Category Archives: Political (as such)

‘Occupy’ Manifesto

(Written 3.December.2011)


At the risk of alienating myself from quite a few people I respect (and many I may not, but honor their wisdom), I have decided to go forward with publishing this post. I’ve been very apprehensive about this, not for many reasons—as one might assume, but for just one. Namely, I don’t think anything will come of it, and if I myself feel that way, then it is merely wasted words in a wasted conflict (of sorts).
Yet, I’ve kept coming back to the thought time and time again, and—for the life of me, cannot figure out why there is a passion and desire to post this, up until the moment where I am to, of course.

But someone I do respect very highly once said that the thing you have no desire to publish is more often than not the very thing that ought to be published. So, I shall do so—with some background first, of course, and a bold notation that this is ultimately observation.

I began—as many do, viewing the ‘Occupy’ movement as something ridiculous. Just a bunch of Millennialists (post Baby Boomer generation) hopped up on too much Red Bull and V for Vendetta. As I started to read more, though, and talk to people involved—both politically and judicially, my views began to shift.

This is what I see.


Those that believe in something but cannot clearly articulate it are not mad men who do not know what it is they want, feel, think, or believe. The man who truly believes in something will always try to explain that belief, that idea, whether poorly or with great skill. It is the man who does not believe in anything who finds himself content to rationalize his lack of belief as something too subtle or lofty to be explained.


It has always seemed to be the case that what comes easier and more naturally for humanity is to seek and find a villain to fight against, rather than discover a cause to fight for;

it is much easier for us to fight against a villain, than for a cause.

This must not be taken lightly. As is the case with creation, with those artists who create based on creation, and the critics who create (or destroy) the artistic interpretation of creation; that is, that the further away from something tangible you get, the less your point is valid. To critique is to take something already created and either create something new, or create something that is really nothing at all.

There is a fine line when being a critic. One must not stray too far from their own expression, lest they shape emptiness, nothing at all in its stead. If at all possible, create something new in place of what you are against, and persevere in that endeavor.


While I disagree with looking for a scapegoat in the dubbed ‘1%’, rich misers to do battle against, these individuals must be distinguished from the ‘very wealthy;’ and verily, must also be distinguished from what was thought to be an old miser in times past. In those that are very wealthy, there are still good people, for there are still all kinds of people. There can actually be saints among priests. There can actually be heroes among soldiers. There can actually be doctors who have really grown wealthy by curing their patients.

But among the rich misers, the 1%, you will never find a really generous man, even by accident. They may give their money away, but they will never give themselves away.

These are not ‘Ebenezer Scrooges,’ nor are they ‘Scrooge McDucks’ for that matter; these are not men who desire money for the sheer obsession and love of money.
For men like those can be pitied, and one can find themselves doing so.

Ebenezer closed himself off from the world, and pined and pined over his wealth. Scrooge McDuck loved having money because he loved it itself, he swam in the amount of money he had.

These men were like any other mad man with a material obsession, only theirs is wealth, gold.
Today’s miser, the 1%, has a different type of obsession. Theirs is not like the Scrooges of old, but more like the 9 Lords of Men in ‘the Lord of the Rings,’ whose obsession (and ultimately, what consuming) was power.

If absolute power corrupts absolutely, then a desire for absolute power implies absolute corruption heretofore.


“Man is made with one head. Not two or three.”
If a movement wishes to represent the people, namely, the common man, the 99%, then it is to have one head, one purpose, one goal. It is much easier to kill a ferocious giant with multiple heads, for the heads will always argue amongst themselves, leaving the giant vulnerable to attack.

However, the giant with one head is more of a challenge to kill, for its only focus is on devouring its enemy.


The government should restrain the debaucheries allotted for in our country’s ‘freedom;’ the abnormal liberties taken by the few, not the normal.
The cloying humor in it all though, is that these have been reversed. We are free in our abnormalities, but our normal liberties…

“…the normal man, the decent discontented citizen, wants to protest against unfair law courts. He wants to expose the brutalities of the police. He wants to make game of a vulgar pawnbroker who is made a Peer. He wants to publicly warn people against unscrupulous capitalists and suspicious finance.
If he is run in for doing this (as he will be) he wants to proclaim the character or known prejudices of the judge who tries him. If he is sent to prison (as he will be) he wants to have a clear and civilized sentence, telling him when he will come out”… “I can write in some solemn quarterly an elaborate article explaining that God is the devil; I can write in some cultured weekly an aesthetic fancy describing how I would like to eat a boiled [or basted] baby. The thing I must not write is a rational criticism of the men and institutions of my country. I must not write about how never before has it been so easy for those with money and wealth to slip bills through Parliament [Congress, Senate, etc.] for the purpose of locking someone up, bailing someone free, raising someone to power who will in turn keep power where it is desired, to silence those asking the right questions, and to protect high-placed officials. “
-G.K. Chesterton, A Miscellany of Men.

