Click here to listen to the podcast!

In this week's episode, Sam and Dave discuss the positive impacts of law-abiding citizens owning firearms. It’s no secret that mainstream press coverage of gun ownership in the United States tends to be in favor of gun control. Journalists focus on how many people are killed by guns, how many children get their hands on improperly stored firearms, and how many deranged individuals go on shooting sprees.
 
This anti-gun news bias is widespread among urban elites who have very little personal experience with guns and yet have no problem opining about the subject for influential newspapers like The New York Times or The Washington Post. Despite this bias, gun ownership has significant positive impacts on American society that often go unreported.
 
There is actually a sort of semi-official policy regarding this: “if it bleeds, it leads.” This means, in short, that the more death and destruction, the higher up on the news the story goes. Nothing moves units quite like tales of gun violence, so the media complies by wallpapering coverage of tragic events like mass shootings, despite the fact that such events are rare and comprise a small number of the total deaths in America.
 
What’s more, the media almost never reports on context when it comes to mass shootings, such as the well-documented connection between prescription antidepressants and shootings. Even when SSRIs are involved, there is a serious problem with mental healthcare in the United States, which has one of the lowest rates of involuntary commitment in the world. In other words, it is incredibly difficult to get someone who is clearly a danger to themselves and others locked away even for a short observation period.
 
Of course, other, more tangential causes like the breakdown of civil society and the destruction of the family are never even considered.
 
Before proceeding further, it is finally worth pointing out that despite any talk of “weapons of war on our streets” by politicians and the media, it is primarily the police who hold such “weapons of war.” The possession of heavy weapons by local, state and federal law enforcement is not an abstract or philosophical question: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms alone offers a number of examples of the deadly consequences of a heavily armed police force.
 
You can read the full article American Gun Ownership: The Positive Impacts of Law-Abiding Citizens Owning Firearms at Ammo.com

Click here to listen to the podcast!

On this episode of The Resistance Library Podcast, Sam and David discuss the difference in meaning between the words nationalism and patriotism and why it matters. The terms “nationalism” and “patriotism” are often used interchangeably. This is understandable, as they have somewhat overlapping meanings, both of which suffer from a certain amount of vagueness. However, there are a number of key differences between the two that are worth shedding light on. In the final analysis, we believe that the term “nationalism,” while not denoting anything totalitarian by its nature, is not an accurate term for the sentiment that exists in the United States. Nationalism, it would seem, is more suited to Europe or Asia, places with historic nations, united by common language and ethnicity that are necessarily tied with a certain area of land.
 
There’s a lot to unpack here and the differences are extremely subtle. And to give a bit of a spoiler, we’re not going to be taking the position, as is often the case, that patriotism is fine but nationalism is simply a metastatic and malignant form of patriotism.
 
You can read the full article Nationalism vs. Patriotism: What's the Difference and Why it Matters at Ammo.com

Lol. And I'm sure the moderators of this hypothetical website would never collaborate with corporations and the government.

Safe from the virus? Always has been. Safe from the governments and companies that can profit from fearmongering? Never have been, never will be.

The Constitution contains a powerful set of ideals and a wise system of governance, based on a deep reading of classical and medieval history as well as Renaissance philosophy. However, none of this matters if no system of force is in place to keep and defend the Constitution.

Ultimately, this what the 2nd Amendment is about: A distributed capacity for violence guaranteed to private citizens so that they may serve as a check and balance on the power of the state.

America’s Founding Fathers understood an uncomfortable truth: Behind every law is the implicit threat of force, and behind every vote is the implicit threat of rebellion. Such a bargain is what holds a free society together. And no society with a wide power imbalance remains free for very long.

This truth was predicated upon the Founders classical education and their deep understanding of the power dynamics underpinning the systems of governance during the Roman Republic and Ancient Athens. The Roman Republic in particular influenced their views. Why? Because it provided not simply a template for government, but a historical warning about what can happen to a republic if precautions are not taken to ensure its survival.

Thus the Constitution intentionally contained concepts like separation of powers and a system of checks and balances. These concepts were predicated upon a core truth, as eloquently stated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence: ‘Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.’”

If you picture political power as a pyramid, the intention of the Founders was clear: The individual was paramount, having natural rights, and the individual would then delegate a portion of his or her political power to the state - hence, the state governed with the individual’s consent.

This delegation took place in stages in order to maintain as much decentralization as possible: First, the individual would delegate a portion of their political power to the municipality level. Then the municipal government would delegate a portion of its power to the county level. Then the counties would delegate a portion of their power to the state level. And ultimately the states would delegate a portion of their power to the federal level.

This delegation is best reflected in the Bill of Rights’ 10th Amendment to the Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Underpinning all of this tiered, sequential delegation was an uncomfortable, yet necessary, truth: That the individual must retain an implied threat of force against the state, and that this threat must be credible, in order to stop the state from deviating beyond the consent given to it or otherwise overrun the individual’s natural rights - what we’d refer to nowadays as a “power grab.”

But what happens when the state’s power grows so vast that individuals cannot resist it whatsoever? That they cannot provide a credible, implied threat of force to counterbalance state power because the state’s weapons have become so devastating? When the state no longer has the consent of the governed, and instead has intimidated the governed into submission?

