The Fallacies of the Founding Fathers
Part Duh
The Federal Constitution

 

“…the constitution [is] a chastity belt whose key is always within the wearer’s reach.”
--Anthony DeJasay

Most Americans were told in Pub-Ed that America came into being as a nation with the Federal Constitution of 1787. Today, many are ejaculating their consternation over the lawlessness of both the people and the governments—those People who violate the laws against destruction of property and human Rights, and the impotence of those charged with sustaining and executing those laws.

The truth of the matter is America did not come into being with the passage of that Constitution—WHICH THE MAJORITY OF THE POPULACE did not want, and sought to obstruct its passage. It was the wealthy merchants, bankers, and land holders of the day, just as in our own time, and every instance in between them, that forced the farcical document which created the hierarchical government upon the American people. Those common American people who overwhelmingly immigrated to these shores to escape the pervasive domination of government in their native lands. They came as indentured servants, as paupers, as convicts and castaways, as dreamers of a Frontier where they could be left alone to pursue their notion of happiness.

Did America come into being with the Federal Constitution?
The Articles of Confederation?
The founding of Jamestown?
The Mayflower compact?
The rapacity and pillaging of Christopher Columbus?

What did the French mean by the Statue of Liberty, and the later added proem, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” And the exiles, the revolutionaries, the mercantilists, the ideological misfits, the oppressed poor and refugees, and above them all, the bankers and businessmen.

What made America?

Exactly what we were told in grammar school, but paid not the slightest attention to:

“Wherever I went in Europe I was struck by the persistence of the old original idea that America, and especially the United States, has no reason for existence except as a milch cow for Europe. People there were apparently born with this idea, as they might have been in the days of Columbus and Balboa. I observed it not only in the higher walks of society, but also in the lower. I observed also that Americans do not quite understand this persuasion, which is why I speak of it here. As far as I could see, there was no meanness about it, no spirit of grafting or sponging, or of bilking a rich and easy-going neighbour. It seemed rather to be the simple, natural expression of a sort of proprietary instinct. The general harmony and fitness of things required that America's resources should at all times be at the disposal of Europe for Europe's benefit. Especially it was imperative that when Europe got in any kind of scrape, America's plain duty was to take the brunt of it, and to stand by when the scrape was settled, and clean up the debris at American expense.” p251 Albert Nock, The Superfluous Man

America has always been seen as the land of riches first, then a land of opportunity, a place where anyone could come and acquire wealth without constraint, if by no other means than plunder. Whether it was the socialized plunder of the Mayflower compact, or chartered (gold and silver) business ventures like Jamestown, the speculation of the land companies in consequence of land-backed specie, or the mercantilists, traders, and bankers who conceived and executed the Constitution, the impetus undergirding Government has ever been the economic security of those at the top of the food chain.

What made America, and its subsequent union of States was not politics. The American colonies fought a war of insurrection, yes insurrection not a revolution, BEFORE they came together politically. The word revolution does not descend from revolt, but revolve, and what those thirteen States did in common defense was not a return to fundamentals, but a revolt against the British Parliamentarian oppression.

America up to that time was an amalgamation of English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, French, Spanish, German, and Natives. All of them were competing for land, resources, a piece of that milch cow that the world to this day has assumed the Northern western hemisphere to be. Relative peace prevailed among the Colonies, though there were constant provocations among the competing ethnic interests. Prosperity was incrementally abounding, until a certain young, inexperienced and foolish man changed all that. Reflecting on this transition from prosperity to poverty, and peace to conflict, Benjamin Franklin declared:

“The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters, had it not been the poverty caused by the bad influence of the English bankers on the Parliament: which has caused in the Colonies hatred of England, and the Revolutionary War.”

“The inability of the Colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war.”

That insurrectionary war was never about “Liberty”, but about Money. How did this poverty come about? In every historical case, it begins with the debauchment of money. Whether it is the debasing of coin by changing its content, size, and thus its reference standard, or the introduction of paper as currency, it always begins with a frantic escalation in prosperity and then long periods of poverty as its value dissipates. That well-meaning but foolish young man who triggered the conflict with England was Benjamin Franklin. The consequences of this singular act put in motion the creation of the Federal Constitution and all the political nightmare that has spread like a hydra across the world over the last three centuries.

A listing of significant historical events gives outline and scope to the process:

1729 Benjamin Franklin, age 23, calls for Colonial paper money rather than gold and silver coin as specie. The specie is backed by real estate, an artifice of wealth carried forward from the Normans, precipitating the land rush in Colonial times.

1751 Franklin, age 45, informs British bankers of their prosperity due to Colonial Scrip (paper money); Britain’s Parliament then requires economic exchange by gold and silver coin of the Colonies; financial collapse and poverty ensue.

1752 George Washington begins hoarding “unclaimed” territory as public land surveyor. He is the motive force behind the Mississippi and Potomac companies.

1754 George Washington assassinates the French governor’s emissary, precipitating the French and Indian war. George, as land surveyor coveted the land he surveyed, inhabited then by the French and Natives.

1765 The British Stamp Act was enacted to finance the French and Indian war, precipitated by Lt. George Washington in 1754. Military conflict begins with Britain.

Apr 1775 Battles of Lexington and Concord militias against British troops.

Jun 1775 Continental Army formed. Fighting without pay and adequate resources and leadership, the demoralized army disbands.

Mar 1776 Washington’s only “successful” military maneuver: the British are already vacating Boston harbor upon his arrival.

Jul 1776 Unanimous Declaration of Independence by States.

Feb 1778 Ambassador Franklin (58) signs treaties of assistance (money and troops) with France.

Jul 1778 Confederacy of United States formed in perpetuity; alteration in any form subject to Congress and State legislatures; no provision or procedure made for dissolution of the new Confederacy.

Jan 1779 The British banking system floods the Colonies with counterfeit notes, deflating American currency, bankrupting many businesses.

Sep 1781 Majority ratification of the Confederacy.

Sep 1783 Official conclusion of war and American Independence.

Sep 1786 Petition of commissioners to redress Confederacy defects; Convention held trashing the Articles of Confederation without Congressional oversight, substituting the Federal Constitution. The issue of amending the Articles is repeatedly tabled and ignored in the secret Convention proceedings.

Sep 1787 The Federal Constitution signed against considerable opposition, and submitted to States for ratification. The document conceived, composed and pressed into law by bankers, merchants, landed pseudo-aristocrats as delegates, constrained suffrage among themselves as officers and electorate.

May 1788 Majority of States via sectional ratification of the Federal Constitution.

Feb 1789 Electoral college unanimously appoints George Washington president before N.C. and R.I. needed to compose a majority to ratify the Constitution.

Sep 1789 Federal Congress composes and adopts the Bill of Rights amendments.

When Benjamin convinced the colonies to switch to paper backed by possession of land instead of universally accepted precious metals, it precipitated the land rush fomented by the formation of land companies, and the westward expulsion of the American Natives.

The Articles of Confederation intended for perpetuity was abandoned without State legislature consent; the Constitution was adopted instead by a bare majority of popular electoral vote (NOT all the People); the Bill of Rights was composed and executed by the Federal Congress, which was a scarecrow beginning with Washington’s administration. Despite the fact that the fledgling American States had conducted a war of insurrection, seceding from the monarchial government of Great Britain (which conflict effectively continued for nearly 40 more years), the Convention delegates granted power to their new Federal government, the power to put down all insurrections (Section 8). Do as we say, not as we did.

Of those delegates appointed by the Continental Congress to deliberate revision of the Articles, we find that most had a financial conflict of interest:

“The convention was made up wholly of men representing the economic interests of the first division. The great majority of them, possibly as many as four-fifths, were public creditors; one-third were land-speculators; some were money-lenders; one-fifth were industrialists, traders, shippers; and many of them were lawyers. They planned and executed a coup d'état, simply tossing the Articles of Confederation into the waste-basket, and drafting a constitution de novo, with the audacious provision that it should go into effect when ratified by nine units instead of by all thirteen. Moreover, with like audacity, they provided that the document should not be submitted either to the Congress or to the local legislatures, but that it should go direct to a popular vote!” p77 “More than half the delegates to the constitutional convention of 1787 were either investors or speculators in the public funds. Probably sixty per cent of the values represented by these securities were fictitious, and were so regarded even by their holders.” p85 Our Enemy, the State

No sooner than George was formally installed as the President of the Federal Republic (the United States of America had eight presidents under the Articles) than this new government proceeded to do again what had precipitated Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts just prior to the secret Constitutional Convention. They implemented the very excise taxes that Parliament had done to pay for the unnecessary French and Indian war, and had incensed the inhabitants of Massachusetts and Worcester. George called for a militia amounting to 13,000 troops from the surrounding states, and went out at the lead to apprehend, incarcerate, and punish the objectors. Many thought they should be executed. This was not the first time he had put down an insurrection with force. He did the same thing among his volunteer troops when they objected to the Congressional deference in paying the Hessian mercenaries exclusive to their own remuneration. George put down the rebellion by forcing the troops to execute the leaders of his volunteer militia. This over-reach via taxation became the root cause of the War of Secession in 1861, commonly misnomered in Pub Ed as the American “Civil” War.

This eventuality was foreseen among many inhabitants during the Constitutional ratification period, and it was prophesied:

“In like manner [as Lycurgus] the proposed constitution holds out a prospect of being subject to be changed if it be found necessary or convenient to change it; but the conditions upon which an alteration can take place, are such as in all probability will never exist. The consequence will be that when the constitution is once established it never can be altered or amended without some violent convulsion or civil war.” –An Old Whig, Anti-Federalist Papers #49

That condition has repeatedly surfaced in American history, and is at present that which is tearing apart the D.C. Swamp, with its attendant division of the American people. The latest convulsion is the contrivance of a medical emergency over the release of a synthetic virus (Senator Paul’s documentation, and the patents examined by patent attorney Dave Martin), and the subsequent introduction of the mRNA treatment sold to the world as the solution, all the while acknowledging that it cannot prevent the spread of the virus. The perpetrators of this hoax in every country, but in particular the United States, are determined at all costs to have the populace submit to their tyrannical mandates. Simultaneously, they are ripping to shreds the Bill of Rights, by using an end run around the Constitution’s forbiddance of Congress (and the POTUS!) by implementing fascist control of the populace through megacorporations. This state of political affairs is no different than that which took place during the ratification. Patrick Henry, that scion of Liberty declared:

“The advocates of this plan have artfully attempted to veil over the true nature and principles of it with the names of those respectable characters that by consummate cunning and address they have prevailed upon to sign it; and what ought to convince the people of the deception and excite their apprehensions, is that with every advantage which education, the science of government and of law, the knowledge of history and superior talents and endowments, furnish the authors and advocates of this plan with, they have from its publication exerted all their power and influence to prevent all discussion of the subject, and when this could not be prevented they have constantly avoided the ground of argument and recurred to declamation, sophistry and personal abuse, but principally relied upon the magic of names.