And so…

The Occupy Manifesto

“The one case for Revolution is that it is the only quite clean and complete road to anything—even to restoration. Revolution alone can be not merely a revolt of the living, but also a resurrection of the dead.” –G.K.C.

There was a time when our country stood on the most basic of principles—One Nation, Under God; that is, to be equal under God. This did not (does not) entail equal distributions of what God had blessed some with and not others, but an equality that transcended (transcends) class, race, gender, age, amount of talents allotted, or lastly, one being made of ‘gold’ and another ‘clay.’

We call for a return to the beginning. A return to being equal in something far bigger and greater than any one person, government, or people.

We do not–nor cannot, adhere to an Atheistic, Secularist, Darwinist view. For a call to the equality we seek supposes that the ‘survival of the fittest’ mode of thinking only hinders our cause, not helps it. If this were truly the case, then the 1% would be considered ‘the fittest’ and the 99% are doomed for annihilation.

Someone who I wish to give no credit to once said more or less, “God is dead.”

It’s time to resurrect (awaken) God.

In Christendom, the theology of what is known as “the Kingdom” is pivotal in maintaining a foundation, and as our country was founded on these core theologies, they must be understood in order to be called upon.

This Kingdom calls for all to be treated as equals, in freedom, liberty, and government, regardless of giftings–or lack thereof, given. To recognize that those made of ‘gold’ and those made of ‘clay’ are equal on the level that they are still both ‘made.’ (rf. 2 Timothy 2:20)
This equality is not contingent on the substance that one is made from, be it gold, clay, or any other fancy the creator chooses. The equality lay solely in the purpose given to each.
That each has a purpose and each is made for a reason.
And let us be equal in this.
Let not the gold look down on the clay. Let not the clay despise the gold.

So, inequality based on wealth, class, and so forth, can be kept: for who are we to question what God has assigned to each?

But security,
a voice,
these things should not be allotted solely to those given much; but to all based on equality of creation.

Simply put, those given ‘one talent’ should not be forced into a system of usage of that talent based on terms and conditions that those with ‘many talents’ may choose to impose. (rf. Matthew 25: 14-30)

This does not say that those placed in authority over us should not be adhered to, for without respect for authority, comes a descent into chaos.
But authority claiming to be by the people, for the people, but without any regard of the people is not a genuine authority, and as darkness must be brought to light, and lies to truth, this falsity must be as well.

The equality in which we seek cannot be achieved by what we currently view as our ‘democracy.’
A democracy is a government of the people. Yet we have what? A government of two party politics; both claiming to have the genuine interests of the people in mind and heart. “There is a real danger in two parties with two policies: they unduly limit the outlook of the ordinary citizen. They make the ordinary citizen barren instead of creative, because he is never allowed to do anything except prefer one existing policy to another.

We have not got real Democracy when the decision depends upon the people.

We shall have real Democracy when the problem depends upon the people.

When the ordinary man will decide not only how he will vote, but what he is going to vote about.” –G.K.C.

Our democracy holds that the people have the right to answer questions (though only by choosing one of the two ways offered), but the people have no right to ask them.

“For the powerful class [1%] will choose two courses of action, both of them safe for itself, and then give the democracy the gratification of taking one course or the other.”-G.K.C.
The government is truly so far distanced from the people that the people’s voice is not verily heard. Yet it is hidden under the guise that without the people, the government would crumble.

No, this democracy is one where the people vote on preconceived solutions to problems chosen not by us.
It’s claimed to be our vote, but how is it our vote when the choices for solutions weren’t chosen by us? If it is all out of our hands, then what is the point of voting?

Equality, and our voice–everyman’s voice, cannot be truly heard when we are only allowed to shout one way or another.

Verily though, a government this far removed from the people is not the government’s fault.

It is the people.

As such, the government cannot be held to fix a problem with itself.

For the people to correct the problem, the people must take the reigns of control back from the government. We must hold ourselves responsible for the monster we created.

But just as you retrain an animal who has gone wild how to be submissive, and who is in control, the people must do the same to the government.

For the government to be afraid of its people (and not the other way around), the people must give the government something to fear.

This is not an extremist call to acts of terrorism; but it is not a passive and placid call as to write a letter to your local congressman or woman who you have no knowledge of or relationship with.