This is a look at political power and how it has changed as weapons technology has advanced, from Ancient Athens and their virtuous citizen-hopline-freeholder, through the Middle Ages and armored knights, up to our modern weapons of war such as drones and atomic weapons. The concurrent centralization of power, finance, and the capacity to commit meaningful violence is no accident.

But how and why did this happen? And is there any way that we can play the tape backward to regain what we have lost?

Continue reading A Distributed Capacity for Violence: A Brief History of Weapons Technology and Political Power at Ammo.com.

Nothing clarifies a man’s thoughts like staking his life on them.

When what you believe threatens to deliver death and danger to your door, you think again – hard – about those beliefs. This is the moment of truth, when casual opinions dissolve and only convictions backed with soul-searching can stand. It's what made the American Founders special, and what made their thoughts more valuable than the pontifications of subsequent experts and elites: They were forced to risk their lives on their ideas, and the dross was burned away.

Thus we’ve brought together some of our favorite Founding Fathers quotes from America’s courageous revolutionaries.

“Our unalterable resolution should be to be free.”
-Sam Adams, to James Warren, 1776

“Wear none of thine own chains; but keep free, whilst thou art free.”
-William Penn, "Some Fruits of Solitude", 1693

“You will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve YOUR freedom. I hope you will make a good use of it.”
-John Adams

“Political freedom includes in it every other blessing. All the pleasures of riches, science, virtue, and even religion itself derive their value from liberty alone. No wonder therefore wise and prudent legislators have in all ages been held in such great veneration; and no wonder too those illustrious souls who have employed their pens and sacrificed their lives in defense of liberty have met with such universal applause. Their reputations, like some majestic river which enlarges and widens as it approaches its parent ocean, shall become greater and greater through every age and outlive the ruins of the world itself.”
-Benjamin Rush, to Catharine Macaulay, January 18, 1769

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”
-Patrick Henry

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive.”
-Thomas Jefferson, to Abigail Smith Adams, February 22, 1787

“The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for among old parchments or musty records. They are written, as with a sunbeam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.”
-Alexander Hamilton, "The Farmer Refuted", February 5, 1775

“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”
-Thomas Paine

“Freedom hath been hunted round the globe. Asia and Africa have long expelled her. Europe regards her like a stranger, and England hath given her warning to depart. O! Receive the fugitive, and prepare in time an asylum for mankind.”
-Thomas Paine, "Common Sense", 1776

“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”
-Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, 1762

“Freedom and not servitude is the cure of anarchy; as religion, and not atheism, is the true remedy for superstition.”
-Edmund Burke, Second Speech on Conciliation with America, The Thirteen Resolutions, March 22, 1775

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
-John Adams

“It is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel, and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what it’s Author never said nor saw. They have compounded from the heathen mysteries a system beyond the comprehension of man, of which the great reformer of the vicious ethics and deism of the Jews, were he to return on earth, would not recognise one feature.”
-Thomas Jefferson, in a letter speaking about the Jefferson Bible

“A government of laws, and not of men.”
-John Adams, Essay in the Boston Gazette, 1774

“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of a higher obligation. … To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.”
-Thomas Jefferson, to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810

“Those that can give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Benjamin Franklin

“Law is whatever is boldly asserted and plausibly maintained.”
-Aaron Burr

“Friends and neighbors complain that taxes are indeed very heavy, and if those laid on by the government were the only ones we had to pay, we might more easily discharge them; but we have many others, and much more grievous to some of us. We are taxed twice as much by our idleness, three times as much by our pride, and four times as much by our folly; and from these taxes the commissioners cannot ease or deliver us by allowing an abatement. However, let us hearken to good advice, and something may be done for us: ‘God helps them that help themselves,’ as Poor Richard says.”
-Benjamin Franklin, The Way to Wealth

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”-Benjamin Franklin

“Where carcasses are, eagles will gather, And where good laws are, much people flock thither.”
-Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1732

“Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“Of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trial by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms...If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny.”
-James Monroe

“It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man who knows what the law is today can guess what it will be tomorrow.”
-James Madison

“Any government is free to the people under it where the laws rule and the people are a party to the laws.”
-William Penn, Frame of Government, 1682

“Our new Constitution is now established, everything seems to promise it will be durable; but, in this world, nothing is certain except death and taxes.”
-Benjamin Franklin
“The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside… Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…”
-Thomas Paine

“What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty...The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits...Wherever standing armies are kept up and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”
-St. George Tucker

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.”
-Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria

“There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet an enemy.”
-George Washington, Letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 29, 1780

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“Men are also bound, individuals and societies, to take care of their temporal happiness, and do all they lawfully can, to promote it. But what can be more inconsistent with this duty, than submitting to great encroachments upon our liberty? Such submission tends to slavery; and compleat slavery implies every evil that the malice of man and devils can inflict.”
-Simeon Howard, A sermon preached to the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company in Boston, 1773