How like today, where no disputation, discussion, nor apprising of threats, both medical and political are being suppressed using the very same tactics, by the very same arbiters of monetaried interests. Nowhere in all my studies of the period encompassed from the insurrection war unto the ratification have I encountered a critique of the Constitution’s premise, save in Lysander Spooner’s philippic essays. It is long past time for all Americans to scrutinize that which they were induced to accept as the prophylactic against tyranny.

Patrick Henry demanded in an open letter to Americans:

“What right had they to say, We, the people? My political curiosity, exclusive of my anxious solicitude for the public welfare, leads me to ask: Who authorized them to speak the language of, We, the people, instead of, We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated, national government, of the people of all the states.” Anti-Federalist Papers #40

Patrick declared before the Virginia ratification convention on 6-4-88 that:

“The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear. It is not mere curiosity that actuates me: I wish to hear the real, actual, existing danger, which should lead us to take those steps, so dangerous in my conception.”

Every inhabitant of this nation should know and understand the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention as recorded by James Madison. Therein we learn that the preamble phrase subsequently inserted, We, the People of the United States, was changed from the original We, the People of the States by the Committee of Style. That phrase, as declared by Congressional delegates was entirely paternalistic. Wherein did they as delegates conceive that they had the right and power to create a style of government that dissolved the Articles of Confederation? It is not true that all the People of the several States in the Union approved its adoption, nor were they aware of the Convention. The Delegates were distinctly aware during their deliberations that there would have been considerable opposition to those proceedings had word gotten out.

A constitution was largely outside the interests of most Colonials of the time:

“Even the most enlightened inhabitants of the interior of New Hampshire—and of the Berkshire Hills and Worcester County, Massachusetts, and of Pennsylvania west of Harrisburg, and of the piedmont of lower Virginia and all of North Carolina and the South Carolina up-country—normally did not have contact with national authority from one year to the next, felt the existence of their state governments only through the militia muster and the annual visit of the taxgatherers, and encountered information, ideas, or people from the outside world only two or three times a year. To them it was as unreasonable to suppose that the thirteen states could be well governed by a single national government as it had been to suppose that the thirteen colonies could be well governed from London. Accordingly, for most people all the force of inertia was opposed to the Constitution, and it took something special to bring them to think otherwise.” p196-7 Forrest McDonald, E Pluribus Unum

Law professors Erwin Chemerinsky and Michael Stokes Paulsen wrote their interpretation of that passage to mean “The document is the collective enactment of all U.S. citizens. The Constitution is “owned” (so to speak) by the people, not by the government or any branch thereof.” But in quoting Patrick Henry’s Virginia address, they completely ignore Patrick’s question:

“What right had they to say, We, the people?… “The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear.”

Some will rationalize that in presenting the document to the “People” for majority adoption by elected representatives, all the citizens then, and all the citizens now take this phrase to mean it includes them, not the “People” consisting of representatives in counties, States, or any other political body. This is only the beginning of the fundamental fallacies of the Federal Constitution. Such a form of representation, particularly argued by James Madison, violated the representative principle on the basis of conflict of interest. One cannot rightly say that your Congressman, Senator, POTUS, or even a Justice of the Peace can represent your will when they are not who you voted for. It is a conflict of interest on their part to claim to be representing you against your dissent, while also representing others who oppose your political will. Upon this conflict, and the traditional English practice of Power of Attorney lies all the refutations of attorney Lysander Spooner’s declaration the Federal Constitution is of no authority to anyone:

“The necessity for the consent of ‘the people’ is implied in this declaration. The whole authority of the Constitution rests upon it. If they did not consent, it was of no validity. Of course it had no validity, except as between those who actually consented. No one's consent could be presumed against him, without his actual consent being given, any more than in the case of any other contract to pay money, or render service. And to make it binding upon any one, his signature, or other positive evidence of consent, was as necessary as in the case of any other-contract. If the instrument meant to say that any of ‘the people of the United States’ would be bound by it, who did not consent, it was a usurpation and a lie. The most that can be inferred from the form, ‘We, the people,’ is, that the instrument offered membership to all ‘the people of the United States;’ leaving it for them to accept or refuse it, at their pleasure…. The number who actually consented to the Constitution of the United States, at the first, was very small. Considered as the act of the whole people, the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody.” p11 The Constitution of No Authority

I have a distant deceased relative who was appointed a local representative of their district for the Ratification. He voted NO on behalf of the majority who appointed him. But what use was this when in an adjacent district the representative voted Yes? Ultimately, it carried by a narrow margin across the nation. There is some concern by a few historians that the proceedings were not devoid of fraud and propaganda, just as citizens of the US of A have finally openly observed in the 2020 election cycle.

In this preamble, the delegates assented to the several ridiculous notions:
1) to form a more perfect Union,
2) establish justice,
3) insure domestic tranquility,
4) provide for the common defense,
5) promote the General Welfare,
6) secure the blessings of Liberty to OURSELVES and OUR posterity,

To begin, if a union is perfect, there cannot be a “more perfect” union. This is an unarticulated admission that the Articles of Confederation were imperfect, and that a Constitution would remedy that defect. One “Alfred” wrote in opposition to the Constitution:

"When I look to our situation-climate, extent, soil, and its productions, rivers, ports; when I find I can at this time purchase grain, bread, meat, and other necessaries of life at as reasonable a rate as in any country; when I see we are sending great quantities of tobacco, wheat and flour to England and other parts of the globe beyond the Atlantic; when I get on the other side of the western mountains, and see an extensive country, which for its multitude of rivers and fertility of soil is equal, if not superior, to any other whatever when I see these things, I cannot be brought to believe that America is in that deplorable ruined condition which some designing politicians represent; or that we are in a state of anarchy beyond redemption, unless we adopt, without any addition or amendment, the new constitution proposed by the late convention; a constitution which, in my humble opinion, contains the seeds and scions of slavery and despotism. When the volume of American constitutions [by John Adams] first made its appearance in Europe, we find some of the most eminent political writers of the present age, and the reviewers of literature, full of admiration and declaring they had never before seen so much good sense, freedom, and real wisdom in one publication. Our good friend Dr. [Richard] Price was charmed, and almost prophesied the near approach of the happy days of the millennium. We have lived under these constitutions; and, after the experience of a few years, some among us are ready to trample them under their feet, though they have been esteemed, even by our enemies, as "pearls of great price." Anti-federalist Papers # 16

Two, the establishment of justice does not and never did arise from government. Government means rule and control. It does not specify that justice must be inherent or practiced by its officers. Many today equate Law with Government. But they are not synonymous. Government may at times need Law in order to appear impartial. But Law does not need Government to establish justice. Law exists to execute justice, by ensuring that full impartiality exists between complainants, and only a tribunal is necessary to perform that function.

Three, domestic tranquility at its apex exists when all outside interference is minimal. Everyone is left to their own devices, their own aspirations, and their personal sovereignty held inviolate. Redress to incursions into their tranquility is supplied by the execution of justice, which has nothing to do with retribution, so pervasive in the public’s mind today. This absence of interference government cannot do, by definition. To exist government must regulate and restrict our activities:

“It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our consciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.” p68 Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

“…a consolidated republican form of government therein, can never form a perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to you and your posterity, for to these objects it must be directed.” Anti-Federalist Papers #14

Four, provision for common defense is the only legitimate cause for its organization:

"The law is the organization of natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; Maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. p8 Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

To carry this out, no government is necessary, as evidenced by old West townships that formed their local laws, and elected a sheriff to execute them. During the goldrush period in California, the mining communities did not even form a charter, but communally dealt with violators of basic rights the same as a sheriff and a justice of the peace.

Five, the promotion of the General Welfare borders on a socialized or collectivized system. Today, with megacorporations controlling the activities of the populace and the health arm of the government, it is not inconceivable at all to conjure up a co-op or other private enterprise to promote the “General Welfare”of citizens in communities. Before the introduction of this loophole, communities were brought and held together by charities and foundations to supply such need. Such activity brought people closer together in common cause, tending to magnify the welfare of their neighbors in their daily lives.

Six, and the most laughable of all excuses for a government, is government securing the “blessings of Liberty”! Government does not create Liberty, but removes it by definition. George Washington was of the opinion that citizens must be willing to surrender some liberty in order to obtain the security of government. Some 165 years later Eisenhower declared that "If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government."

As one citizen defined it, “To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon. directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.
To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped. measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished...then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed. fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged,  condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed.” This is Liberty? It reminds me of the Germans a century ago who thought they were a free people all the while the conservative, religious right element of the population were supporting the establishment of a dictatorship that removed all their self-defining rights and institutions by the Reichstag on April 26, 1942 voting Adolf “supreme judge of the German people” which never assembled again.

