothing loving or wise or natural about political dictatorship. What ruler or politician could possibly know what is good for everyone? Jesus Christ puts it this way:

"In order to judge anything rightly, one [a politician in this article's context] would have to be fully aware of an inconceivably wide range of things; past, present and to come. One would have to recognize in advance all the effects of his judgments on everyone and everything involved in them in any way.  And one would have to be certain there is no distortion in his perception, so that his judgment would be wholly fair to everyone on whom it rests now and in the future. Who is in a position to do this? Who except in grandiose fantasies would claim this for himself?"

Libertarians recognize in order to learn the lessons we are on earth to learn we need freedom to think for ourselves, to indulge in trial and error, to experience both success and failure, and to finally hear inside the guidance of our indomitable spirit which leads us each individually out of pain, fear and guilt while guiding us each individually into prosperity, joy, and peace beyond all intellectual understanding. Politicians cannot do this for us. Exhausting us with all their artificial and unnatural dictates, politicians can only pollute our learning environment, causing delay and pain.

It is libertarians who understand we are all in this together, who understand that if even one person suffers from political dictatorship ... all suffer. It is freedom zealots who would not deny any man or woman the opportunity to learn lessons, prosper, and experience levels of love and joy which dictators could never fathom.  It is lovers of liberty who truly care about everyone.


To understand the insane psychology of modern "liberal progressives," read Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged."


"God's laws will keep your minds at peace, because peace IS His Will, and His laws are established to uphold it. His are the laws of freedom, but yours are the laws of bondage. Since freedom and bondage are irreconcilable, their laws CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD TOGETHER. The laws of God work only for your good, and there ARE no other laws beside His. Everything else is merely lawLESS, and therefore chaotic." -Jesus Christ in A Course in Miracles

 
"I think of myself as a freedom zealot."