“One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
-Tench Coxe

“The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
-Tench Coxe

“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.”
-Tench Coxe

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
-James Madison

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
-Joseph Story

“The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
-James Madison

“Free men have arms; slaves do not.”
-William Blackstone

“From the east to the west blow the trumpet to arms! Through the land let the sound of it flee; Let the far and the near all unite, with a cheer, In defense of our Liberty Tree.”
-Thomas Paine

“The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.”
-William Rawle

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
-Patrick Henry

“If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms – never – never – never!”
-William Pitt

“The militia is our ultimate safety. We can have no security without it.”
-Patrick Henry

“The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace both from the enormous expenses with which they are attended and the facile means which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers to subvert the government or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers and will generally even if these are successful the first instance enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
-Justice Joseph Story

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”
-Samuel Adams

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
-Patrick Henry

“[T]he people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
-Zacharia Johnson

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.”
-George Mason

“O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristrocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?”
-Patrick Henry, Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1788

“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man – who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”
-George Mason

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
-Tench Coxe

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
-Noah Webster

“It is a great mark of the corruption of our natures, and what ought to humble us extremely, and excite the exercise of our reason to a nobler and juster sense, that we cannot see the use and pleasure of our comforts but by the want of them. As if we could not taste the benefit of health, but by the help of sickness; nor understand the satisfaction of fullness without the instruction of want; not, finally, know the comfort of peace but by the smart and penance of the vices of war: And without dispute that is not the lest reason that God is pleased to chastise us so frequently with it.”
-William Penn

“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defence of the country, the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense.”
-John Adams

“A people who would stand fast in their liberty, should furnish themselves with weapons proper for their defence, and learn the use of them. It is indeed an hard case, that those who are happy in the blessings of providence, and disposed to live peaceably with all men, should be obliged to keep up the idea of blood and slaughter, and expend their time and treasure to acquire the arts and instruments of death. But this is a necessity which the depravity of human nature has laid upon every state. Nor was there ever a people that continued, for any considerable time, in the enjoyment of liberty, who were not in a capacity to defend themselves against invaders, unless they were too poor and inconsiderable to tempt an enemy.”
-Simeon Howard, A Sermon to the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company in Boston, June 7, 1773

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”
-Alexander Hamilton

“Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
-Representative Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.”
-Richard Henry Lee

“No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms...”
-Thomas Jefferson

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
-Richard Henry Lee

“In a general view there are very few conquests that repay the charge of making them, and mankind are pretty well convinced that it can never be worth their while to go to war for profit sake. If they are made war upon, their country invaded, or their existence at stake, it is their duty to defend and preserve themselves, but in every other light and from every other cause is war inglorious and detestable.”
-Thomas Paine, "The Crisis", 1778

“Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them.”
-Thomas Paine

“Oppressors can tyrannize only when they achieve a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace.”
-James Madison

“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.”
-Fisher Ames

“The ultimate authority...resides in the people alone...The advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”
-James Madison

“To preserve peace will no doubt be difficult, but by accomplishing it we can show our wisdom and magnanimity, and secure to our people the enjoyment of a dignified repose by indulging which they will be prosperous and happy.”
-James Monroe

“If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my child may have peace.”
-Thomas Paine

“Our plan is peace forever.”
-Thomas Paine, "Common Sense", 1776

“As to myself, I love peace, and I am anxious that we should give the world still another useful lesson, by showing to them other modes of punishing injuries than by war, which is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer.”
-Thomas Jefferson, to Tench Coxe, May 1, 1794

“We have it in our power to begin the world over again.”
-Thomas Paine

“Peace is the best time for improvement and preparation of every kind; it is in peace that our commerce flourishes most, that taxes are most easily paid, and that the revenue is most productive.”
-James Monroe, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1817

“There never was a good war or a bad peace.”
-Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Josiah Quincy, September 11, 1783

“It is not by the consolidation or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.”
-Thomas Jefferson

“In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Founding Fathers Quotes: Our Favorite Quotes from America's Courageous Revolutionaries originally appeared in The Resistance Library at Ammo.com.

There are two ways of getting things done: persuasion or coercion. You either convince someone of the value of your ideas or you hold a (literal or metaphorical) gun to their head. The latter has been the norm throughout human history. Most of what we value about the contemporary West is a shift toward the former occurring over the last 250 years or so.

However, there’s an important difference between the despotisms of old and coercive governments in the modern era: modern-day tyrants frame themselves as the righteous side in any conflict.

Think about it: Ancient Persian Emperors and the German Kaiser didn’t paint themselves as the moral superiors of their enemies. They simply wanted their stuff and, if they could, they took it. In contrast, during the American Civil War or the Allied cause during World War II, force didn’t justify itself. Instead, force was justified by the righteousness of the cause.

(President Lincoln openly, repeatedly stated more than a year into the Civil War that his call to "end slavery" was a useful means by which to justify his real objective: To preserve the Union.)

The need to justify force with righteousness is not limited to wartime. Every new coercive law or regulation is justified not on the basis of “I’m strong enough to take your stuff and so I think I will,” but because “our cause is just.” While some who would take your freedom or your life are motivated by their desire for power, the most vicious monsters in human history were all motivated by righteousness. They seek to perfect creation, no matter what the cost, rather than simply acquire power for its own end - a philosophically important distinction.

