We have seen that the cornerstone principle of true teachers of liberty is live and let live. (See Who Are the True Teachers of Liberty?) Yet the two parts of this principle are not on the same level. Live is deeper and constitutes the reason for let live. A true teacher of liberty is primarily moved by a strong inner desire to live freely in the way the depths of his heart and soul guide him to live. And only because he is in touch with his desire to live as his free spirit wants him to live does he then feel an accompanying desire to let others live as so guided ... to let live.

"Let live" in a more complex society is also known as "political liberty." Our inner spirit (life force) is already free and guides us in any particular outer context to the maximum happiness possible under the circumstances. But our spirit wants for us political liberty because if freedom in society is at its greatest then our spirit it can give guidance for the greatest creativity, the greatest lessons, the greatest fulfillment.

This desire to let live is felt at a deep heart and soul level because at this level we intuitively know we are all in this together, really all one in spirit. (Christians will recall the words of Jesus: "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me." --Matthew 25:40)

But in situations where there is a collision between the two parts of live and let live ... live takes precedence. If someone is shooting at him with a gun, a man in touch with his deepest desire adheres to the principle of live, and in this instance acts against the principle of let live. Philosophers might argue that let live is a corollary which only applies in a context of two or more, and it is the attacker who abandons the principle of let live.

Expanding this logically, because political dictatorship is an attack on one's freedom to live life to the fullest, a man in touch with his heart and soul does not let live when responding to political dictatorship. His heart and soul does not want dictatorship to live. Such a man may feel guided to speak for political liberty, teach political liberty, market political liberty, and in the United States maybe even run as a Libertarian Party or Republican Liberty Caucus candidate to gain leverage in influencing for political liberty. In other places or times he may even take up arms and fight for political liberty. In doing his part to end dictatorship he is being loyal to his deep desire to live life to the fullest.

By way of contrast, consider a liberal-progressive who is willing to be a dictator (or vote for a dictator) to achieve his Utopian ideals. His ideals seem to him and many others to be beneficial, so why is he willing to be a dictator? Because his agendas and schemes are intellectually derived, constructed in his brain, rather than heard from (or felt from) the depths of his heart and soul. They are goals based on spiritless brainy cleverness rather than on the infinite volcanic power of heart and soul, so he doesn't trust they can be achieved without dictatorship. He is afraid of what would happen if he totally let live. Feeling such fear, and the accompanying impulse to control others, he is not living life to the fullest. It is impossible to find a liberal-progressive who feels truly deeply fulfilled ... because there are none.

To a human being living among others, liberty is a deep natural desire. Those who have not used ego-intellectualism to block out, bury, and deny this natural desire feel its power in their heart and soul moving them. At one time in history it was called the "spirit of liberty" and recognized as infinitely more powerful that any possible intellectual justifications for dictatorship or for submitting to dictatorship.

To our heart and soul, life is the expression of our spirit not the movement of our physical body. So there may be severe conditions under which without freedom our spirit is so closed down that it's not even worth going through the motions of physical life. In the film "Braveheart," William Wallace rallies an entire army by putting them in touch with their heart and soul desire:

"Aye, fight and you may die. Run, and you'll live... at least a while. And dying in your beds, many years from now, would you be willin' to trade ALL the days, from this day to that, for one chance, just one chance, to come back here and tell our enemies that they may take our lives, but they'll never take... OUR FREEDOM!"




To fully grasp how insane the psychology of modern "liberal progressives" really is, read Ayn Rand's novel "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."

Traits of True Teachers of Liberty: #1 Trust

Posted by Christian Prophet | 11/03/2014


The first and foremost, bottom-line principle of true teachers of liberty is live and let live. (See Who Are the True Teachers of Liberty?) Now observe those who truly live and let live. Their most obvious fundamental characteristic is trust.

This is because it is impossible to fully, consistently live and let live without trust. Those who are not trusting tread through their days with vision obscured and steps made unsure by a cloud of fear. Those who trust stroll forward with head held high and a bounce in their step every moment as if trust is their bright sunlight. Those who are not trusting cannot help but feel the need to sometimes manipulate or control others. Those who trust can afford to simply laugh and let others be.

In the early 1860s when "In God We Trust" was added to American coins, the original proposal was to add "Our Country, Our God, Our Trust," almost as if trust was important separate from belief in God. Of course the proposal came from spiritual people who claimed that the trust they referred to was trust in God. But the way it was originally proposed leads to deeper thought.

