Thor's Hammer Radio

By: Alex Thorsen

December 21, 2017

 

It’s been said many times that liberty dies in darkness. Or, more popularly, “democracy dies in darkness”, as goes the Washington Post’s motto. It’s catchy and has a good ring to it.

But is it true? Actually, no.

The unfortunate truth, is that history and human experience have shown us that liberty dies in daylight. It often dies in full view of the public, and little is done to stop it before it’s too late.

America’s founders understood this better than most of us realize. When they stated “all experience hath shown, that men are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right the wrongs to which they are accustomed”, the truth that liberty dies in daylight is exactly what they were referring to.

And that phenomenon is still occurring today. Take Brexit as a prime example – the referendum where each British citizen cast a single ballot to decide whether to remain in the European Union, or to leave it. And on June 23, 2016, by a 52% to 48% vote, the result was to LEAVE the European Union. The former prime minister, David Cameron, stepped down after the result and in stepped Theresa May, promising to make Brexit happen with the interests of the British people secured.

And now fast forward to the present day – EIGHTEEN MONTHS LATER. After the European Union has demanded ransom payments like mobsters, and the crying Remainers doing everything in their power to desperately sabotage Brexit, Britain is now dealing with a useless appeaser of a prime minister and a Tory government that, essentially, has told the British people that their vote didn’t matter at all. Keep in mind that in British politics, the people vote for the party, not the person. Whichever party gets the most votes, then chooses who the prime minister is. And that prime minister, Theresa May, has made it apparent that the voice of her countrymen is irrelevant and that it’s better to have Britain ruled over by foreign overlords (the European Union). The British elites are now discussing flat-out overturning Brexit, with no say from the public who voted LEAVE.

That’s the exact opposite of liberty, and it’s also the most un-patriotic thing one can do.
A government that overrules the individual is a tyrannical government. And that is exactly what Britain is doing now, and it’s happening in broad daylight.

Take also, the case of British citizens like Tommy Robinson, author of the books Enemy of the State and Mohammed’s Koran, and an outspoken British patriot who’s been warning his country about the threat of Islamic ideology for years. And during that time, he’s been harassed by the government, silenced, fined and imprisoned, and even his very life and the lives of his family threatened. And for what? For having an opinion? For expressing that openly? The whole point of protected individual freedom of speech is precisely for the speech that is considered “controversial”.

There is no such thing as “hate speech” – there is only speech.

And yet, what is happening to Tommy Robinson is happening not in darkness, but in broad daylight. It happens to other British citizens too, such as Britain First activist Jayda Fransen, who also faced prison time simply for speaking her opinion. Or a Scottish YouTuber who goes by the online handle Count Dankula, facing prison for making a Nazi dog joke in a YouTube video.

Great Britain is NOT a free country, and that happened in daylight, with too many of her people either ignoring that, or for some of them – cheering it on.

Or take a look towards mainland Europe – where the fascist Antifa not only roam the streets in organized gangs, but also have members in the press and government; they radically pursue any dissenters to their socialist dogma. Add to that, the influx of Muslim migrants who are wholly intolerant of all outside ideologies and cultures; groups opposed to this such as Martin Sellner and his Generation Identity find themselves not just ostracized but in many cases hunted in their own societies.

And that’s happening in broad daylight.

In Canada, Justin Trudeau and his government passed the M-103 law which effectively bans any public criticism of Islam, and the recent events at Wilfred-Laurier University where tenured Marxist professors sought to intimidate Lindsay Shepherd into silence using the Canadian Human Rights Code as their basis for doing so – this was something to which Toronto University Professor Jordan Peterson warned about well before this event happened.

Those laws, and the consequences of them, happened in broad daylight.

Even in my home country, liberty died in daylight. Barack Obama and the Democrat party took control of one-sixth of the entire U.S. economy through passage of the Unaffordable No-Care Act (Obamacare). And led along like lambs, with promises of  “revenge” by sowing class warfare divisions against the “rich” (insurance companies), people gave up their liberty in daylight to accept this. And to this day, politicians still refuse to get rid of this horrid affront to personal liberty. Obama also threw our nation’s borders wide open, without a care in the world for those Americans who would suffer from the inevitable criminal wave and terrorist elements that constantly seek to destroy America and the individual freedoms she protects. And Obama did it all for the sake of votes.

Obama also imposed Net Partisan Censorship (they call it “Net Neutrality”) where the government effectively took control of the Internet which by all accounts should always remain a medium of individual liberty, where the free market determines its future. And the clueless defenders of Net Neutrality came forth with absurd doomsday cries when FCC Chairman Ajit Pai came to right a wrong by getting rid of Net Neutrality.