It is this philosophy of using state power to impose one's morality on others that in part has made American politics such a bloodsport nowadays. If you follow the thread from the Abolitionist movement (which provided moral justification for the Union's invasion of the Confederacy) through the Temperance movement (which culminated in Prohibition) to the Progressivism movement as we detail below, you'll see why.

Continue reading Righteousness + Force in America: The Trap of Righteous Activism Coupled with State Power at Ammo.com.

Our historical forgotten American articles are generally impressive figures, but there are very few one might accurately call “cool.” This is an exception in two ways. Václav Havel, the founder of the modern-day Czech Republic (also known as Czechia) is undoubtedly cool by any definition of the word. A political dissident under the Soviet-backed regime, he served hard time in Communist prisons rather than bend the knee to their authority. His moral courage acted as a beacon of hope for the entire resistance movement behind the Iron Curtain. As you've gathered by now, the second exception is that Havel is not American, but his fight against Communism earned himself an honorable mention in our "Forgotten Americans" section.

Havel was born in Prague in 1936, to a wealthy and prominent family in then Czechoslovakia, a nation newly independent from the Austro-Hungarian Empire made up of the future Czechia and Slovakia. His paternal line was comprised of real estate developers, while his mother was the daughter of a famous diplomat and journalist. As one might imagine, this did not make his life easy after the Czechoslovakian Communist coup d’etat of 1948.

Indeed, the new Communist regime dictated his life path largely on the basis of his class background. He took gymnasium classes while working as an apprentice chemical lab assistant. Due to political and social reasons, none of the post-secondary humanities programs would accept him as a student. He was accepted into a prestigious economics program, but dropped out after two years. He entered into compulsory military service in 1957, and left in 1959.

Being a member of a formerly well-to-do family, most avenues in the arts and academia were closed off to Havel. However, it was his family’s deep roots in the cultural and intellectual community of Czechia that guided his final chapter in life as the leader of the resistance to Soviet and Communist domination over Czechoslovakia, and later the peaceful separation between Czechia and Slovakia.

From Playwright to Presidency

Official avenues into the arts were largely closed off to him, however, Havel was an innovative and enterprising young man. He took work as a stagehand to learn the craft of theater from behind the scenes while he took dramatic arts courses through the mail. He won international acclaim with his first full-length play, The Garden Party, presented as part of a series on the Theater of the Absurd. In 1968, his second play The Memorandum was featured at The Public Theater in New York, which further helped to solidify his reputation on the international scene.

1968 was also the year of the Prague Spring, a time of greater openness within Czechoslovakia, which had always been the Soviet satellite least under the thumb of the Soviet Union. However, at the end of the Prague Spring, tanks from five different Warsaw Pact nations (the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, East Germany, Poland and Hungary – Romania and Albania refused to participate) rolled into Czechoslovakia, putting an end to this period of liberalization. Havel’s plays were banned from being performed in the country and he was forbidden from traveling abroad, which meant that he could not see his own work being performed.

It was during the Prague Spring that Havel’s identity began to take on more of the character of political dissident than of artist. He was the voice of Radio Free Czechoslovakia during the early weeks of the Prague Spring. After the suppression of the Spring, he took a job in a brewery to make ends meet. He wrote plays about his experiences during this time that were later called “the Vaněk Plays” after the protagonist, who is essentially a stand-in for Havel.

These plays were distributed in samizdat (self-publishing used by dissidents in the Soviet bloc) form. It was during this period that he acquired a reputation as one of the leading dissidents of Czechoslovakia. This reputation skyrocketed with the publication of Charter 77, a manifesto published in response to the imprisonment of Czech rock band Plastic People of the Universe. The Charter attacked the government for failing to abide by its own nominal human rights laws. The document was meant to be presented to the assembly, but was destroyed. Possession of the document was a crime.

In 1979, he formed the Committee for the Defense of the Unjustly Prosecuted along with a number of other signatories of Charter 77. He was soon arrested after this, in what would be his longest stay in prison – May 1979 to April 1983. Letters to his wife written during this period were later published as Letters to Olga. Samuel Beckett wrote a short play during this time called Catastrophe that was dedicated to Havel in prison.

Czechoslovakia was one of the few Communist regimes to fall with comparatively little bloodshed. This was known as the Velvet Revolution for two reasons: First, because it went so smoothly, but also because of Havel’s well known affinity for American rock band The Velvet Underground. The revolution has now become known as “the Gentle Revolution” in Slovakia, but it is still known as the Velvet Revolution in Czechia.

President Vaclav Havel

What was supposed to be a relatively uneventful student demonstration was suppressed by police, which led to massive protests throughout Czechoslovakia. The numbers quickly ballooned until half a million students were out on the streets, and the entire Communist government resigned in less than the span of a week. A few days later, the entire country went on strike. Less than two weeks after it began, the entire Communist apparatus had collapsed. Havel was elected President of Czechoslovakia on December 29, 1989. He was elected by the unanimous vote of the Federal Assembly.

