By the Words of Our Predecessors

“men keep their promises when neither side can get anything by the breaking of them” Solon

Last night I watched on a video channel where at the end, two women were celebrating the idea of revising the entire medical system. But as is so typical of people who fail to examine consequences, these two, as also many Americans who want to restore the Constitution and thus the “Republic,” did not recognize the impossibility of overhauling the American Medical system without also revising its political system,  its economic system, and its religions. All are intimately entwined, built up from the beginning of the American empire begun in 1630:

“…one English company, the Massachusetts Bay Company, moved over bodily in 1630, bringing their charter and most of their stock-holders with them, thus setting up an actual autonomous State in America. The thing to be observed about this is that the merchant-State was set up complete in New England long before it was set up in Old England…. A point of greatest importance to remember is that the merchant-State is the only form of the State that has ever existed in America. Whether under the rule of a trading-company or a provincial governor or a republican representative legislature, Americans have never known any other form of the State.” p43 Our Enemy the State Albert Nock

It takes very little reading into the American statutes passed by the Puritans to observe the drive to control every aspect of society, always with the intent of forcing virtue upon the populace (A History of Matrimonial Institutions Vol 2, Howard). This is the same pressure that swept through pre-National Socialist Germany, when the Jewish element subverted all Arts and Academia with moral decadence. (The Sexual Decadence of Weimar Germany Lasha Darkmoon) It was the ultra-conservative religious Right that provided the motive force to “restore the Republic” turning it into a dictatorship. The increasing shrill demand for rectitude, and the animosity toward those Jews who debauched German society. There was little recognition by that religious element that lack of virtue in the hearts of the Germans was what made that debauchery possible. These were people who had just exited the Prussian empire, which had been superseded by the Khazarian Empire—several hundred years and multiple generations of tribes amalgamated by external forces into a quasi national identity. Wherever pressure is applied demanding rectitude, there is an equal counter force against it, and the Germans of the period, like the Americans of today, were ripe for throwing off the yoke of their own making.

Consider now the words of Thomas Paine, who anonymously galvanized the American colonies into seceding from Britain:

COMMON SENSE

“As a long and violent abuse of power, is generally the Means of calling the right of it in question (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the Sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry) and as the K- of England [POTUS] had undertaken in his own Right, to support the Parliament [Congress] in what he calls Theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpation of either.”

“In the following sheets, the author hath studiously avoided every thing which is personal among ourselves. Compliments as well as censure to individuals make no part thereof. The wise, and the worthy, need not the triumph of a pamphlet; and those whose sentiments are injudicious, or unfriendly, will cease of themselves unless too much pains are bestowed upon their conversion.”

“The cause of America is in a great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances hath, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all Lovers of Mankind are affected, and in the Event of which, their Affections are interested. The laying a Country desolate with Fire and Sword, declaring War against the natural rights of all Mankind, and extirpating the Defenders thereof from the Face of the Earth, is the concern of every Man to whom Nature hath given the Power of feeling; of which Class, regardless of Party Censure, is the Author.”

“…I offer a few remarks on the so much boasted constitution of England [America]. That it was noble for the dark and slavish times in which it was erected is granted. When the world was overrun with tyranny the least remove therefrom was a glorious rescue. But that it is imperfect, subject to convulsions, and incapable of producing what it seems to promise, is easily demonstrated.”

“To say that the constitution of England [America] is a union of three powers reciprocally checking each other, is farcical, either the words have no meaning, or they are flat contradictions.”

“How came the king [POTUS] by a power which the people are afraid to trust, and always obliged to check? Such a  power could not be the gift of a wise people, neither can any power, which needs checking, be from God; yet the provision, which the constitution makes, supposes such a power to exist.”

“…it only remains to know which power in the constitution has the most weight, for that will govern; and though the others, or a part of them, may clog, or, as the phrase is, check the rapidity of its motion, yet so long as they cannot stop it, their endeavours will be ineffectual; the first moving power will at last have its way, and what it wants in speed is supplied by time.”

“Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England [America] than in some other countries, but the will of the king [President] is as much the law of the land in Britain [America] as in France, with this difference, that instead of proceeding directly from his mouth, it is handed to the people under the most formidable shape of an act of parliament [Federalism].”