All of this happened in daylight, not darkness.

And why do so many either support tyranny, or at least are willing to go along with it? Why does liberty die in daylight? To borrow a movie reference, I’m reminded of the scene from Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, when Luke Skywalker asks Yoda “is the Dark Side stronger?” Yoda replies “no, only more tempting.”

The same is true for liberty and tyranny.

Liberty is difficult, for liberty requires much of the individual. Liberty’s rewards are incredible, yet they require much effort as well. Tyranny, in contrast, requires only that you submit; that you remain silent. And in return, tyranny offers shallow promises and vain rewards.

Understanding this, it becomes clear why liberty too often dies in daylight. So many individuals are tempted by the far easier path of the shallow promises and vain rewards from tyranny, where their only requirement is submission. Many individuals are either too afraid, or too discouraged, by the effort required by liberty.

But, do not despair.

For since tyranny is extremely easy, it is also extremely fragile. Tyranny cannot stand against opposing voices; therefore it seeks to silence them. Tyranny cannot stand against successful individuals; therefore it seeks to demonize them. Tyranny cannot stand against liberty; therefore it seeks to crush it.

Liberty puts the lie to everything that tyranny is.

And so, in the end, must liberty die? Either in daylight or darkness? That ultimately is up to the choices presented to each individual. I cannot speak for others, nor do I ever wish to. But I do know what I say for myself:

Liberty shall never die in daylight, nor ever in darkness.

I fight.

This week’s podcast: Trump’s brave decision on Jerusalem; then, discussing the atrocious verdict in the Kate Steinle murder trial; finally, a bombshell POLITICO report on how Obama let Hezbollah off the hook.

Today’s podcast: Hurricane Harvey hits Texas, and discussing Joe Arpaio’s pardon and why Trump made the right decision on it; then, Mitch McConnell, the cancer of the GOP, and other fake conservatives are destroying the Republican party; finally, round 54,781 of the “let’s not default on our debt” debt ceiling nonsense by the Republican surrender caucus.

Arpaio criminal contempt conviction court document: http://archive.azcentral.com/persistent/icimages/news/arpaio%20contempt%20decision.pdf

Today’s podcast: Islamic terrorists strike at Europe; then, the Alt-Left and the Alt-Right both suck, and exposing the truth about both of them; finally, discussing the President’s new Afghanistan strategy.

Link to petition to declare Antifa a terrorist organization: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/formally-recognize-antifa-terrorist-organization-0

Today’s podcast: North Korea – history, nuclear weapons build-up, and how we’re dealing with it; wrapping up after with comments on the Charlottesville calamity.

Today’s podcast: Important congressional testimony from William Browder; then, discussing the new RAISE Act; finally, an overlay of the foreign aid which the Palestinian Authority uses to subsidize terrorists, and wrapping up with points on the Mueller investigation and the new grand jury he just impaneled.

Today’s podcast: Reince Priebus is out, GOP lied about Obamacare repeal, Charlie Gard is laid to rest; then, Imran Awan the Democrat IT guy is arrested, and Obama’s surveillance state is unraveled even more; finally, a brief comment on the military transgender ban, big government sucks at building stairs (and anything in general), and a Communist student group disbands itself because it’s too bourgeois.

“Dark” music by Adrian Von Ziegler.

So often we hear about “nationalism” and “populism” against the “globalists”. Those have become the new cheap buzz words that lots of people are slinging around. And often without much regard for the deeper implications.

What exactly is the battle here?

Is it for populism? Well, if two-thirds of a nation votes to destroy their healthcare by instituting single-payer healthcare (i.e. government-run monopoly on healthcare); by definition that’s the populist position. It’s not the smart or humane position for a nation to take, as single-payer systems lead to a lower quality of healthcare, higher taxes and a rationing of care (see: the recent Charlie Gard nightmare that unfolded in the United Kingdom). So “populist” is a skin-deep position, because it really doesn’t define any core values.

Is it for nationalism? Again, there are many nationalist positions, and they’re not necessarily the platforms that most rational people would want to follow. The Soviet Union was nationalist; their identity was distinctly Russian. Communist China is nationalist; their identity is distinctly Chinese. Castro’s Cuba is nationalist; their identity is distinctly Cuban. In fact, most of the worst Communist, Fascist, and other totalitarian regimes were all “nationalist”. The idea of nationalism by itself does not lend to any one of these ideologies; it’s just that nationalism can be broadly applied to a whole number of different ideologies. So it’s not a very tenable “core” value to stand upon.

The true battle here is the battle of Americanism vs. Progressivism; or, the battle of individual, natural rights pitted against the forces of collectivism and iron-fisted central government.