At this time, he was the head of the Civic Forum, a short-lived political party based on Charter 77. When the first free elections since 1946 were held in Czechoslovakia, the political party and its Slovak equivalent, Public Against Violence, cleaned up – they commanded the largest share of the vote for any political party in a free election in history when counted together.

The new country suffered from increasing internal tensions between its Czech and Slovak halves. Despite receiving the most votes for president in the next election, Havel did not obtain the necessary majority because all of the Slovak deputies failed to vote for him. He resigned his presidency, rather than preside over the dissolution of the nation. After the Slovak Declaration of Independence, he stood for president of the new nation of the Czech Republic and was elected its first president.

The framers of the new Czech Constitution wanted to vest most of the power in the Prime Minister. However, because of the massive and weighty moral authority possessed by Havel, the presidency of Czechia quickly grew in power and scope. One example of his unofficial power was keeping the Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia, the successor party to the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, on the political fringes. Havel considered the party to be an unreconstructed Stalinist political party.

Havel tended to be even more popular internationally than he was in his home country. He was not afraid of making controversial statements, for example stating his belief that expelling the Sudeten Germans after the Second World War was a great moral crime. One of his first acts as president was to issue a general amnesty – to relieve the strain on the prison system, but also to release everyone who might have been falsely or wrongly imprisoned underneath the Communist regime. However, this led to a massive spike in the crime rate for the country, including a doubling of the murder rate.

Havel considered his two greatest accomplishments to be agitating for the end of the Warsaw Pact and the integration of Eastern European nations into an expanded version of NATO. He remained president of the Czech Republic until 2003.

Havel’s Legacy

The bulk of his life post-presidency was dedicated to research on the subject of human rights, but also securing his artistic and intellectual legacy. This included many trips to the United States, including a recorded conversation with then United States President Bill Clinton. He was voted the third-greatest Czech of all time, being bested in the number of votes only by King Charles IV of Bohemia and Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, the first president of Czechoslovakia. He also returned to playwriting during his final years.

He passed away on December 18, 2011, at his country home in Hrádeček. At the time of his death, he had received numerous state awards, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

A number of memorials have been erected in his honor, including the Václav Havel Prize for Creative Dissent, The Václav Havel Library, The Václav Havel Building of the European Parliament, and a number of memorial plaques and busts.

Václav Havel stands as an example of how one can succeed against all odds. At the time that he began actively resisting the Communist regime of Czechoslovakia, no one thought it was possible to win, perhaps not even Havel. But he stood his ground and refused to bend. Even when he was in jail, Havel was freer than many.

Vaclav Havel: The Forgotten History of the Political Dissident Who Founded the Czech Republic originally appeared in The Resistance Library at Ammo.com.

Farm subsidies are perhaps the ultimate, but secret, third rail of American politics. While entitlements are discussed out in the open, farm subsidies are rarely talked about – even though they are the most expensive subsidy Washington doles out.

All told, the U.S. government spends $20 billion annually on farm subsidies, with approximately 39 percent of all farms receiving some sort of subsidy. For comparison, the oil industry gets about $4.6 billion annually and annual housing subsidies total another $15 billion. A significant portion of this $20 billion goes not to your local family farm, but to Big Aggie.

(Note that this $20 billion annual farm subsidy figure doesn’t take into account the 30+ years of ethanol subsidies to the corn industry nor export subsidies to U.S. farmers issued by the USDA.)

The government never properly explains why this is. Certainly small farmers are growing their crops at enormous risk. However, it’s not clear that agriculture is any different than other high-risk industries – especially because the United States is blessed with some of the most fertile farmland in the world, and a highly skilled labor force.

Subsidies don’t just cost taxpayers, an expense that might properly be justified by showing a return on investment. Subsidies also provide powerful disincentives against innovation, as well as cost effectiveness and diversification of land use.

There is also a strong case to be made that farm subsidies are a major driver of the obesity and cancer epidemic in the United States. Every time Washington interferes in the private sector, they are picking winners and losers. The winners chosen are companies producing food that’s high in calories and low in nutritional density – and that helps make Americans sick and fat, because it distorts what food is available at what price.

While President Trump has sometimes discussed reducing farm subsidies, the solution to the problem is much more radical – the total elimination of all farm subsidies from the federal budget.

Continue reading Food Is Freedom: How Washington’s Food Subsidies Have Helped Make Americans Fat and Sick at Ammo.com.

Information has taken on a whole new meaning in the digital age, a time when sensitive data is either too easily accessible or not accessible enough. This issue of access to information encompasses fundamental human rights – specifically the freedom of speech as well as the right to privacy. Because it's a primary means of maintaining transparency and accountability within government policies and decision-making in both the United States and around the globe, information is more valuable than ever to both government agencies and our individual lives. This guide takes an in-depth look at FOIA history and the importance of exercising your right to know.

International Right to Know Day: September 28th

September 28th marks International Right to Know Day. What began as a meeting between freedom of information organizations from 15 countries in 2002, has expanded to a global observance supported by more than 200 organizations worldwide. Each year, International Right to Know Day seeks to make people aware of the distinct rights they have to access government information that is essential to "open, democratic societies in which there is full citizen empowerment and participation in government." Within the United States, those rights come in the form of the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA.