“An inquiry into the constitutional errors in the English [American] form of government is at this time highly necessary; for as we are never in a proper condition of doing justice to others, while we continue under the influence of some leading partiality, so neither are we capable of doing it to ourselves while we remain fettered by any obstinate prejudice. And as a man, who is attached to a prostitute, is unfitted to choose or judge of a wife, so any prepossession in favour of a rotten constitution of government will disable us from discerning a good one.”

“In the early ages of the world, according to the scripture chronology, there were no kings; the consequence of which was there were no wars; it is the pride of kings which throw mankind into confusion. Holland without a king hath enjoyed more peace for this last century than any of the monarchial governments in Europe. Antiquity favours the same remark; for the quiet and rural lives of the first patriarchs hath a happy something in them, which vanishes away when we come to the history of Jewish royalty."

"Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honours to their deceased kings, and the Christian world hath improved on the plan by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendour is crumbling into dust.”

“Near three thousand years passed away from the Mosaic account of the creation, till the Jews under a national delusion requested a king. Till then their form of government (except in extraordinary cases, where the Almighty interposed) was a kind of republic administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes.”

“Monarchy is ranked in scripture as one of the sins of the Jews, for which a curse in reserve is denounced against them. The history of that transaction is worth attending to.”

“Samuel told all the words of the Lord unto the people, that asked of him a king. And he said, This shall be the manner of the king that shall reign over you; he will take your sons and appoint them for himselffor his chariots, and to be his horsemen, and some shall run before his chariots (this description agrees with the present mode of impressing men) and he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them to ear his ground and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots; and he will take your daughters to be confectionaries and to be cooks and- to be bakers (this describes the expense and luxury as well as the oppression of kings) and he will take your fields and your olive yards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants; and he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give them to his oficers and to his servants (by which we see that bribery, corruption, and favouritism are the standing vices of kings) and he will take the tenth of your men servants, and your maid servants, and your goodliest young men and your asses, and put them to his work; and he will take the tenth of your sheep, and ye shall be his servants, and ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen, AND THE LORD WILL NOT HEAR YOU IN THAT DAY.”

“As no man at first could possess any other public honours than were bestowed upon him, so the givers of those honours could have no power to give away the right of posterity, and though they might say 'We choose you for our head', they could not, without manifest injustice to their children, say 'that your children and your children's children shall reign over ours for ever'.”

On the matter of Governments:

“Did it ensure a race of good and wise men it would have the seal of divine authority, but as it opens a door to the foolish, the wicked, and the improper, it hath in it the nature of oppression. Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.”

“America would have flourished as much, and probably much more, had no European power had any thing to do with her.”

“Europe, and not England, is the parent country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.”

“Not one third of the inhabitants, even of this province, are of English descent. Wherefore I reprobate the phrase of parent or mother country applied to England only, as being false, selfish, narrow and ungenerous.”

From here we can reflect on the insights of just a few since Paine on the hazards of government:

“The Greeks regarded liberty as synonymous with virtue, a condition the person could forfeit, by insufficient self-control or intemperance. This view—which is not wholly foreign to us—meshed with their belief that only certain persons could be self-governing, able to form and be members of the polis (that is, certain Greek-speaking, male adults); all others were regarded as unable to govern themselves and therefore unfit to be a part of the political community. This conception formed the basis of Aristotle's political philosophy and of Plato's Republic, which is a blueprint of a caste society in which each person plays the role for which he is best ‘fitted.’” p103 Meaning of Mind

“The years of the Weimar Constitution which followed were for most Germans a time of irritation and frustration. Used as they were to commands from above and respect for authority, they found the loose, irreverent democratic order all confusion and chaos. They were shocked to realize ‘that they had to participate in government, choose a party, and pass judgment upon political matters.’ They longed for a new corporate whole, more monolithic, all-embracing and glorious to behold than even the Kaiser regime had been—and the Third Reich more than answered their prayer. Hitler's totalitarian regime, once established, was never in danger of mass revolt. So long as the ruling Nazi hierarchy was willing to shoulder all responsibilities and make all decisions, there was not the least chance for any popular antagonism to arise.” P43 Eric Hoffer The True Believer

“…the technique of a mass movement aims to infect people with a malady and then offer the movement as a cure.” P54 Eric Hoffer The True Believer