Many years ago, having been indoctrinated like every other citizen, I was brought up to celebrate and honor the Constitution of the United States of America, and those men who concocted its form. I slowly learned over the intervening years that “something screwy is going on around here”, that Socialism was being heavily pushed in our institutions, that politicians would stand up and say what the populace desired to hear, but went off and did what they thought better of behind our backs, so long as they could maintain the appointment scam. This I thought for a time could be corrected if our representatives could be made to abide by the Federal Constitution. It was only in closely examining the enlarged colonial history not discussed in Pub Ed did I discover the tree was rotten at the outset. These men were not our benefactors, but our enslavers because every last one of them were bent on governing, and soon showed just how determined they were:

“When political independence was secured, the stark doctrine of the Declaration went into abeyance, with only a distorted simulacrum of its principles surviving. The rights of life and liberty were recognized by a mere constitutional formality left open to eviscerating interpretations, or, where these were for any reason deemed superfluous, to simple executive disregard; and all consideration of the rights attending ‘the pursuit of happiness’ was narrowed down to a plenary acceptance of Locke's doctrine of the predminent rights of property, with law-made property on an equal footing with labour-made property. As for popular sovereignty, the new State had to be republican in form, for no other would suit the general temper of the people; and hence its peculiar task was to preserve the appearance of actual republicanism without the reality.” p63 Albert J Nock, Our Enemy, the State

The problem with returning to Constitutional government is that even if it could be achieved—which it never did from the moment the ink was dry of the Signatories—it is such a flawed document with so many erroneous presumptions by inexperienced men possessed of considerable hubris and a conflict of interest, that it would only succeed in duplicating what we have already endured—a true Revolution. Notwithstanding their avowed examination of various forms of government in history, they missed the obvious fact: Government is control. It is rulership. As such, it can never preserve anyone’s Liberty nor Safety because by definition, government is predatory. As Hannah Arendt declared:

“Totalitarian terror is so often confused with the intimidation measures of tyranny or the terror of civil wars and revolutions because the totalitarian regimes we are familiar with developed directly out of civil wars and one-party dictatorships and in their beginnings, before they became totalitarian, used terror in precisely the same way as other despotic regimes we know of from history. The turning point that decides whether a one-party system will remain a dictatorship or develop into a form of totalitarian rule always comes when every last trace of active or passive opposition in the country has been drowned in blood and terror.” P298 Essays in Understanding

Even the “Founding Fathers” understood that Republics do not restore themselves, for they operate upon the non-existent virtue those men conceitedly thought existed among themselves. When handed the scepter by subterfuge, misdirection, and academic artifice, they proved right away that they had less virtue and self-restraint than America’s mountain men. They immediately sought to oppress the “People” with tariffs, taxes, conscription, and monetary fiat that destroyed the Liberty, Life, and Happiness of those who redeemed their financial oppression from the Crown, only to gain a local taskmaster.

H.L Mencken said:

“All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”

IMO, we’ve had morons infesting the White House for at least half my adult life, and look what we now have there-- an aging, impudent, senile dukkeman about to drench Americans in totalitarian blood to have the way of his Drakh taskmasters!

REFERENCES
Forrest McDonald;
We the People
E Pluribus Unum
Novus Ordo Seclorum

Merrill Jensen
The New Nation

Albert J Nock
Our Enemy, the State

Richard Rosenfeld
American Aurora

John McConaughy
Who Rules America?

Lysander Spooner
The Constitution of No Authority

The Anti-Federalist Papers

Thomas Slaughter
The Whiskey Rebellion

Frédéric Bastiat
The Law

The Fallacies of the Founding Fathers

The Declaration of Independence

Rights, Revolt, and Entitlement

During the early part of 1776, a young thirty-three year old man was commissioned to articulate the ideas of Liberty, of Rights, and the justification for revolt against the prevailing system of Government. The first element of his justification for revolt—the declaring of Independence for all oppressed persons –was cited as Entitlement granted by “Nature’s God.” Implied in that declaration is the idea that all oppressed persons share in the conception of “Nature’s God”, whoever or whatever that is. It is also asserted that the Laws of Nature have jurisdiction, being the expression of “Nature’s God.”

Eh? What manner of thinking is this? Predicate one’s entitlement to make or break political bonds with others upon a nebulous and ill-defined idea of a Creator? Upon the ill-defined and poorly understood Laws of Nature? Nearly three hundred years later, Man is still discovering what the “Laws of Nature” consist of. That endeavor is broadly termed, Physics. Underscoring this entire perspective of a common conception of a Creator and his or its granting of Entitlement is the idea that government, the exercise of authority to control the behavior of others derives from God who extended that authority to Men. That God ever did such a thing at all is only discovered in antiquity, and upon inspection of its origin, we learn that such a God was actually “human” after all. The entire matter is contained in the Sumerian Tablets recording the Creation, or rather, the reconstruction of civilization after the destruction of Man and Beast and Vegetation from the Flood era. It is highly probable that the Crown of England and his sycophants guffawed loudly at the sight of such a poorly reasoned justification for political independence.

Under their collective prominent probiscii were a people who had regulated their social affairs for thousands of years upon a simple declaration: No man has the Right to demand of another what he shall do. There is no right granted to anyone, no entitlement, permitting anyone to regulate, control, or impede the actions or the speech of another person. All persons are sovereign over themselves, and none other. They also further defined such sovereignty to extend to a person’s life, and his property. No person was ever granted the right to take away another person’s life, nor could they covet the property of another without agreeable and just compensation.  Life, Liberty, Property. What then, is the cause of political association of persons?

To these ancient peoples, the answer was obvious. Political association to intervene in the affairs of others is only justified in the case of common defense against the aggression of others that violate these three axioms. Such association is preventative. Violators who could not self-regulate their behavior were expelled from sociality by the group. This concept of association for common defense was further articulated by a French economist about 50 years later:

“If every person has the right to defend--even by force-his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right-its reason for existing, its lawfulness-is based on individual right.” p2 The Law

Rights

What is a right? Webster has numerous entries, but here the subject is political right, which is derived from personal right. The idea is based on the notion that humans are autonomous beings who are sovereign over their own person, freedom to act, and control of their possessions. Jefferson however, implies that Political Right derives from a Creator. Such a definition requires the intervention of that Creator whenever sovereignty of one’s person, property, and actions are constrained by another. Every serious student of history knows there is not one instance of God intervening in the individual or collective aggression of persons against each other. Jefferson however, infers that when God created Man, sovereignty was given to him and he was thus empowered to be his own agent for their defense. The same concept was outlined by Frédéric Bastiat in his essays comprised in the book, The Law. This is a concept refuted by the 200 Elite families who have accumulated the world’s wealth and seek to manage human affairs as superior stewards.

Jefferson went further by declaring such Rights as inalienable. They could not be taken away. Yet he, and all his contemporaries, could not recognize that if Rights are inalienable, then the delegation of them unto the preservation of them by a representative government is inimical to them. Any system of government predicated on the idea of collective representation of individual interests inherently destroys Life, Liberty, and personal Property. It is inevitable because the individual and the representative have conflicts of interests.

In Jefferson’s original Declaration editions, he did not specify Pursuit of Happiness, but Property. Herein is another of the great fallacies introduced by the Founders—that Government, instituted to secure these Rights, can secure a person’s pursuit of Happiness. Happiness has little to do with Life and Liberty or Property. Happiness is an attitude. Its pursuit is an internal matter, having little to do with social regulation. While happiness can be diminished by the collective actions of others, the collective actions of others cannot effect happiness. Government, whether for Evil or Good, cannot secure Happiness. It can only diminish it. The only thing an organization of people can do is prevent/punish aggression and protect thereby Life, Liberty, and Property. People are MOST secure when they have no fear of aggression, not in its confrontation.This is where Jefferson and his contemporaries erred in the context of government. Government cannot secure Rights, as they are defined as self-existent, inherent within an autonomous being. Government can only infringe upon Rights, by forcing the invalidation of some to the benefit of others. For over a century, the New England Puritans sought to regulate by government the behavior of the colonists (A History of Matrimonial Institutions v2, George Howard), until at length there were enough inhabitants fed up with it to attempt restructuring the form and function of government to lie outside their Puritanical grasp. It was a grand and worthy effort, but it failed immediately when put into operation.

Within the context of representative government, James Madison deliberated extensively his argument that the will of the majority could be balanced against the will of minorities. Such rationalizations are absurd in the face of the preservation of Life, Liberty, and Property. Such thinking is an attempt to put mob rule in opposition to mob rule, regardless of numbers. Time has demonstrated what a rational thinker recognizes. It does not work. Collective mentality has never been known to be synergistic. This aspect of human behavior is well described in Elias Canetti’s Crowds and Power.


Equality

Jefferson also declared that it is self-evident than all men are created equal. NO, they are not. No two men are equal in form, nor equal in capability and skill. So also is it with women. Men and women are NOT equal. Each has their own physical constitution and form. Each has different capabilities that science has demonstrated diverge at the onset of sexual differentiation in the womb. Men and women perceive the world differently, value life differently, feel and think differently, use language differently, and emote their feelings differently. In a world where diversity has become an element of law (for it is the lack thereof in human relations that they came into being), it is great irony that so many people insist on uniformity between the sexes. That confusion has risen to such great proportions that men are now artificially cultivating female traits into their physical bodies, and want to call it a new “gender.” Females are striving to emulate the illusion of male aggression and physical power, to the extent they also artificially modify their bodies to take on male characteristics. Neither, failing attraction to the other, are finding felicity in traditional male-female diversity. They each seek to incorporate those traits of the other sex into their own bodies and behavior, believing that males and females have both qualities. Learned responses can never substitute physical traits governed by genetic encoding.

What was behind the idea of Man being created equal had to do with being treated equally before the Law. This erroneous concept of human equality was exposed for the fallacy it is by Alexis deToqueville in the early 1800s when he published his Democracy in America. He reasoned and prognosticated correctly, that idea of total Equality between persons would be the cause of the government and social collapse of America. The great experiment in self-government would fail.

Government

Government, as defined, is a system of ruling, an exercise of authority, whether it be a state, a district, an institution, or an organization. It is the collective force of appointed representatives in Democracy, or the collective force of an oligarchy invested into Law.

“It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.
But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.” p6 The Law

Such is the purpose of Norman/Anglo-Saxon government—to exercise authority by law over the actions of men. It has its roots in the plundering of conquered peoples, for the express purpose of instituting a Feudalist system between rulers and the militarily impotent. The concept that some are better endowed, more intelligent, of purer genetic descent, which justifies their exercise of authority over men considered of lesser ability by hubris is as old as the earliest mythology of antediluvian times. In such circumstances it makes not the least difference in terms of justice, whether the plundered people consent to it or not. It is astonishing to me to observe in this late date of human existence that no two neighbors would consent to be plundered one by the other to their faces. Yet they will go to the polls at every election cycle and consent to massive plundering of each other through taxes, market regulation, behavioral regulation, tariffs, and the enlargement of government duties toward the same, by the misappropriation of law. They consent to lawful plundering of their neighbors behind their backs, and suppose it to be justice. To resist is to invite further plundering and the ultimate threats of poverty, incarceration, or death.

It must be observed in summation that Liberty does not need government to exist. Life does not need government to survive. Property does not need government for man to possess it. Government can only effect one thing beyond the protection of their innate existence: destroy them.

To carry out the nefarious subjugation of Man by the few, two systems of government have been invented: the twins, Feudalism and Socialism. In both instances, Man is no longer an autonomous being. The power to determine one’s own destiny and the expectation of felicity therein is usurped, suppressed, and frequently punished. Any attempt to restructure the prevailing manifestations of these two under the names of “Republic,” “Democracy,” Monarchy, Oligarchy, or Dictatorship is doomed to fail, for they each and all have been tried. They have all failed because Man cannot resist regulating the affairs of others rather than attending to his own, and will seek every advantage to live a life of ease through plundering his neighbor.