So what does it look like for the people to cause/create fear in their government?

How do the people attain an equal say in things when they are constantly and consistently being forced out of the room?

How do the voiceless attain a voice?

Is it by shouting when they are shouting at you?

All that is attained there is that both parties become hoarse, and there is victory for none.

Is it by remaining silent (or worse, a cacophony of different thoughts vocalized) when the other is asking what is desired?

This only achieves a blind eye being turned your way, and ignorance of your plight when your voice, your cause is finally found.

It must be noted that there is no such thing as an unstoppable force meeting an immovable object.

There may exist an unstoppable force in this universe, or an immovable object (in fact, they may more than likely very well be one and the same); but to say that an impass will only be reached with conflict, is to say that both sides are too limp, too placid to stand firm.

When a person (or people) is pushed around, until they’ve had enough, what are the options? Push back?

Or become strong enough as to not be able to be pushed, immovable.

Real strength does not come from standing over the body your beaten, bloody opponent in battle.

Real strength lay in being beaten, broken, bloody, yet remaining immovable.
For one may think that it takes all your strength to remain standing when you are being beaten, but I say that there is a hidden strength somewhere deep inside the one who stands firm.
And while they may very well become exhausted and near unable to stand, when that person sees their aggressor weak, exhausted, unable to throw another fist: it is then that that strength arises from deep within, and when the aggressor cannot lift another finger to torment, then the man–beaten and bloody, yet unmoved, will have the strength to carry on,
to stand victorious,
to build and to do as they ought to be done, not merely as they are desired to be.

And the world will be better for this, that one man (or the 99% of unified one mans) scorned and covered with scars, still strove with their last ounce of courage to reach the unreachable star!

So what shall we say then?
Are we to remain voiceless, a cacophony of sound like the chatter of geese, fighting against an unknown villain of alleged tyranny disguised as government, and big business, and the 1% who influence it all, or are we going to rise a unified front based not on race, gender, class, or status, but unified in fighting for one cause, one purpose, one goal:
to take the reigns of the government back into the hands of those it affects–us, the people;
to stand firm when we are pushed around, pepper sprayed, arrested based on laws and regulations they control to their favor and gain;
not for equal standing, or a socialistic redistribution of wealth, (for some are made of gold and some of clay, some are given many talents while others merely one; and who are we to question the purpose of it all?) but to fight for the right of equality;
to have a say in the running of our home, our country;
to take the reigns of the government out of the hands of only those who can pay to hold them, and put them back in to the hands where they belong,
a government of the people,
Fighting for that right, without question or pause!

Willing to march in to Hell for this heavenly cause!

What do we desire?
Our voices heard.
Equality in government—a government in the hands of the people it serves.

How shall we fight?
Standing firm.

How shall we win?
By giving the government a reason to fear the people.

I leave the rest up to the people. Though I have always been one whom the notion of a coup has appealed to, a revolt is something I am ill trained in. Nor am I versed in just how this particular course of action should be. I can only say that to revolt is to not do what they expect us as the people to do. What that is, I cannot say, for I am not political. I would imagine that one would not participate in voting, but even if the masses did not vote, I have a guttural feeling that laws would still be passed, and the government would still find a way to run and make ill decisions.

So I leave with more a question than a statement:

How do we give those who control government something to fear, causing them to drop the reigns for the people to pick up?


Filed under Political (as such)

Jordan Sekulow vs. Richard Dawkins vs. Me

(Written 26.August.2011)

So, against my better judgment, I decided to read an article written by Jordan Sekulow in the Washington Post. For those not familiar with Jordan, he and his father Jay are big wigs in the American Center for Law and Justice. He also hosts a talk show, is a column writer for the Washington Post, and is regularly featured on Fox News.
Below is an example of how he usually carries himself during his Fox News correspondences, it’s a pretty recent interview and essentially the basis of his entire radio talk show right now is to prevent the building of a (the) Mosque at “Ground Zero” in New York. Take a look:

I first came into contact with Jordan on my way home, his radio talk show was on. The thing that got me was not only how fast and emotionally charged his talking was, but that he screened calls and kept anyone with an opinion opposed to his off the air (even going so far as to play a recorded message over their airing.). Well then by a fluke, I happened across his Washington Post article–which, while not only being riddled with theological errors, jumped back and forth between defending Christianity and Conservative Republicanism (still don’t really know what his point was; I guess to him–as to the rest of the world, those two things are so intricately tied together that it’s hard to see one from the other.) from the likes of Richard Dawkins.