“…the Christian concept of virtue was originally formulated as the central ethic in a counterculture that arose as a conscious protest against the classical cult of manliness. Nor did the public (or the polis) include everybody. Not coincidentally, public, like virtue, derives from Latin roots signifying manhood: ‘the public’ included only independent adult males. Public virtue entailed firmness, courage, endurance, industry, frugal living, strength, and above all, unremitting devotion to the weal of the public's corporate self, the community of virtuous men. It was at once individualistic and communal: individualistic in that no member of the public could be dependent upon any other and still be reckoned a member of the public; communal in that every man gave himself totally to the good of the public as a whole. If public virtue declined, the republic declined, and if it declined too far, the republic died. Philosophical historians had worked out a regular life cycle, or more properly death cycle, of republics. Manhood gave way to effeminacy, republican liberty to licentiousness. Licentiousness, in turn, degenerated into anarchy, and anarchy inevitably led to tyranny.” p70-1 Novus Ordo Seclorum

“…the Christian concept of virtue was originally formulated as the central ethic in a counterculture that arose as a conscious protest against the classical cult of manliness. Nor did the public (or the polis) include everybody. Not coincidentally, public, like virtue, derives from Latin roots signifying manhood: ‘the public’ included only independent adult males. Public virtue entailed firmness, courage, endurance, industry, frugal living, strength, and above all, unremitting devotion to the weal of the public's corporate self, the community of virtuous men. It was at once individualistic and communal: individualistic in that no member of the public could be dependent upon any other and still be reckoned a member of the public; communal in that every man gave himself totally to the good of the public as a whole. If public virtue declined, the republic declined, and if it declined too far, the republic died. Philosophical historians had worked out a regular life cycle, or more properly death cycle, of republics. Manhood gave way to effeminacy, republican liberty to licentiousness. Licentiousness, in turn, degenerated into anarchy, and anarchy inevitably led to tyranny.” p70-1 Novus Ordo Seclorum

“The vital principle of republics was virtue, but progress through the various stages was automatic and inevitable if men were free. Republics therefore, or so it would seem, were inherently self-defeating, self-destructive. James Madison, more than any other American, addressed himself to this problem, and by the time of the Constitutional Convention he thought he had found a way around it, one that appealed to a goodly number of Americans for a variety of reasons. The essence of it was that government should intervene to arrest the evolution of the stages of progress at the commercial agricultural stage, so that America might enjoy the refinements but not be subject to the corruption. This would involve commercial regulations that would secure markets for American agricultural production, promote the household manufacture of simple objects, and keep America dependent upon Europe for finer manufactures; and crucially, it would involve a policy of territorial expansion to ensure that there would be land enough to keep most of the people on farms and thus to prevent the growth of the ‘superfluity’ of population which was thought to be necessary for the development of large-scale manufacturing industries.

As was usual with Madison, he had thought the matter through, thoroughly and systematically, and he knew precisely what it required. First, a national government with adequate powers must be created. Next, that government must encourage American shipping and enact a schedule of tariffs that would discriminate against British ships and goods. Madison was convinced that the British economy was on a precarious footing and that the reduction of American importation of British fineries would quickly force Parliament to abolish its commercial restrictions. The United States would then cancel its own restrictions, having abundant markets for its agricultural output and having a source of manufactured goods without being required to produce them.” p134 Novus Ordo Seclorum

“A bitter lesson emerged from the disruptions in New England, one that was reinforced elsewhere by corruption, demagoguery, and the refusal or inability of Congress and the several states to honor their obligations. The lesson, as some were candid enough to put it, was that the American public did not possess a sufficient stock of virtue to sustain a republic, as republics had traditionally been conceived. Man did not have such virtue naturally, nor did he obtain it by laboring in the earth, nor did many men acquire it through religious instruction.” p179 p134 Novus Ordo Seclorum

“The Founding Fathers, being skeptical of man's virtue, designed a republic whose actuating principle would be the opposite. The untidiness of the system necessitated that the operation of American government would ever recapitulate its process of birth. That is, the system was born of compromises—some arrived at openly and some under the table, some arrived at through ‘respectable’ means and others through ‘corrupt’ deals—and it could be made to work only through similar methods. So cumbersome and so inefficient was the system that the people, however virtuous or wicked, could not activate it. It could be activated through deals and deceit, through bargains and bribery, through logrolling and lobbying and trickery and trading, the tactics that go with man's baser attributes, most notably his greed and his love of power to those republicans who viewed the ‘grand question’ as what kind of national government should be created, rather than whether one should be created at all, the Constitution would be likely to be unpalatable.” p194-5 E Pluribus Unum