Freedom of Information Act

July 2016, marked not only FOIA's golden 50-year anniversary, a milestone in Americans' rights to scrutinize government agency records, but also the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. Together, they remind us that FOIA's guarantee of access to information was not easily acquired – nor was it a legally binding right. In fact, FOIA's very creation was highly controversial. And since it has passed, its implementation and execution have continued to present challenges of their own.

1789 Housekeeping Statute

For more than 175 years, the United States relied on what was known as the 1789 Housekeeping Statute. As the U.S. Constitution does not specify policy or procedure for information sharing either among federal bodies or with the public, Congress' 1789 statute authorized heads of departments to maintain records and to determine how those records would be used.

Although the legislation was considered simply a "housekeeping" measure for a growing nation, opponents of free access even today continue to invoke it in arguments to withhold information – even though a one-line 1959 amendment to the statute specifically states, "This section does not authorize withholding information from the public or limiting the availability of records to the public."

Administrative Procedure Act of 1946

As the growing nation continued to create agencies and departments, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw the need to once again establish some additional housekeeping rules through the Administrative Procedure Act. According to the act, federal agencies had to maintain records and make them "available to public inspection" – except for "information held confidential for good cause." Fraught with loopholes, the act gave more cause to withhold information than to share it. However, it did require that agencies:

• Establish offices where the public could "secure information or make submittals or requests."
• Publish formal and informal procedures for information sharing.
• Make available "instructions as to the scope and contents of all papers, reports, or examinations."

FOIA Reaction to Cold War Secrecy

Post-World War II, however, conflict assumed new dimensions in the Cold War. Governmental secrecy increasingly frustrated journalists and the public alike. Open demand for information grew, spurred on by Harold Cross' 1953 publication of The People's Right To Know and ensuing congressional initiatives led by California's Democratic Representative John Moss.

On July 4, 1966, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued a signing statement to edify Congress' fresh, new Freedom of Information Act with limitations. Although his statement asserted that "a democracy works best when the people have all the information that the security of the nation will provide," it focused heavily on the fact that "the welfare of the nation or the rights of individuals may require that some documents not be made available." While reluctantly conceding the act as necessary, Johnson removed many of the act's teeth exception by exemption. Even so, for the first time, a law had been written with the sole purpose of ensuring public access to federal agency records.

Effects of Nixon Administration and Watergate

Less than a decade later, perhaps one of the greatest positives that resulted from the scandal of Watergate and the Nixon administration's abuse of power was FOIA's strengthening. As more and more details of secretive, inappropriate activities involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency and Internal Revenue Service came to light, public distrust and demand for accurate information grew.

In answer, Congress drafted the FOIA Amendments of 1974 – not only passing them, but also overriding a presidential veto from then-President Gerald Ford. The amendments became law on November 21, 1974, establishing:

• Acceptable guidelines and response timelines for information requests.
• More specific conditions for denials.
• Accountability for denials of requests.
• Administrative and legal fee guidance.

Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976

Two years later, as acknowledgement that most decision-making occurs behind closed doors, the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 sought to open them. Under the act, any meeting involving a quorum of board or commission members must be placed on the Federal Register seven days in advance and must allow interested members of the public to attend. However, it, too, contains exemptions and issues of interpretation that continue to obscure the intended transparency, especially for journalists and the media, who often are the first to inform the public of new or pending changes within our government.

Continue reading Right to Know: A Historical Guide to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) at Ammo.com.

They had them in Vietnam and Afghanistan as well.

Click here to listen to the podcast!

On this episode of the Resistance Library Podcast, Sam and Dave discuss Constitution Day. Constitution Day is a dual observance: It celebrates both the day that the United States Constitution was adopted, as well as honors naturalized citizens of our country.
 
Prior to 2004, the day was known as Citizenship Day. Its name was changed due to an amendment attached to a spending bill by Sen. Robert Byrd.
 
While there was an archaic form of the holiday first celebrated in Iowa schools in 1911, a movement to adopt the day was advanced by the Sons of the American Revolution. This organization appointed a committee to lobby for the day that included figures such as then-Vice President Calvin Coolidge, John D. Rockefeller, and newly minted World War I hero General John J. Pershing. However, the origins of the day actually lie in the late 1930s.

You can read the full article Constitution Day: The Forgotten History of the Celebration of America's Founding Document at Ammo.com

The doctor in the first video – I'm sincerely worried she's going have suicide committed against her.

With American military personnel now entering service who were not even alive on 9/11, this seems an appropriate time to reexamine the events of September 11, 2001 – the opaque motives for the attacks, the equally opaque motives for the counter-offensive by the United States and its allies known as the Global War on Terror, and the domestic fall-out for Americans concerned about the erosion of their civil liberties on the homefront.

Before venturing further, it’s worth noting that our appraisal is not among the most common explanations. Osama bin Laden, his lieutenants at Al-Qaeda, and the men who carried out the attack against the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon are not “crazy,” unhinged psychopaths launching an attack against the United States without what they consider to be good reason.

Nor do we consider then-President George W. Bush to be either a simpleton, a willing conspirator, an oil profiteer, or a Machivellian puppet whose cabinet were all too happy to take advantage of a crisis.