Whether one's trust is considered to be trust in God, or trust in the laws of nature, or trust in a deeper innate goodness in human beings which doesn't always show on the surface, or trust in angels, or trust in visitors from outer space ... it's trust. And liberty cannot be truly taught, in every respect, every moment of every day by those who lack trust.

True teachers of liberty have learned that the world is not governed by laws the world has made up. They recognize the world is governed by a power working in everyone and everything beneath surface appearances everywhere at all times. Being conscious of such a power (whether they give it a name or leave it nameless), they understand that everything is unfolding in some kind of perfect order. They can now trust.

True teachers of liberty see that in everything cycles are at work. "Here today, gone tomorrow" is not fearful to those who trust. Neither is any currently difficult situation, which they know will change soon enough. They understand that as a whole the human race is evolving, and even seeming steps backward are part of the process. They are at peace with change, knowing all change is helpful.

It is one kind of new vision to realize that if my most adamant "enemies" release resistance to me, they are working for me without knowing it. It is even a broader vision to see that ultimately everyone is working in my favor. Finally, it is a totally enlightened vision which sees that all things are working together for my good ... no matter how situations might look when judging by mere surface appearances. -- Course in Political Miracles, Lesson 24

The trust which permeates true teachers of liberty imbues them with a happy lightheartedness that is very attractive. People want to be around such teachers, listen to them, and absorb their ideas both consciously and subconsciously. No better teachers exist.

On a deeper level, perhaps it is trust itself that is so heroic and attractive. Perhaps it is trust itself that teaches liberty. Even so freedom zealots can do no better than to march forward with the motto:

"Confido! Libertas! Confido!"







To fully grasp how insane the psychology of modern "liberal progressives" really is, read Ayn Rand's novel "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."

Who Are The True Teachers of Liberty?

Posted by Christian Prophet | 10/05/2014


Who are the true teachers of liberty?

The answer is: anyone who makes a conscious and determined choice to live and let live. There are no other qualifications. We teach what we are. If our deeply felt goal is to live our lives in the way we prefer while not interfering with others living their lives as they so choose, we are teaching liberty. If we have no interest in imposing our values or schemes on others and no desire for others to force their beliefs and designs on us, we are teaching liberty.

Live and let live are "two sides of the same coin," so to speak. Once we have made the choice to be responsible for our own lives we cannot logically deny others the same possibility. Any attempt to do so would be a dishonest betrayal of our own value since we cannot with integrity see our interests in this respect as different from anyone else's. A choice to live life according to our own choosing while not in any way trying to limit the same opportunity of others makes us true teachers of liberty.

True teachers of liberty come from anywhere, from every political background or from a life of no political interest whatsoever. They are simply those who have felt their true innermost desire for peace, and awakened to the knowledge that live and let live is the necessary precondition of peace. They have discovered that by experiencing peace in their own dealings with others they teach mankind one of the crucial final lessons mankind is to learn: complete relinquishment of attack. True teachers of liberty do not attack others either in thought, word, or deed; nor through lawful or lawless agents. Thus they are the only teachers who teach peace to the world.

As the world learns to live and let live, fear of others is released everywhere; for who would fear others if mankind has learned not to attack? When fear is released, love rushes in to fill the vacuum; for fear is merely mankind's device for holding back the natural flow of love. Thus true teachers of liberty do not teach with fear, but teach only love.

The call of love and liberty is universal, within every man, woman, and child. It is everywhere a never ending beckoning to be heard by those who are ready and willing to hear. Someday everyone will answer, so a live and let live world is inevitable. Yet eons of time can drag on before that day. So true teachers of liberty ... teachers who truly experience peace and joy and love extending to all without exception ... are needed for mankind to make progress.

"Live and let live happens to be a very meaningful injunction. Twist reality in any way, and you are perceiving destructively. Reality was lost through usurpation, which in turn produced tyranny. I told you you were now restored to your former role in the Plan of Atonement. But you must still choose freely to devote your heritage to the greater Restoration. As long as a single slave remains to walk the earth, your release is not complete." -- Jesus Christ in his revelation for the 21st Century, A Course in Miracles.

Your decision to become a true teacher of liberty is your answer to the highest calling among mankind.



To fully grasp how insane the psychology of modern "liberal progressives" really is, read Ayn Rand's novel "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."


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 Amash 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 truthful men and women 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 Amash 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 fully grasp how insane the psychology of modern "liberal progressives" really is, read Ayn Rand's novel "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."