“Every republic passes through several stages. The first of these is comprised in the early days of mad raging by the blind mob, tossed hither and thither, right and left: the second is demagogy from which is born anarchy, and that leads inevitably to despotism—not any longer legal and overt, and therefore responsible despotism, but to unseen and secretly hidden, yet nevertheless sensibly felt despotism in the hands of some secret organization or other, whose acts are the more unscrupulous inasmuch as it works behind a screen, behind the backs of all sorts of agents, the changing of whom not only does not injuriously affect but actually aids the secret force by saving it, thanks to continual changes, from the necessity of expanding its resources on the rewarding of long services.” The Protocols 4.1

“…an Anglican monarchical & aristocratical party has sprung up whose avowed object is to draw over us the substance, as they have already done the forms, of the British government . . . Against us [Republicans ] are the [Federalist-controlled] Executive, the Judiciary, two out of three... of the legislature, all the officers of the government, all who want to be officers, all timid men who prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty, British merchants & Americans trading on British capitals, speculators, & holders in the banks & public funds, a contrivance invented for the purposes of corruption & for assimilating us in all things to the rotten as well as the sound parts of the British model.” Jefferson's Letter to Philip Mazzei, former neighbor.

“Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.”

"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.” Jefferson

“…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,…” George Clinton AFP #14

“What then are we to think of the motives and designs of those men who are urging the implicit and immediate adoption of the proposed government; are they fearful, that if you exercise your good sense and discernment, you will discover the masqued aristocracy, that they are attempting to smuggle upon you under the suspicious garb of republicanism? When we find that the principal agents in this business are the very men who fabricated the form of government, it certainly ought to be conclusive evidence of their invidious design to deprive us of our liberties.” Patrick Henry AFP #40

“It is remarked by Montesquieu, in treating of republics, that in all magistracies, the greatness of the power must be compensated by the brevity of the duration, and that a longer time than a year would be dangerous. It is, therefore, obvious to the least intelligent mind to account why great power in the hands of a magistrate, and that power connected with considerable duration, may be dangerous to the liberties of a republic. The deposit of vast trusts in the hands of a single magistrate enables him in their exercise to create a numerous train of dependents. This tempts his ambition, which in a republican magistrate is also remarked, to be pernicious, and the duration of his office for any considerable time favors his views, gives him the means and time to perfect and execute his designs; he therefore fancies that he may be great and glorious by oppressing his fellow citizens, and raising himself to permanent grandeur on the ruins of his country.” George Clinton AFP #67

“There is also an impression that if actual recessions do not come about of themselves, they may be brought about by the expedient of voting one political party out and another one in. This idea rests upon certain assumptions that experience has shown to be unsound; the first one being that the power of the ballot is what republican political theory makes it out to be, and that therefore the electorate has an effective choice in the matter. It is a matter of open and notorious fact that nothing like this is true. Our nominally republican system is actually built on an imperial model, with our professional politicians standing in the place of the prætorian guards; they meet from time to time, decide what can be ‘got away with,’ and how, and who is to do it; and the electorate votes according to their prescriptions.” p11 Albert Nock Our Enemy the State

“…one English company, the Massachusetts Bay Company, moved over bodily in 1630, bringing their charter and most of their stock-holders with them, thus setting up an actual autonomous State in America. The thing to be observed about this is that the merchant-State was set up complete in New England long before it was set up in Old England…. A point of greatest importance to remember is that the merchant-State is the only form of the State that has ever existed in America. Whether under the rule of a trading-company or a provincial governor or a republican representative legislature, Americans have never known any other form of the State.” p43 Albert Nock Our Enemy the State

“In a single century after 1789, France had tried every known kind of State-system, some two or three times over; three republics, a couple of monarchies, two empires, now and then a dictatorship, a directory, a commune—every system one could think of. Each shift brought about the same consequences to the individual, and they all alike bore testimony to the truth of Paine's saying, that ‘the trade of governing has always been a monopoly of the most ignorant and the most vicious of mankind.’” pp 129-130 The Superfluous Man