Of the few worthy statements made by Edmund Burke, that pseudo-Libertarian, it was these:

“People crushed by law, have no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to laws; and those who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous.”

“Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites,—in proportion as their love to justice is above their rapacity,—in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption,—in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist, unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere; and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.”

The question remains to be decided: Who are the Knaves, and who are the Wise?

Coming soon: Part Duh, The Federal Constitution

SethSmee

REFERENCES
Crowds and Power, Elias Canetti
A History of Matrimonial Institutions, 3 vols, George Howard
The New Nation, Merrill Jensen
On Power, Bertrand de Jouvenel
E Pluribus Unum, Forrest McDonald
Novus Ordo Seclorum, Forrest McDonald
We the People, Forrest McDonald
The Writings of Thomas Paine, 4 vols.
Our Enemy the State, Albert Nock
No Treason, Lysander Spooner
The Law, Frédéric Bastiat

Toward Moral Maturity

“Wherever we find terror in the past, it is rooted in the use of force that originates outside the law and in many cases is consciously applied to tear down the fences of law that protect human freedom and guarantee citizen’s freedoms and rights. From history, we are familiar with the mass terror of revolutions in whose furor the guilty and the innocent die, until the bloodbath of the counter-revolution suffocates the furor in apathy or until a new reign of law puts an end to the terror. If we single out the two forms of terror that have been historically the most effective and politically the bloodiest—the terror of tyranny and the terror of revolution—we soon see that they are directed toward an end and find an end. The terror of tyranny reaches an end once it has paralyzed or even totally dispensed with all public life and made private individuals out of all citizens, stripping them of interest in and a connection with public affairs. And public affairs are concerned, of course, with much more than we generally circumscribe with the term ‘politics.’ Tyrannical terror has come to an end when it has imposed a graveyard peace on a country. The end of a revolution is a new code of laws—or counter-revolution. The terror finds its end when the opposition is destroyed, when nobody dares lift a finger, or when the revolution has exhausted all reserves of strength.”

“Totalitarian terror is so often confused with the intimidation measures of tyranny or the terror of civil wars and revolutions because the totalitarian regimes we are familiar with developed directly out of civil wars and one-party dictatorships and in their beginnings, before they became totalitarian, used terror in precisely the same way as other despotic regimes we know of from history. The turning point that decides whether a one-party system will remain a dictatorship or develop into a form of totalitarian rule always comes when every last trace of active or passive opposition in the country has been drowned in blood and terror.” p298 Essays in Understanding, Hannah Arendt, 1930-1954




The citizens of this country believe that they live under a democratic government, whereas their ancestors thought they were enacting a Limited Republic, and got a Democratic Oligarchy with the appointment of a popular and incompetent militarist as President. But they all attribute immutable and unlimited powers to the President, and flail him for not acting the benevolent despot. They expect him to cure all the social ills, enforce his will upon Congress and the Judiciary, and be Johnny-on-the-Spot, catering to the whims of the People, the Pentagon, Corporate interests, Foreign interests and threats, political interests, the Supreme Ruler of Planetary Affairs. A person who is all things to all people is a person who is nothing to anyone--least of all themself. We have become a nation of whining, indulged, and snotty souls who deserve more than ever to have our collective asses kicked back to Man’s original hovels. Whenever the People expect so much of others, of their appointed leaders SERVANTS, they are ripe for totalitarianism and the blood bath that inevitably follows. It won’t appear from without, but creeps by day unawares within until critical mass has been attained.

The more disrespect people have for others, the more they are possessed of it within themselves. People manifest from within that which they project upon others.


Coincident with the belief that the political figurehead should be all-powerful, is the inability of the electorate to find Unity. They share no common vision among them except one: the impotency of their leaders. Gravitating toward one great mass of impotent malcontents, the only thing left to unify them is the installation of the absolute tyrant. The chief aspect of such unity is unabated fear.


Many in this nation believe that it was formed by adherents to Christian tenets. But the fundamental mandate of Christianity as Jesus invoked, was to love others. For where love prevails, fear fails. In truth and fact, we are a nation of fearful hypocrites, incapable of moderating our own passions.


When Barney Ross in The Expendables declared "The man who can get along best with women is the man who can get along without them.” he stated a universal truth applied to heterosexual relations. In political terms in can be rightly stated "The man who can get along best with government (or the State), is the man who can get along without one.


That was the experiment in self-government. What do you think? Was it successful?

SethSmee

Fundamentalism: Rigid Rectitude

                                        Revolutionaries

     Chief Inspector Dreyfus: “How can an idiot become a policeman? Answer me that!”
     Inspector Clouseau: “It’s very simple, sir. All he must do is enlist!”
     Chief Inspector Dreyfus: “Shut up!”

Recently I stumbled across a New Age augur, claiming to be a Revolutionary with prescient powers. Great exhalations of Feminist dogma, disguised as New Age mantras exuded from her lusty, loquacious lips. I’m behind the times, I know. I’d never heard of Teal Swan until the year 2019 had spent a third of itself. I was not the least impressed nor astonished at her “Message”, but in the response of the credulous comments appended to the Y.T. video. Revolutionaries are notoriously skilled story-tellers. They are always well informed on those topics uppermost in the minds of the masses, and skillful in weaving what sounds like a New Narrative, promising prosperity, whether financial, temporal, or spiritual. An ancient Jewish philosopher wrote about the phenomenon:

“Is there [any] thing whereof it may be said, See, this [is] new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.”—Ecclesiastes 1:10

All Revolutionaries have this one quality in common—they know how to get at the misfit’s unsatisfied itch:

“I must follow the people because I am their leader.”—Ledru-Rollin, French radical politician

As everyone knows who has been subjected to mosquito bites, or ivy rashes, the itch can become so intolerable that any means of relief, no matter how inane, will be tried. So it is with the spiritual quality of human life, and every generation manufactures its gurus and success philosophers to satisfy the restlessness or meaninglessness of their petty existence. Wrote America’s hobo philosopher, Eric Hoffer:

“A rising mass movement attracts and holds a following not by its doctrine and promises but by the refuge it offers from the anxieties, barrenness and meaninglessness of an individual existence. It cures the poignantly frustrated not by conferring on them an absolute truth or by remedying the difficulties and abuses which made their lives miserable, but by freeing them from their ineffectual selves—and it does this by enfolding and absorbing them into a closely knit and exultant corporate whole.”

“When people revolt in a totalitarian society, they rise not against the wickedness of the regime but its weakness.”—p43 The True Believer

“There is apparently some connection between dissatisfaction with oneself and a proneness to credulity. The urge to escape our real self is also an urge to escape the rational and the obvious. The refusal to see ourselves as we are develops a distaste for facts and cold logic. There is no hope for the frustrated in the actual and the possible. Salvation can come to them only from the miraculous, which seeps through a crack in the iron wall of inexorable reality…. A peculiar side of credulity is that it is often joined with a proneness to imposture. The association of believing and lying is not characteristic solely of children. The inability or unwillingness to see things as they are promotes both gullibility and charlatanism.”—p59 The True Believer

“The gifted propagandist brings to a boil ideas and passions already simmering in the minds of his hearers. He echoes their innermost feelings. Where opinion is not coerced, people can be made to believe only in what they already ‘know.’’’—p105 The True Believer

In America, we heard such ideas before, with the founding of the Federal Republic by Revolutionaries who appended their names to its Constitution. Benjamin Franklin was one of the chief revolutionaries, a skillful and persuasive orator. He understood what was uppermost in people’s minds, and made this confession:

“We began planning the Revolutionary War in order to issue our own money again.”….“The inability of the Colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war.”

Often, such Revolutionaries create the very condition that germinates the revolutionary spirit. Franklin as a 23 year-old businessman (1729), persuaded the colonies to switch to paper money as the means of resolving the exit of gold and silver currency from the colonies. As informed persons of monetary theory know, this only works until someone decides to exploit its weakness. It was Franklin himself, who once again created that leverage point, when he shot off his mouth (age 45, 1751) about the Colonies’ success with paper money among agents of the British banking system. He remarked later in life the consequences of his actions, without actually confessing culpability (another quality of a Revolutionary):

“Paper money was in those times our universal currency. But, it being the instrument with which we combated our enemies, they resolved to deprive us of its use by depreciating it; and the most effectual means they could contrive was to counterfeit it. The artists they employed performed so well, that immense quantities of these counterfeits, which issued from the British government in New York, were circulated among the inhabitants of all the States [1779], before the fraud was detected. This operated considerably in depreciating the whole mass, first, by the vast additional quantity, and next by the uncertainty in distinguishing the true from the false; and the depreciation was a loss to all and the ruin of many.”

So he and his cohort businessmen planned and executed the Revolution, persuading the arch enemy of the British Empire to support their cause (for which they would receive exclusive trade rights, later reneged upon by presidents George and John), dragging the rest of the nation through an unwanted conflict with their British cousins. Knowing that without further safeguards the new nation would falter, they had to put in the hands of the propertied and businessmen the power to make and regulate money, as well as commerce. Reformation of abuses just wouldn’t do the job:

“A reform is a correction of abuses; a revolution is a transfer of power.”—E.R. Bulwer-Lytton

What did they inscribe on the back of the new paper money? New Order of the Ages. Was there a new order? No. Not at all. Just a transfer of power, and a return to strict orthodoxy which is the objective of every totalitarian regime in fomenting a revolution. Every “new age” is nothing more than a repackaging of cultural beliefs, folklore, dogma, and amalgamations of ancient or obscure beliefs.

“New” religions are founded by revolutionaries who exploit the drifting liberalism that slowly wends its way through society. Such was the case with a backwoods con artist in the early 1800s, who ultimately was murdered for his extreme revolutionary practices. Shortly before his murder, having completely roped himself of his self-importance, he had himself crowned by his select priests as King over the whole earth, in the House of Israel.

This fellow even exalted himself above his ideological predecessor—the Essene who came within a gnats hair of being murder in their commune for blaspheming their beliefs. He escaped their clutches, the attempt to toss him off a cliff into the Sea of Galilee, and went about proselytizing his own brand of orthodoxism composed of modified Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, Pythagoreanism, Mithraism, a soteriology all perpetrated by a priestly guard. The “new” commandment he gave to his disciples was not new, but merely contrasted with the vindictive one traditionally held by Jews for centuries:

"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?” Matthew 5:39-46

“A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.” John 13:34-5

Teal Swan is an exception to the typical revolutionary in this regard; she hasn’t the slightest reservation in telling her marks exactly what she is up to, without actually using the term charlatan. That she is a fraud is indisputable. Those that argue this point, lose sight of the fact that it is never the ideology charlatans purvey that is the center of their fraud. Such people usually are the epitome of personal chaos.