The American press tends to portray its leaders as fools and knaves, and America’s enemies as psychopathic. Because the propaganda machine hammered away so heavily on the simple “cowardly men who hate our freedom” line, there was not much in the way of careful consideration of the actual political motives of the hijackers, the Petro-Islam that funded them, the ancient, antagonistic split between Sunni and Shi’a, the fall-out from the 1979 Iranian revolution or the 1970s energy crisis, the historical context of covert American involvement in the Soviet-Afghan War and the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s, nor the perceived “imperialist humanitarianism” of American military adventures of the 1990s in Muslim nations like Bosnia, Iraq, Somalia and Kosovo. Alone, none of these factors were deadly. Combined, they provided a lethal combination.

It is our considered opinion that the events of 9/11 and those that followed in direct response to the attacks – including the invasion of Iraq – were carried out by good faith rational actors who believed they were acting in the best interests of their religion or their nation. There are no conspiracy theories here; sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

This opinion does not in any way absolve the principals from moral responsibility for the consequences of their actions. It does, however, provide what we believe to be a more accurate and nuanced depiction of events than is generally forthcoming from any sector of the media – because we see these principals as excellent chess players who, in the broad sweep of events, engaged in actions which are explicable.

How the Hijackers Pulled Off the Intelligence Coup of the Century

How the Hijackers Pulled Off the Intelligence Coup of the Century
The 9/11 Attacks: Understanding Al-Qaeda and the Domestic Fall-Out from America's Secret WarVery few people dispute one simple fact: On 9/11, 19 men hijacked four planes, three of which hit their targets: the World Trade Center Building 1, the World Trade Center Building 2, and the Pentagon. The fourth crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

What is less often talked about is perhaps an even more stunning feat the hijackers pulled off: Being able to evade the attention of the United States intelligence community while planning their attacks. Indeed, their acumen with regard to covert operations was so great that they were effectively able to steal an air force for the attacks. It’s not that they were absent from the radar of U.S. intel services – it’s that no one was ever able to connect the dots.

Indeed, they understood the game so well that Osama bin Laden was able to call his mother two days before the attack to tell her: “In two days you’re going to hear big news, and you’re not going to hear from me for awhile.” He knew he was under surveillance by the NSA, but he also knew the turnaround time on intel was three days.

Another oft overlooked quality that the hijackers had was discipline and intestinal fortitude. It is important to remember that courage is a virtue, but it does not carry a moral weight of its own. The men who perpetrated the attacks on 9/11 went to their deaths in a disciplined fashion, carrying out their orders to the letter. This is not something a coward, a simpleton, or a psychopath does.

While the evidence for the attack was able to be collated in hindsight, it is not an exaggeration to say that the United States was more surprised by the attack of 9/11 than it was by the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The U.S. Domestic Situation in the 1970s

It’s helpful to start with the domestic situation in the United States in the 1970s. Still in the throes of the Vietnam defeat, Congress had little appetite for defense expenditures or additional covert wars. However, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, saw an opportunity to use the Soviets’ favorite tool against them when they invaded Afghanistan in 1979: The sponsored war of national liberation.

This was also post-Watergate era, and there was a focus on transparency in the government. This included sweeping changes to how intelligence operations were conducted in the United States. The battle against the spooks was fought by Idaho Senator Frank Church, who held hearings demonstrating that the American intelligence community was simultaneously untrustworthy as well as bad at its job. The end result was a hamstrung CIA and NSA, because they were found to be illegally spying on Americans.

Thus you had an intelligence community both out of favor in Washington and discreetly called upon to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan as part of the larger Cold War chess board.

Continue reading The 9/11 Attacks: Understanding Al-Qaeda and the Domestic Fall-Out from America's Secret War on Ammo.com.

Thank you, that was my intention.

The terms “nationalism” and “patriotism” are often used interchangeably. This is understandable, as they have somewhat overlapping meanings, both of which suffer from a certain amount of vagueness. However, there are a number of key differences between the two that are worth shedding light on. In the final analysis, we believe that the term “nationalism,” while not denoting anything totalitarian by its nature, is not an accurate term for the sentiment that exists in the United States. Nationalism, it would seem, is more suited to Europe or Asia, places with historic nations, united by common language and ethnicity that are necessarily tied with a certain area of land.

There’s a lot to unpack here and the differences are extremely subtle. And to give a bit of a spoiler, we’re not going to be taking the position, as is often the case, that patriotism is fine but nationalism is simply a metastatic and malignant form of patriotism.

First Things First: How Do Both Differ From Libertarianism and Conservatism

Before going any further, it’s worth taking a few minutes to distinguish both patriotism and nationalism from libertarianism and conservatism. We can do this without parsing out the difference between patriotism and nationalism – and for that matter, libertarianism and conservatism.
Libertarianism and conservatism operate from a similar set of principles. These principles are abstract and platonic in as much as they are about divining the truest form of an ideal ideology from a stated goal. Libertarianism has a clear philosophical principle: more liberty is always good. American conservatism is a diffuse and often contradictory philosophy, but for the purposes of extrapolating the difference between conservatism and other ideologies, we will say that the defining characteristic of American conservatism (as opposed to European conservatism, which has a much greater overlap with nationalism), is that of limited government.