It’s important to define what Progressive “values” are: they are derived directly from the Communist Manifesto. Progressives believe in what Marx taught, and Hagel before him; that the past pushes up constantly against the present, and the traditional values of old must be done away with since they are the “outdated” values of the bourgeois (Marx’s definition for the ‘rich’). Progressives believe that individuals acting in self-interest are greedy, and must give themselves up to the state. They believe that salvation can only come through collective action. Progressives believe that education was a tool used by the rich and powerful to indoctrinate the youth to promote them (outlined by Marx in his manifesto); and so, the Progressives have sought to use education for those same purposes and instead to indoctrinate the youth to promote Progressive ideology. Progressives believe that rights come from government, and that the government must provide “for the people”.

Americanism is the opposite of all that. Americanism values the traditions and history of where we came from. Americanism values the individual, and that no one can strip another of his rights. Americanism understands that rights come from the divine, a realm that can never be set foot upon by mortal man. Because ‘rights’ that come from government are not really rights at all; they are privileges. For a government that can give you something is a government that can take it away, and generally does. Americanism understands the concept of unalienable rights, for they are eternal and final, and stand directly in the face of tyranny. Americanism is about the government staying small, contained, and out-of-the-way of the individual; a government that is enough to stop foreign adversaries and yet small enough to be virtually unnoticed while the American individual builds their life how they see fit.

It’s important to state clearly: Progressive values are NOT American values. There is nothing American about sacrificing individual liberty for the collective, or “greater good” of the state. There is nothing American about an all-powerful central government that doles out edicts and commandments from on high. There is nothing American about rights that are in fact privileges granted by government, which can be stripped away should an elected official or un-elected bureaucrat will it. There is nothing American about dividing people into groups or sub-groups, and/or creating a hierarchy of people (class/caste system); this flies directly in the face of the American value of the individual above all else and to judge one by the content of their character.

Progressivism is an imported ideology from Europe; Americanism was founded in the very nation it took root.

It’s important to discuss too, that when we talk about Western values, we are really talking about American values.

The French philosopher, Charles De Montesquieu, from whom America’s founders derived most of their ideas for separation of powers, had trouble getting his ideas to take root in his home country. In fact, the French rejected De Montesquieu in favor of Rousseau, and the result was a collectivist French Revolution that was a bloodbath.

The English philosopher, John Locke, from whom America’s founders derived much of their ideas for individual, natural rights, had no luck giving birth to his ideas in Great Britain. In fact, during his day, several skeptics asked Locke where in the world his ideas could ever be realized. Locke replied “in America”; Locke understood that the Old World was too steeped in a history of authoritarianism, where as the New World offered a clean state to start from.

The Western world became more inundated with the concept of natural rights and separation of powers because of the United States and our American values, not in lieu of it. Individuals saw the greatness of America and our values were exported to the rest of the Western world. The early French author, Alexis De Tocqueville, who wrote Democracy In America, noted how different America was from Europe; the value of the individual and culture of self-reliance and ingenuity would propel America to surpass their European cousins.

And Europe resisted this. The problem is so many Europeans do not understand the teachings of John Locke, Charles De Montesquieu, Cicero, and many others. Too many Europeans believe that rights come from government, or written ink on a parchment, and do not understand that rights truly come from the divine. Nor do they understand that rights from the divine mean that no matter what your belief system, all individuals benefit from this due to the check on governmental overreach. Europeans, too often, also do not understand how separation of powers truly works. Simply having multiples branches of government is not enough: there must be viable checks from each branch upon the other in order to deadlock them, and prevent one branch from becoming too powerful. Nor do many Europeans understand the true power of the U.S. Constitution: it’s not there to tell people what they can do; it’s there to instruct government as to what it cannot do.

So to sum up the overall point, those who sling the buzzwords of “nationalism” and “populism” are missing the point entirely. This is a battle between core American values (individual, natural rights and separation of powers) and the foreign Progressive values (collectivism and iron-fisted central government control). In order to combat the assault on our American values, we must correctly identify it. We must get our language right in order to correctly address the Progressive attack.

And for America to remain distinctly American, at this point we have no choice.

Discussing several issues, to include the Republicans who apparently support a transgender policy for the military, and talking about the new Department of Justice memorandum concerning federal adoption in civil asset forfeiture.

This week’s podcast I discuss: the newest squirrel-chasing of the media; making the case against the iron-fisted government-run monopoly on healthcare (i.e. “single-payer” healthcare); finally, wrapping up with points about the case of Charlie Gard and the reasons why we should get rid of Net Neutrality.