“The men of words are of diverse types. They can be priests, scribes, prophets, writers, artists, professors, students and intellectuals in general….Whatever the type, there is a deep-seated craving common to almost all men of words which determines their attitude to the prevailing order. It is a craving for recognition; a craving for a clearly marked status above the common run of humanity…. There is apparently  an irremediable insecurity at the core of every intellectual, be he noncreative or creative. Even the most gifted and prolific seem to live a life of eternal self-doubting and have to prove their worth anew each day.”—pp132-3 The True Believer

A prophet’s shame is his failure at the mundane.  If the objective is impossible then their shame is concealed.  Universally, prophets are busy correcting acolytes while their own house is in disarray. This is the universal characteristic of the professional Do-Gooder. They want to change the world, out of frustration with the impotency to change their own lives. Their personal lives are often a wasteland of failed human relations.  If a person desires to improve their own life, the best choice is not to hearken to the person who has made uncounted mistakes. That is the equivalent of taking a journey and asking a fellow traveler what roads not to take. You may be warned of hazards, but it doesn't help you achieve your destination efficiently and safely. The traveler worthy of counseling with is the person who successfully arrived at their destination with a minimum of impediment. The Apache understood this principle well, and it made them a formidable obstacle for the US government. The Apache followed the person who was most successful. When one desires a role-model to success, it is the person who has the highest success record, not the petty philosopher who is saturated with personal failings.

Teal Swan’s personal life is a disaster, and no role-model for anyone. What she craves most is not personal redemption, or salvation from her alleged ritual abuse. It is the gratification of her vanity—being center stage to all within the sound of her voice and gaze of her eyes. I grew up with a sister just like this, and recognize the personality traits immediately. I also made friends with a neighbor girl in my youth who proved to be the same kind of personality. They manufactured all manner of abuse and victimage in order to manipulate persons of power and influence, and gratify their insatiable need for adulation. The neighbor told me stories years after our youth about all the torment, abuse, and disadvantages she endured as a child, continuing right up to the latest adult setback. The stories were fantastic in the extreme. They shared the same surreal quality of the abuse accusations of my sister against our father, supposedly suppressed memories brought to light through hypnotherapy and regressive cognitive therapy. Teal’s involvement with the well-publicized psychotherapist fraud of the child abuse scandals in 1980s Utah is known. Yet people are still taken in by persons of such blatant artificial rectitude. It used to be common knowledge that Utah was the scam capital of the United States—more businesses start and fail there than in any other State. The same area Teal moved to as a precocious, but ignored child in a small town. Teal Swan is the kind of person Voltaire exposed:

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities...."

What man or father, would recommend to his son or daughter the philosophical babble and turpitude of a woman who sells her ideology and role-modeling using provocative, scantily clad photos of herself? One who views Adolf Hitler and Jim Jones as admirable, misunderstood characters? A person who deftly disguises her Feminist injunctions upon masculinity in order for her feminine qualities to blossom and thrive (the irresponsibility of a child)?

Some years ago I grew weary of the media barrage driven by two-bit success philosophers and gurus. We all know them. Wayne Dyer, Stephen Covey, Norman Peale, Napolean Hill, Alan Watts, Steve Harvey, Jordan Peterson, Timothy Leary, a host of slicksters in the business motivational circuit, and every other common celebrity found on public television. These are the people who publish volumes of “How To” books, run talk shows on marriage, sex, and hetero relations. A quick peek into their personal lives nearly always reveals numerous failures, if not outright disaster. Such inspection nearly always also reveals an ideology and rigid adherence to it that cannot deal with common exceptions and life’s bewildering setbacks. I decided to write down in short pamphlet form the Octagonal Qualities of the Obnoxious Success Philosopher, or Blockhead Squared Syndrome. They are:

         1. Success Obsession
         2. Merchandize
         3. Gift of Gab
         4. Restate the Obvious
         5. Analyze, Systematize, Codify
         6. Mythologize
         7. Label & Hammer
         8. Play the Pipe

I am reminded of certain lyrics of the Moody Blues, a rock band well versed in Far-Eastern mysticism, who produced an entire album exposing the spiritual and philosophical impotency of such ideology:

#4
Mystery spead it's cloak
Across the sky
We'd lost our way
Shadows fell from trees
They knew why
Then thru the leaves a light broke thru
A path lost for years lead us thru

House of four doors
I could live there forever
House of four doors
Would it be there forever?
Loneliness, the face of pilgrims eyes was known
As the door opened wide

Beauty they had found before my eyes to see
To the next door we came

Love of music showed in everything we heard
Thru the third door where are we?

Enter in all ye who seek to find within
As the plaque said on the last door

#5
Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
He'll fly his astral plane,
Takes you trips around the bay,
Brings you back the same day,
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.

Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
Timothy Leary's dead.
No, no, no, no, He's outside looking in.
He'll fly his astral plane,
Takes you trips around the bay,
Brings you back the same day,
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.

Along the coast you'll hear them boast
About a light they say that shines so clear.
So raise your glass, we'll drink a toast
To the little man who sells you thrills along the pier.

He'll take you up, he'll bring you down,
He'll plant your feet back firmly on the ground.
He flies so high, he swoops so low,
He knows exactly which way he's gonna go.
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.

He'll take you up, he'll bring you down,
He'll plant your feet back on the ground.
He'll fly so high, he'll swoop so low.
Timothy Leary.

He'll fly his astral plane.
He'll take you trips around the bay.
He'll bring you back the same day.
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Timothy Leary. Timothy Leary.
Timothy Leary.

#6
Walking through that door
Outside we came nowhere at all
Perhaps the answer’s here
Not there anymore
Then in our hearts the light broke through
A path lost for years is there in view
House of four doors
You'll be lost now forever
House of four doors
Rest of life's life forever
House of four doors
You'll be lost now forever
House of four doors

A few short years ago I asked my youngest sister why in the middle of her life she had taken to moving around so much. She replied that she was looking for her life’s purpose. She was doing the same things our father had done, going to and fro upon the face of the planet, searching for his Utopia in the form of Hacienda Honey. I told her one’s purpose is found in aspiring to accomplish that which one loves the most, and that life’s meaning becomes what we have spent our lives doing. I reminded her that our maternal grandparents were never dissatisfied with their long lives, because they had considered life to be an adventure, enjoying the richness of new experiences, and learning from their mistakes wherever possible. The point of it being we explore what we are made of, and live life according to our own intelligence, not crutching through life on the agenda of others. She's been conspicuously quiet on this matter ever since.

Mass Insanity

I can't remember the last time checking the headlines for the day when I could read a news article covering something positive and encouraging about the world. These days I have to dig into obscure posts by part-time writers covering developments in their chosen profession. Virtually everything in the mainstream channels indicates the leaders of nations are mad, and like a virus, is spreading throughout the population with people forcing others to do their bidding, sometimes at the end of a gun barrel.

One indicator of mass insanity is the state of medicine. The frequency of "false flag" diseases announced in the press has multiplied since the HIV scare of the 80s. Despite the mounting evidence to the contrary, the populace is being subjected to a barrage of PR campaign for vaccinations of every conceivable kind.

Another indicator is the forced imposition of medical treatments that have a high fatality rate. Cancer treatment tops the list, having become the most lucrative of medical procedures administered. Children suffering from cancer, and even some adults, are being forced into these expensive procedures which hardly have a success rate better than non-treatment. And the call for more donations to the cause continues, while the chief cause of cancer is nutrition--the consumption of refined sugar and HFCS known to feed the malignancy for over a half century packaged into virtually every product on the grocery shelves.

While nothing new in my lifetime, this forced medical treatment has come home to the family. A relative of my wife is 89 years old. A few years ago he developed diabetes and became incapable of driving himself around. Being a physically active person who loved working with his hands and being outdoors this development evacuated the rest of his life force. With nothing to look forward to but his imminent demise he tried accelerating the process by discontinuing his drugs. His kidneys shut down and hospice stepped in to manage regular dialysis. His wife who had been trying to care for him began exhibiting signs of dementia which has progressed almost to the point of non-recognition of family members. When he had a heart attack recently, the hospice nurse spent over fifteen minutes trying to revive him. Ultimately she succeeded, but he shows signs of having lost much of his brain functions. The couple now in an assisted living facility, he cannot recall much of his life, nor can he assert control of his daily activities. He is in pain constantly, connected to intravenous feeds and machines to keep him alive. But he has nothing to live for. Everyone is striving to make him "comfortable", including his children who thought this solution to his advantage.

But there is nowhere he can go in this modern world where he can simply lie down and expire. Knowing their deteriorating condition, a year ago we planned to visit them one last time this summer. At this point we both consider his departure from this massive, expensive effort to "make him comfortable" before we arrive to be his last gift. But he has no rights, no one will honor his desire to expire. They both no longer have the mental acuity to demand it. Meanwhile the $$$ keep rolling in to the medical coffers.

The Charade of Politcal Propaganda

The Hopi (among other tribes) have the tradition in their sacred lore that the world of Man has been destroyed and recreated several times. They say that another is coming soon. What better evidence have we that they are correct about the antiquity of Man than this: We have forgotten those calamities. I can think of no better allegory of it than the nature of man’s memory; at birth long-term memory is virtually non-existent, while short-term memory governs all our development. By the age of senility it is reversed, and we can’t remember who just farted, or where we put our dentures. So it is with humanity and what we seem capable of learning and retaining.

Reincarnationists propose that somehow, despite having no recollection of a former life, we figure out where we screwed up and eventually get our act together. Some of them however, think we come back because being here is fun—there is nothing better to do. Frankly, I find such an ideology the very expression of hubris and vanity. This observation aside, the One Thing (RIP, Jack) Man has never gotten through his head, much less retained over the years, is the principle of Divide and Conquer.

Just what do you think is the modus operandi of those movers and shakers behind partisan politics? For centuries, if not millennia, the ploy used to gain power is to divide the opinions of the masses into two groups, which is then managed so that at the very least, people will be in favor of the least evil. But choosing one evil over another is still empowering evil, and eventually the twain consolidate into one—Conquer.