Now I’m no fan of Dawkins, but I have read a few of his books–I have two in my library right now, and to me, Dawkins is someone more against a dogma than the God it professes to believe in. Sekulow, however, seems to embody the type of Christianity that is not only so prevalent in our culture, but continues to merely give fuel to the fodder for those like Richard Dawkins.

Well so anyway, I wanted to write a response to Jordan for his shoddy theology and poor representation, who comes off more like a scared child (bully) than a professional in his field. But, as we all know, most internet comment threads are more about argumentation and yelling the loudest (so to speak) than actually voicing one’s opinion. So I decided to write my letter here and see what happens.

Before reading my response, check out the article first. Heres the link: Jordan Sekulow: The High Priest of Evolution

I know, right?
So here’s my letter to him (cross fingers! maybe it’ll help lead to something!):

Jordan, there are a number of issues I find with this column piece. Granted it’s a religious op/ed piece—and also that this is neither the time nor the place to fully address them fully; I resign myself to making a simple comment on your wall in hopes that this’ll be discussed.

Now I in no way intend this to be an attack, or “against” you per se, but there needs to be a voice which addresses these glaring issues which are brought up from your Washington Post column.

Firstly, you talk of what religion does best…I come from a mindset and belief system that “religion” is the thing which doesn’t do much of anything well—let alone best. But for the sake of argument, I will say that of not doing things well, we can affirm that of all those non-good things religion does, it can do something poorly “the best.”

You claim it to be conversion. Conversion? Really? Why then, is there a steady decline in those Americans who label themselves as “Christian” in polls taken year after year? If anything, religion seems to be failing at what you call “conversion” of the American populous.

Further, why is conversion what “religion” does best? Shouldn’t what religion does best be something like—change lives? Maybe change hearts which then affect the lives of those changed?

Perhaps you meant it sarcastically; talking of “religion” in a sarcastically glorified manner in which to address the real heart of the issue when it comes to Richard Dawkins and the theory of Evolution—more specifically, Darwinism.

Well, you then go on to talk of two options—option 1 being your take on Dawkins belief system and mentality, option 2 being what I’m assuming to be your Christian belief system and mentality. In any case, I don’t really know if “appeal” has anything to do with it. I mean, with that statement—no matter how it’s worded, but in this case how YOU worded it, it’s like reducing the action of “conversion” (I’m assuming what you would call conversion, but when can here define as a revelation and acceptance of what is Truth—namely, the fallen nature of Man, the desire for redemption between God and the world, the sacrifice and faith of Jesus to accomplish this, the changing of lives); it’s reducing all of that to something of a mere choice of pleasure over pain—which, having a “relationship” with Christ as the modern Christian Church would call it, is most definitely not (though it is what many make it out to be. A choice of the ego to “choose” Jesus and salvation as a means based empirically to seek and attain pleasure, and avoid pain.).

I don’t think Richard Dawkins is truly against God.

I think he’s against what the modern American Evangelical Christian professes God to be. And what God is that? The same which “92 percent” believe in? Is that really God? Maybe it’s a misconception. Maybe Dawkins is against the God built up by people who would claim God to be “conservative, republican, American.” Don’t you think that is a little beneath God? I mean, show me in scripture where God is a God of politics. Honestly, I would think it a form of hubris to think and claim that God is “political”—and more so even more prideful to believe God is backing and behind any political regime and party.

So if Dawkins is not faced with truth, how can he be against it? If he were to face genuine truth, “THE TRUTH”—Jesus, how could he argue against it? It’s truth. You can’t argue against it.

Lastly, you say that “Dawkins’ whole post is an attack on conservative Republicans…” And here again, since when are conservative Republicans Christians? Is it scriptural that to be a Christian one must be a Conservative Republican? Or legal that a conservative republican must be a Christian?

You jump from claiming Dawkins to be against and out to get Christians, to him attacking and being against conservative Republicans. If your goal was to set about labeling Dawkins as anti-conservative Republican, then don’t bring up the religious aspect. It muddles the issue and draws unnecessary—as well as very presumptive connections (between the Republican party and Christianity) which should not be there in the first place.

For someone like you who is pretty outspoken and a notably well known self professed Christian (some would go so far as to argue that like Dawkins, you are an “elitist” yourself—if only on this side of the pond, an American Elitist to rival Dawkins British Elitism), the lack of LOVE (which the God you express that you follow and worship commanded us to not only do—love, but that Jesus said they will know us {that we are Christians} by…“our love”) that you exhibit in this article seems to beg the same question you end with of and to you:

Is your “Christian” worship really about religion or politics?

->and the world will be better for this…
Leaving La Mancha

Leave a comment

Filed under Political (as such)