We can conflate both of these ideals into the somewhat more vague notion that “freedom is always good.” The point here isn’t to oversimplify and make a strawman. It’s simply to come up with a uniting ethos to illustrate how nationalism and patriotism as ideologies differ from currents that have been more mainstream on the American right for a longer period of time.

Nationalism and patriotism, on the other hand, might find value in freedom and might even make a secondary goal out of it. However, the uniting principle of each is that it is the country itself, the success of the body politic, that is paramount, not more abstract notions of freedom.

Thus, the key difference is that conservatism and libertarianism are philosophically driven ideologies where results take a backseat to principles. On the other hand, nationalism and patriotism are pragmatic ideologies, where the proof is in the pudding. Another way of phrasing this is that libertarianism and conservatism are non-consequentialist, whereas nationalism and patriotism are consequentialist. Conservatism and libertarianism are guided by “doing the right thing,” whereas nationalism and patriotism are more “the ends justify the means” type of philosophies.

It is worth noting, briefly, that Sam Francis, an advisor to the 1996 presidential campaign of Pat Buchanan, urged him to not even compete for the mantle of “conservative,” instead telling him to identify as a nationalist, patriot or America Firster. His ideas are considered enormously influential on President Trump’s 2016 campaign.

Definition by Contrast: What is Globalism?

Nationalism and patriotism also stand in contrast to globalism. While this term is thrown around a lot, it is worth discussing what it is and what it means and how it is different from its alternatives.

Globalism is, simply put, a view of politics that values trans-national bureaucracies over the nation state. Sometimes these are big, shadowy institutions like the Trilateral Commission or the Bilderberg Group, but more commonly they are far more innocuous-looking non-governmental organizations (NGOs or sometimes “QUANGOs” for “quasi-autonomous non-governmental organizations).

NGOs generally present themselves as some kind of politically neutral entity that is just about “good people doing good things.” Amnesty International, for example, was, for many years, an organization dedicated to defending people who were held in jail for their political or religious views. They now lobby for legalized abortion and liberalization of gay marriage laws across the world. Regardless of how one feels about either of these issues, it seems difficult to square either of these with the mission of Amnesty.

NGOs are largely how George Soros exercises power over the political process of countries, which has led to them being expelled from Hungary and Myanmar. They tend to have generic names like “United We Dream” or “International Rescues Committee.” Thus, they are difficult to attack on their face – are you opposed to dreams and rescues?

Globalism is marked by both its global orientation and hostility toward the nation state, but also its view that democracy is a means to an end. When the democratic process fails to provide the “correct” result, this is taken as prima facie something has gone wrong and needs to be corrected. This can be seen in the liberal-globalist response to the election of President Trump in 2016, but also the whole attitude of globalists toward nations like Poland and Hungary, whose democracies consistently oppose liberalism in toto at the ballot box.

Continue reading Nationalism vs. Patriotism: What's the Difference and Why it Matters on Ammo.com.

Why cure it altogether when you can just keep selling people temporary vaccines?

On this episode of the Resistance Library Podcast, Sam and Dave discuss the subtle differences between “freedom” vs. “liberty.” The terms "freedom" and "liberty" have become clichés in modern political parlance. Because these words are invoked so much by politicians and their ilk, their meanings are almost synonymous and used interchangeably. That's confusing – and can be dangerous – because their definitions are actually quite different.
 
"Freedom" is predominantly an internal construct. Viktor Frankl, the legendary Holocaust survivor who wrote Man's Search For Meaning, said it well: “Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way (in how he approaches his circumstances).”
 
In other words, to be free is to take ownership of what goes on between your ears, to be autonomous in thoughts first and actions second. Your freedom to act a certain way can be taken away from you – but your attitude about your circumstances cannot – making one's freedom predominantly an internal construct.
 
On the other hand, "liberty" is predominantly an external construct. It's the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views. The ancient Stoics knew this (more on that in a minute). So did the Founding Fathers, who wisely noted the distinction between negative and positive liberties, and codified that difference in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
 
The distinction between negative and positive liberties is particularly important, because an understanding of each helps us understand these seminal American documents (plus it explains why so many other countries have copied them). The Bill of Rights is a charter of negative liberties – it says what the state cannot do to you. However, it does not say what the state must do on your behalf. This would be a positive liberty, an obligation imposed upon you by the state.
 
Thus in keeping with what the late Murray Rothbard said above, the liberty of the individual is the necessary condition for the flowering of all the other "goods" that mankind cherishes. Living in liberty allows each of us to fully enjoy our freedoms. And how these two terms developed and complement one another is important for anyone desiring to better understand what it means to be truly free.
 
You can read the full article Freedom vs. Liberty: How Subtle Differences Between These Two Big Ideas Changed Our World at Ammo.com

Why would they change? They believe their actions are condoned by their god and have just assumed control of their own country. What they're doing seems to be working just fine for them.

It's a chicken or the egg question. If you were already corrupt, wouldn't you seek out a position that allows you to exploit people for your own personal gain?