Now do you understand what is going on between Trump and Hillary? Listen, there has not been a single presidential candidate since 1913 who was not also a darling of the Establishment. Every one has been a member of the CFR, or the cabal that was its predecessor. The Establishment is NOT worried about Trump taking office. Nobody of wealth ever gets to be affluent but what they have and do pay dues to these people who control the world’s money. How do you think Ross Perot got defeated? Why do you think only two political parties are covered in the corporate owned Media? Take a look sometime at the corporations whose top officers are members of the CFR. Look at who are officers of the Federal Reserve. It is so long a list you risk developing esotropia. Where do you suppose they come from? Anyone who has emerged as a financial tycoon has been favored and/or controlled through those at the top, grooming them as eventual replacements. Trump is no exception. As a negotiator he knows how to bullshit.

It happened before, but most people today not having direct experience with the rise of National Socialism cannot discern this strategy.  The supposed antipathy of the Establishment toward Trump is a pretext, an intrigue to disguise their hand behind his popularity. This is how they modulate the energy of dissent and still come out achieving their objectives.

But the memory capacity of most US citizens is like that of the toddler, or the cult dupe, who allow themselves to be swindled over and over again.

“A fool cannot be protected from his folly.  He will allow himself to be repeatedly swindled.”—Robert Heinlein

They never stop to think that other candidates far more capable also present themselves, because they’re too lazy to go look and discover they’ve been hornswoggled. But better yet, they don’t step back and fully grasp how the entire system of our present government is rigged by the employment of bribery. Money always talks, especially in a deflated or inflated economy.

Personally what I find so disgusting during political campaigns is not the supercilious speeches and media hype. It is my fellow Americans who repeatedly fall for this time-tested and threadbare ploy of manipulating their perceptions. When are you fellow citizens going to exit the Matrix?

Don’t you understand that creating situations that provoke your ire is precisely how they maintain control of your decisions? What the hell do you think the Brussels explosion was all about? The London bombing? The Spanish bombing? The European immigration problems? The American immigration problems? The mass murder of innocents in Norway? The Boston bombing? The Trade Towers debacle? The Oklahoma bombing? The Davidian massacre?

These are not unrelated events. They’re not caused by individuals going off the deep end because they can’t get social satisfaction. How naïve. Those people are patsies.

“The terrorist is one who lacks skill of persuasion, and seeks to extract on pain of death extreme fervor and faith from his prey. Terrorists arise when the people have lost their vision and self-respect.”—JB’s Book of Dictums

How do I know this? Patterns. A chief skill required in my engineering career was the recognition of patterns. Through that I was able to discern and quickly resolve problems at their root. That skill carried over into the study of history.

It doesn’t take long to recognize the same operations being conducted by the banksters from before the Revolutionary era to today. It was used by the Romans. Used by the moneyed Jews during their occupation. Used by all their national predecessors to earliest recorded history. It is implied in the Pyramid Texts. Pharaohs, Priests, money handlers. Oligarchs, Propagandists, Thieves.

"Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.…. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.”—Hermann Goering, Nuremberg Diary

It is a well established fact openly disseminated to the world during the Iran Contra debacle (Oh thank you! Ollie.) that the CIA is actively involved in the trafficking of contraband drugs, money, weapons, explosives, and the exploitation and subordination of unstable True Believer personalities for the sole purpose of provoking, destabilizing, and/or overthrowing governments with their constitutions around the world. This IS what they do. (Why do you think cannabis, the most versatile plant ever, was made contraband during WWII? Corporations didn’t want their market dominance undercut by wartime shortages. Shortages = higher prices/profits.) The CIA has its roots in the OSS (Office of Strategic Services) of a century ago, as do all the other intelligence agencies established in foreign countries. And they cooperate together in orchestrating these provocations to inflame and terrorize people’s passions. They do this so that some Right or privilege the People will beg to have taken away in the name of security.

Joachim Hagopian’s essay on Global Research (Ruling Elite Grow Desperate), Patrick Buchanan’s article on the Oligarchs killing Trump and the like are obscuring the facts. When did you last hear of anyone motivated by pure altruism? Trump wants to do something about the condition of our country, said he. Oh really? Are we so credible that every previous president who has asserted essentially the same thing for more than a century doesn’t alarm us of a rat at the camera? Naïve and hopelessly gullible, sometimes I think of my fellow Americans. Especially the Millenials and quasi Millennials. The Oligarchs have them tethered by suture thread in their septum..

“When something is proposed for genuine ‘public good’ it will be proposed by the public. When it is proposed by a politician or wanna-be, run for the hills! It is being proposed to enhance their financial condition.”—JB’s Book of Dictums

I can’t help thinking I’m pontificating to the choir here. Those that need to ponder on these things the most are too busy on Facebook trying to impress one another with their regurgitation of hearsay, rather than bending their minds to the study of history. How important is that, you may ask?

JFK tried to do the same thing that Lincoln attempted: print interest free money by an act of Congress. His education in the most prestigious institutions did not alert him to the impending hazard. He met the same fate for the same reason by the same business interests. He was a bright fellow, but did not learn well how the system which propelled his family into wealth was the very system which blew his brains away.

There is no safety from collateral damage inflicted by shadow organizations, except learning the lessons buried in the past, and taking control of your Rights, perceptions, and guarding your privileges. Credulity in a child is sometimes amusing. In an adult it is an abomination.

SethSmee

The Rape and Pillage of Liberty

The Federal Republic of America

“We have but one ORDER in America, and that of the highest degree, the ORDER OF SOVEREIGNTY, and of this ORDER every citizen is  member of his own personal right. Why then have we descended to the base imitation of inferior things? By the event of the Revolution we were put in a condition of thinking originally. The history of past ages shows scarcely anything to us but instances of tyranny and antiquated absurdities. We have copied some of them and experienced the folly of them. . . .” Constitutional Reform (The Thomas Paine Reader P536)

The magnitude of Government Mandated Opiate in the form of propaganda distributed throughout the public school system is unparalleled in the history of Man. Nowhere do we find the production of ideology in social and educative media so extensive that it mimics stage 4 cancer, than is found throughout world civilizations of the last 200 years. We citizens have been served up a diet of misconceptions, distortions, propaganda, and outright lies concerning our country’s history and its political foundations.

Recently Chip Bok produced a cartoon lampooning Mitt Romney which exemplifies the disingenuousness of politicians, and the public’s gullibility: http:/bokbluster.com/category/politics/2016-presidential-campaign-politics-trump/

Of these two public phenomena Hannah Arendt wrote extensively, which I shall examine later.

It ought to be recalled when the creature entitled The United States of America came into being. I doubt that the vast majority of citizens in this country can accurately answer this question. Many will first think that it was when George Washington became President. This is an error. George was never president of the United States of America. George was the first president of The Federal Republic of America. John Hanson, the son of a Swedish immigrant, was the first president of the United States of America, and was followed by six more, until the form of the Union was dissolved. This is the locus of the first lie and its attendant propaganda fed to us in public education and media. Here I differ from the Founding Fathers  Edmund Randolph, who split hairs over the meaning of Federal vs National at the Convention, and James Madison who characterized the Constitution as both Federal and National.  Virtually everyone at the time, particularly among the Delegates, had a different concept of what form of government they were seeking. Franklin’s comment to Peter Collinson of 1754* about no one having an undistracted concept of Union was just as applicable during the Convention of 1787.

How do they get away with it?

First, people are credulous, tending to believe what they hear. If it weren’t for that, much of what exists in modern society would not function. Our money system would soon break down, as it so often nearly has.

Second, people are ordinarily so busy with the maintenance of their daily lives, and the pursuit of individual happiness, they do not take the time to verify what they hear and are taught. They do not stop to digest and analyze and ferret out the implications of what they are told.

Third, that Spirit of ’76, the one that inspired every soul who immigrated to this country to discover their own destiny, unchained from the tyrannies of the feudal systems of Europe, was subverted and systematically dismantled through a radical change in the form of government they had laboriously created.

They had spent their fortunes and their lives to wrest back control of personal and political destiny out of the hands of the British Parliament, King George, and the European bankers. No sooner than they narrowly accomplished this objective, they were sold out by designing men, from the inside, by a conspiracy and fraud, intended to mimic the old British form of government. The first government, the Confederation of the United States of America, was the grand experiment in self-government that sent shock waves around the world. It was this mystique, this bold declaration, this grand opportunity of personal liberty that uprooted people around the planet from their native homelands to the shores of North America.

That Spirit was broken in a matter of eleven years. How?

First, war always creates debt. The United States of America was financially broke. There is no surer path to envy, strife, and disunion than the want of financial solvency. Every newlywed couple meets this dilemma head on.

Second, war makes people physically and spiritually weary. The moment a threat disappears, that hostilities cease, the participants on both sides of the conflict want to return to peaceful pursuits and regain prosperity. It is at this moment they are most vulnerable to plunder. If someone comes along and promises to relieve them of burdens they are weary of they can be easily persuaded to yield up their liberties for comfort. ("If all that Americans want is security, they can go to prison. They'll have enough to eat, a bed and a roof over their heads. But if an American wants to preserve his dignity and his equality as a human being, he must not bow his neck to any dictatorial government." –Dwight Eisenhower) Man, being of natural trust and goodwill in other men, find it easy to surrender their interest in preserving their liberty to someone else, appointed to the task of civic exigencies.

Third, war destroys property. Property is the foundation of wealth, which described differently, is the means by which Man is able to stave off starvation, exposure, disease, and early death. This is the fundamental meaning of the “pursuit of happiness.”

So what happened?

The United States of America, created under the Articles of Confederation, was unable to recompense the volunteer militia who had so valiantly sought to preserve the Union against British depredation. The United States was in debt to the French aristocracy for their assistance in throwing off the British destruction of Colonial money, homes, and property. Their only recourse to service those debts were tariffs, taxes, and printing paper money. All three failed. War destroys personal wealth. Always. The result was near instant insurrection, with the threat of its leaders to disband the Confederation and install George Washington as King.

At length, the Continental Congress deliberated over the causes of the economic situation, and commissioned delegates to address aspects of the Articles of Confederation which did not specify responsibilities in these matters unilaterally among the United States of America. These delegates were sent to Philadelphia to deliberate on how to justly apportion the various States an equitable course of remedy. Those delegates abandoned their directive and duty, and proceeded to usurp power invested in the Continental Congress to change the form of government. This is what took place in the years between the Declaration of Independence, the founding of the United States of America, and the Constitutional Convention. What happened at this convention is at the heart of all the subsequent lies taught the American public.

Not long into the study of the Federal Constitutional convention the investigator discovers the delegates appointed by the Continental Congress, commissioned to revise the Articles of Confederation, did no such thing. Instead they produced a document restructuring the Union of States into a National government, with powers over the States. This act, produced in secret, was a conspiracy, and what they did was commit fraud by conspiracy upon the Continental Congress, the States, and the citizenry. In English common law such fraudulent agreements and declarations are void and non-binding. But at the behest of George Washington in a letter to Congress, they rolled over and complied with it. In essence, this is what George told the Congress:

“Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.

In all our deliberations on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union,…” Bold mine. (quoted in  Conspiracy in Philadelphia P xxv, Gary North.)

This is a most astounding and heinous lie. It is an odious and fallacious affectation. The Articles of Confederation were founded on the principle that no one must surrender a single right in order to defend and preserve their endowed Rights. The United States of America under the Articles of Confederation, though hard pressed, successfully threw off the British yoke without surrendering a single individual Right. This principle of Union was eloquently addressed by Frederic Bastiat nearly a hundred years later:

“Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

    If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; Maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.” (The Law pp2-3)

Bastiat didn’t invent this principle, it was expressly written into the Articles of Confederation! The author of the selected draft for the Articles was Benjamin Franklin. In Franklin’s deliberations over what form of government best suited to bind the States in common cause, among the material he studied was the various governments of local Native American tribes. The form of Union was modeled after their separation of powers and function. It was a decentralized form of cooperation among common interests. This decentralized form of organization was had among several Indian tribes, such as the Apache, among modern terrorist cells, and is emulated in numerous business ventures today such as eBay, Amazon, and Toyota. It is a non feudal, non hierarchical organization where all individuals have equal voice and choose freely who they will follow. It is powered by a common vision and ideology, which forms the motive force supporting the organization.

It is Benjamin Franklin who is the Father of the United States of America, the form of government meant only to secure everyone’s safety and liberty. George Washington is the stooge who perpetrated the fraud of The Federal Republic of America, the form of government that acts by the power of coercion and positive law. This myth is propaganda and lie number two, the first being George’s mendacity with the Continental Congress. In fact, George had to pander favors among his Masonic friends (>90% of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention) in order to gain access. The condition of his presiding at the assembly was that he keep his mouth shut and remain a figurehead! (American Aurora, pp467-469, 476) It was this Masonic influence among the delegates that produced the oath of secrecy and locked doors during the deliberations that is the very definition of conspiracy.

What citizens today do not understand for deliberate obfuscation of the details in public education is, all debates, referendums, ratifications, and elections subsequent to an act of fraud are also void. It does not matter who supported it, nor how many, nor why. A fraud is not made null by its acceptance. The Federal Convention’s deliberations remain an infringement upon the Rights of Man as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, to wit:

 “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government,…” Italics mine

James Madison in a letter to the Virginia General Assembly of 1785 over the matter of State sponsored religions excoriated them for attempting to legislate beyond their authority:

“The preservation of a free government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power may be invariably maintained; but more especially, that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves, nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.”  Bold mine (Quoted in The Mind of the Founder P7)

But who was it that was Father of the Federal Constitution two years later, and the recorder of the proceedings? Did he not engage in the same encroachment as the Virginia Assembly did on religion? Was not Madison the very Tyrant he condemned? Did not he design (and the delegates sanction) the foundation for slavery under the Federal Republic of America?

Eighty two years later Lysander Spooner at the close of the Civil War reiterated this concept of tyrannical majority:

"The North has thus virtually said to the world: It was all very well to prate of consent, so long as the objects to be accomplished were to liberate ourselves from our connexion with England, and also to coax a scattered and jealous people into a great national union; but now that those purposes have been accomplished, and the power of the North has become consolidated, it is sufficient for us—as for all governments—simply to say: Our power is our right." Italics mine (No Treason P4)

The Continental Congress failed in their duty to reject Washington’s letter and the Federal Constitution, as did the States, who all in collusion with the pseudo-Federalists from 1787 to 1789, proceeded to ratify a change in the form of government that was hierarchical and feudalistic in its intent. The Anti-Federalists attempted to warn the citizenry against the mendacity proposed in newspaper publications, since compiled into The Federalist Papers, and the response in The Anti-Federalist Papers. But it was to no avail.

Hannah Arendt, who was one of the few women who successfully exited a WWII German concentration camp before the borders were closed, spent the rest of her life studying the rise of National Socialism and its effects upon the populace and leaders. She became well known for her publications in the Western world throughout the Cold War period. In her widely heralded book The Origin of Totalitarianism she wrote about the nature of conspiratorial societies:

“The chief value, however, of the secret or conspiratory societies' organizational structure and moral standards for purposes of mass organization does not even lie in the inherent guarantees of unconditional belonging and loyalty, and organizational manifestation of unquestioned hostility to the outside world, but in their unsurpassed capacity to establish and safeguard the fictitious world through consistent lying. The whole hierarchical structure of totalitarian movements, from naive fellow-travelers to party members, elite formations, the intimate circle around the Leader, and the Leader himself, could be described in terms of a curiously varying mixture of gullibility and cynicism with which each member, depending upon his rank and standing in the movement, is expected to react to the changing lying statements of the leaders and the central unchanging ideological fiction of the movement.” (The Origin of Totalitarianism P369)

Continuing her examination she describes the very National Socialist environment in which the post Revloutionary Federalists operated:

“Without the organizational division of the movement into elite formations, membership, and sympathizers, the lies of the Leader would not work. The graduation of cynicism expressed in a hierarchy of contempt is at least as necessary in the face of constant refutation as plain gullibility. The point is that the sympathizers in front organizations despise their fellow-citizens' complete lack of initiation, the party members despise the fellow-travelers' gullibility and lack of radicalism, the elite formations despise for similar reasons the party membership, and within the elite formations a similar hierarchy of contempt accompanies every new foundation and development. The result of this system is that the gullibility of sympathizers makes lies credible to the outside world, while at the same time the graduated cynicism of membership and elite formations eliminates the danger that the Leader will ever be forced by the weight of his own propaganda to make good his own statements and feigned respectability.” (The Origin of Totalitarianism P371)

Today we have an overwhelming abundance of Hannah’s descriptions in the District of Columbia, just in the last two Presidential administrations alone. The CFR and the Trilateral Commission are some of the obvious "elite formations" which exude this contempt of the People. The tragedy of it is this feudalism extends all the way back to the very beginning, under the direction of George Washington, and before him the Constitutional Convention. The root of its ideology is the antithesis of self-preservation—the fallacious argument that a group of people have the right to enforce their will upon an individual or minority, simply because they out-number them. Or, that a minority of sufficient size and power, have the right to enforce their will upon the majority. This fallacious doctrine, concocted by men lusting for influence, eminence, and power was expressed again by Madison:

“According to Republican Theory, Right and power being both vested in the majority, are held to be synonimous. According to fact and experience a minority may in an appeal to force, be an over-match for the majority. 1. if the minority happen to include all such as possess the skill and habits of military life, & such as possess the great pecuniary resources, one-third only may conquer the remaining two-thirds. 2. one-third of those who participate in the choice of the rulers, may be rendered a majority by the accession of those whose poverty excludes them from a right of suffrage, and who for obvious reasons will be more likely to join the standard of sedition than that of the established Government. 3. where slavery exists the republican Theory becomes still more fallacious.” Bold mine. (Quoted in The Mind of the Founder P59)

What does have bearing here is the concept of government altogether—the very idea that people everywhere must be regulated in their activities beyond the simple expedient of preserving their mutual safety of persons, property, and privilege. The control of persons, property, and expression by coercion is a tyranny, and is the express cause of the failure of all governments in the history of Man, prior to the founding of the United States of America. But Madison argued before the Assembly that Republican power and right are the same—that might makes right, that those possessing martial skill sufficient to subdue, or financial acumen to effect the same, have right of coercion; that those who have not financial acumen or military skill have no voice at all, that such theory was a Tyranny, and then reversed his position by creating a government that did just that. These men all gave lip service to the hazards of encroachment, despotism, and ultimate revolution should the People rise up in indignation, but sloppily created a document whereby it was possible for ambitious men to obtain their desires. Contrary to Jefferson’s assertion that the Constitution was a “chain” with which to bind such men down, it was a bloodied red carpet by which none but a vigilant and jealous citizenry could remove. There are so many loopholes and vaguely written constraints in it that collectivism has been driven through as a freight train.

During the reign of the Alien and Sedition Acts, Jefferson was appalled at the seeming about face of John Adams, as others like Alexander Hamilton and George Washington. Jefferson was socially and politically naïve to have sat through the convention from France, discussing the various issues with James and other delegates, and not have realized that these men never changed their position, but had concealed their intent for converting the Union to a Democratic Republic, and distending it through positive interpretations to their own ambition. Franklin, however, readily recognized what Adams was after, and forestalled his exposure to monarchical operations during their ambassadorship to France. Their ambitions were exposed in The Philadelphia Aurora, initially owned and operated by Franklin’s grandson, Benjamin Bache. Bache died in prison from neglect of malaria, at the hands of John Adams and his Sedition Act. Adams had despised Franklin for many years, and carried on a vendetta because of Franklin’s interposition, preventing Adams from obtaining his ambition to convert the Constitutional Republic into a Constitutional Monarchy. It was Bache, exposing the malfeasance of Washington and Adams, that ultimately drove both from the Presidency. Both men had always supported hereditary claim to the Presidency of the Federal Republic of America. The ultimate intent of these men was to return the American government to the British form, with they themselves as the new aristocracy.

What many citizens do not know about Washington’s term in office is he refused to remunerate the French for their War assistance, as per agreements made by ambassador Franklin. (American Aurora pp34,408) Since those French funds spent on military hardware were made by way of loans from the Rothchild’s banking system and backed up by the property of the aristocracy, this action bankrupted the French government. Public education tells us Louis the XVI lost his head to the French Revolution. But this is misleading. He was guillotined because helping the American’s achieve independence bankrupted the country. (American Aurora pp509, 516) The economy collapsed and the people of France, having idolized the new system of American government expounded by ambassador Franklin, rioted against the aristocracy, precipitating the bloodiest (40,000 executed) of European Revolutions to that time. The backlash of Washington’s default began with a fiction of war with the French, and the Jacobin movement that spread to America.

Thomas Paine, returned to America in 1802, having spent eleven months in jail at the behest of Governor Morris, minister to France, wrote open letters to the American people. Paine as Bache, also took them to task, albeit after the fact:

“…a faction, acting in disguise, was rising in America; they had lost sight of first principles. They were beginning to contemplate government as a profitable monopoly, and the people as hereditary property. It is, therefore, no wonder that the Rights of Man was attacked by that faction, and its author continually abused. But let them go on; give them rope enough and they will put an end to their own insignificance. There is too much common sense and independence in America to be long the dupe of any faction, foreign or domestic.

But, in the midst of the freedom we enjoy, the licentiousness of the papers called Federal (and I know not why they are called so, for they are in their principles anti-federal and despotic), is a dishonour to the character of the country, and an injury to its reputation and importance abroad. They represent the whole people of America as destitute of public principle and private manners.” (The Thomas Paine Reader P504)

Unfortunately for us, the common sense permeating Colonial America has since dissipated. Our reputation has been disintegrating since the Convention of 1787. In the wake of the disastrous administrations of Washington, Adams, and a lesser degree Madison, The Federal Republic of America lost all its allies in Europe. When James Monroe took office, he had the odious task of rebuilding those relations. His first effort to that end was to institute a policy of non-intervention, which has been slandered as the policy of isolationism by the Government Mandated Opiate consortium. These malcontents are the mechanics who operate the world's Matrix machine.

In 1805 Paine published an open letter to the American citizenry outlining the Federal Constitution’s errors. I present here only portions more relevant:

“The Constitution formed by the Convention of 1776, of which Benjamin Franklin (the greatest and most useful man America has yet produced), was president, had many good points in it which were overthrown by the Convention of 1790, under the pretence of making the Constitution conformable to that of the United States; as if the forms and periods of election for a territory extensive as that of the United States is could become a rule for a single state.

The principal defect in the Constitution of 1776 was that it was subject, in practice, to too much precipitancy; but the groundwork of that Constitution was good. The present Constitution appears to me to be clogged with inconsistencies of a hazardous tendency, as a supposed remedy against a precipitancy that might not happen. Investing any individual, by whatever name or official title he may be called, with a negative over the formation of the laws, is copied from the English Government, without ever perceiving the inconsistency and absurdity of it, when applied to the representative system, or understanding the origin of it in England.” (The Thomas Paine Reader P526)

“This negativing power in the hands of an individual ought to be constitutionally abolished. It is a dangerous power. There is no prescribing rules for the use of it. It is discretionary and arbitrary; and the will and temper of the person at any time possessing it, is its only rule.” (The Thomas Paine Reader P527)

“We are not a conquered people; we know no conqueror; and the negativing power used by kings in England is for the defence of the personal and family prerogatives of the successors of the conqueror against the Parliament and the people. What is all this to us? We know no prerogatives but what belong to the sovereignty of ourselves.

At the time this Constitution was formed, there was a great departure from the principles of the Revolution, among those who then assumed the lead, and the country was grossly imposed upon. This accounts for some inconsistencies that are to be found in the present Constitution, among which is the negativing power inconsistently copied from England.” (The Thomas Paine Reader P528)

“Patronage has a natural tendency to increase the public expense by the temptation it leads to (unless in the hands of a wise man like Franklin) to multiply offices within the gift or appointment of that patronage. John Adams, in his Administration, went upon the plan of increasing offices and officers. He expected by thus increasing his patronage, and making numerous appointments, that he should attach a numerous train of adherents to him who would support his measures and his future election. He copied this from the corrupt system of England; and he closed his midnight labours by appointing sixteen new unnecessary judges, at an expense to the public of $32,000 annually. John counted only on one side of the case.” (The Thomas Paine Reader P530)

“The complaint respecting the Senate is the length of its duration, being four years. The sage Franklin has said, 'Where annual election ends, tyranny begins'; … When a man ceases to be accountable to those who elected him, and with whose public affairs he is entrusted, he ceases to be their representative, and is put in a condition of being their despot. He becomes the representative of nobody but himself.” (The Thomas Paine Reader P531)

“The Senate is an imitation of what is called the House of Lords in England, and which Chesterfield, who was a member of it, and therefore knew it, calls 'the Hospital of Incurables'. The Senate in Pennsylvania is not quite a hospital of incurables, but it took almost four years to bring it to a state of  convalescence….William (the Conqueror), having made the conquest, dispossessed the owners of their lands, and divided those lands among the chiefs of the plundering army he brought with him, and from hence arose what is called the House of Lords.” (The Thomas Paine Reader P532)

“This is consistent with the original establishment of the House of Lords, for it was originally composed of robbers. This is aristocracy. This is one of the pillars of John Adams's 'stupendous fabric of human invention'. A privilege for house-breaking, highwayrobbing, horse-stealing and robbing of churches! John Adams knew but little of the origin and practice of the Government of England.”(The Thomas Paine Reader p533)

“The Constitution of 1776 was conformable to the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Rights, which the present Constitution is not; for it makes artificial distinctions among men in the right of suffrage, which the principles of equity know nothing of; neither is it consistent with sound policy.” (The Thomas Paine Reader P534)

Those who declaim the contemporary departure from Constitutional government are ignorant of the Revolutionary history, the motives and actions of the Founders who produced the “worthless scrap of paper” Hamilton so disparaged. They do not realize that what they admire and esteem for being lost is the Union of States, the very form of government the South sought to maintain by the Civil War (which also was a prediction of the Anti-Federalist patriots) under the banner of the Confederate flag. This Federal Republic they created is still laboring under the ignominy and dishonor begun at the close of the Revolutionary War when the despotic government formed at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 changed forever the face of Liberty.

I commend to the reader’s review selections from the Anti-Federalist papers and their response to the Constitution’s adoption:

“But in a government consisting of but a few members, elected for long periods, and far removed from the observation of the people, but few changes in the ordinary course of elections take place among the members. They become in some measure a fixed body, and often inattentive to the public good, callous, selfish, and the fountain of corruption. To prevent these evils, and to force a principle of pure animation into the federal government, which will be formed much in this last manner mentioned, and to produce attention, activity, and a diffusion of knowledge in the community, we ought to establish among others the principle of rotation. Even good men in office, in time, imperceptibly lose sight of the people, and  gradually fall into measures prejudicial to them.” #63

“To the authority of Montesquieu, I shall add that of Mr. De Lolme, whose disquisition on government is allowed to be deep, solid, and ingenious . . . . 'It is not only necessary,' [says he] 'to take from the legislature the executive power which would exempt them from the laws; but they should not have even a hope of being ever able to arrogate to themselves that power.' To remove this hope from their expectation, it would have been proper, not only to have previously laid down, in a declaration of rights, that these powers should be forever separate and incommunicable; but the frame of the proposed constitution should have had that separation religiously in view, through all its parts. It is manifest this was not the object of its framers; but, that on the contrary there is a studied mixture of them in the senate as necessary to erect it into that potent aristocracy which it must infallibly produce.

In pursuit of this daring object, than which no greater calamity can be brought upon the people, another egregious error in constitutional principles is committed. I mean that of dividing the executive powers between the senate and president.” #64


“I revere the characters of some of the gentlemen that composed the convention at Philadelphia, yet I think they were human, and subject to imposition and error, as well as the rest of mankind. You lost eight or ten years of your lives and labor by the last war, and you were left at last with your debts and encumbrances on you, and numbers of you were soon after the close of it, sued and harassed for them. Your persons have been put into a loathsome prison, and others of you have had your property sold for taxes, and sometimes for one tenth of its former and actual value and you now pay very grievous and heavy taxes, double and treble what you paid before the war; and should you adopt this new government, your taxes will be great, increased to support their.., servants and retainers, who will be multiplied upon you to keep you in obedience, and collect their duties, taxes, impositions, and excises. Some of you may say the rich men were virtuous in the last war; yes, my countrymen, they had reason then to be so! Our liberty then was in dispute with a mighty and powerful tyrant, and it was for their interest to promote and carry on the opposition, as long as they could stay at home and send the common people into the field to fight their battles. After the war began, they could not with decency recede, for the sword and enemy were at the very entrance of their gates. The case is greatly altered now; you conquered the enemy, and the rich men now think to subdue you by their wiles and arts, or make you, or persuade you, to do it yourselves. Their aim, I perceive, is now to destroy that liberty which you set up as a reward for the blood and treasure you expended in the pursuit of and establishment of it. They well know that open force will not succeed at this time, and have chosen a safer method, by offering you a plan of a new Federal Government, contrived with great art, and shaded with obscurity, and recommended to you to adopt; which if you do, their scheme is completed, the yoke is fixed on your necks, and you will be undone, perhaps for ever, and your boasted liberty is but a sound, Farewell! Be wise, be watchful, guard yourselves against the dangers that are concealed in this plan of a new Federal Government.”#40

 The face of American politics that appears in the newspapers, journals, and archives of the post revolutionary period is identical to Washington politics of our time. It has never changed. The only change to this scene of blood, terror, and ruin will happen when the citizens of this country come together in common cause, as our forefathers did in 1775, and abolish the system of government in Washington and the models of constitutions, to voluntarily support the Union they devoted themselves to establish with the Revolution. Spooner in his disquisition was correct:

 “…all governments though the best on earth in other respects—are nevertheless tyrannies to that portion of the people—whether few or many—who are compelled to support them against their will.” (No Treason P17)

“…there is not the slightest probability that there is a single man in the country, who both understands what the Constitution really is, and sincerely supports it for what it really is. The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.:

1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth.

2. Dupes—a large class, no doubt—each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a 'free man,' a 'sovereign'; that this is 'a free government'; 'a government of equal rights,' 'the best government on earth,' and such like absurdities.

3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.” (No Treason P26)

It will never happen by working within the system now entrenched.

"You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."—Buckminster Fuller

If by now you do not perceive the magnitude of our enmeshment in this Matrix called the Federal Republic of America, there is little hope past despotic slavery.

SethSmee

REFERENCES
The Thomas Paine Reader, 1987, Foot & Kramnick
American Aurora, 1997, Morgan & Rosenfeld
Declaration of Independence, 1776, Representatives in General Congress, USofA
The Origin of Totalitarianism, 1973, Hannah Arendt
The Mind of the Founder, 1981, Meyers
The Law, 1995, Richman
Conspiracy in Philadelphia, 2004, North
The Federalist Papers
The Anti-Federalist Papers
No Treason, 1867, Lysander Spooner

* “Every Body cries, a Union is absolutely necessary, but when they come to the Manner and Form of the Union, their weak Noddles are perfectly distracted.” Letter to Peter Collinson (29 December 1754)