“…the eighteenth-century Neapolitan scholar Vico,…working with Plato, established various organic phases in human society. First, Chaos. Then Theocracy. Then Aristocracy. Then Democracy—but as republics tend to become imperial and tyrannous, they collapse and we’re back to Chaos and to its child Theocracy, and a new cycle.” 7-21-97 The Nation

“I believe this, but James Madison did not. There is no trace of natural law theory in the Constitution. There is none in the Federalist Papers. Jefferson invoked natural rights, but the Declaration never had any legal standing…. Codevilla in one sentence mentioned the most important threat to the American republic: the administrative state.” Gary North

"Democracy: the opportunity to be everyone's slave." Karl Kraus

“When there were no such things as human rights, the exceptional individual had them. It was called aristocracy, and was considered to be inhuman. So democracy was created. How? By taking human rights away from the exceptional individual, thus making everyone equal.” Karl Kraus

“Democracy: everyone should have an equal opportunity to obstruct everybody else.” Celia Green The Decline and Fall of Science

“In an autocracy, one person has his way; in an aristocracy, a few people have their way; in a democracy, no one has his way.” Celia Green The Decline and Fall of Science

“Of all the impostor-terms in our political glossary these are perhaps the most flagrantly impudent, and their employment perhaps the most flagitious. We have already seen that nothing remotely resembling democracy has ever existed here; nor yet has anything resembling free competition, for the existence of free competition is obviously incompatible with any exercise of the political means, even the feeblest. For the same reason, no policy of rugged individualism has ever existed; the most that rugged individualism has done to distinguish itself has been by way of running to the State for some form of economic advantage. If the reader has any curiosity about this, let him look up the number of American business enterprises that have made a success unaided by the political means, or the number of fortunes accumulated without such aid. Laissez-faire has become a term of pure opprobrium; those who use it either do not know what it means, or else willfully pervert it.” p88 Our Enemy the State

“Characteristically, however, the overthrow of the dictator simply means that there will be another dictator. ... the policies they follow will probably not be radically different. If we look around the world, we quickly realize that these policies will not be radically different from those that would be followed by a democracy either.” Gordon Tullock Professor of Economics George Mason Univ

“Our form of democracy is bribery on the highest scale.” Gore Vidal The United States of Amnesia

“The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.” Lord Acton

“The Athenians, now the Cylonian sedition was over and the polluted gone into banishment, fell into their old quarrels about the government, there being as many different parties as there were diversities in the country. The Hill quarter favored democracy, the Plain, oligarchy, and those that lived by the Sea-side stood for a mixed sort of government, and so hindered either of the other parties from prevailing. And the disparity of fortune between the rich and the poor, at that time, also reached its height; so that the city seemed to be in a truly dangerous condition, and no other means for freeing it from disturbances and settling it, to be possible but a despotic power. All the people were indebted to the rich; and either they tilled their land for their creditors, paying them a sixth part of the increase, and were, therefore, called Hectemorii and Thetes, or else they engaged their body for the debt, and might be seized, and either sent into slavery at home, or sold to strangers; some (for no law forbade it) were forced to sell their children, or fly their country to avoid the cruelty of their creditors; but the most part and the bravest of them began to combine together and encourage one another to stand to it, to choose a leader, to liberate the condemned debtors, divide the land, and change the government.” Life of Solon Plutarch

“[Democracy] Conceived as the foundation of liberty, it paves the way for tyranny.  Born for the purpose of standing as a bulwark against Power, it ends by providing Power with the finest soil it has ever had in which to spread itself over the social field.” Bertrand de Jouvenel

“They (Americans) have found out that in a democracy, the independence of individuals cannot fail to be very great, youth premature, tastes ill-restrained, customs fleeting, public opinion often unsettled and powerless, paternal authority weak, and marital authority contested.” De Toqueville

“There are people in Europe who, confounding together the different characteristics of the sexes, would make man and woman into beings not only equals but alike. They would give to both the same functions impose on both the same duties, and grant to both the same rights, they would mix them in all things,-- their occupation their pleasures, their business. It may readily be conceived, that, by thus attempting to make one sex equal to the other, both are degraded; and from so preposterous a medley of the works of nature, nothing could ever result but weak men and disorderly women.” P244 Democracy in America

“Democracy is woman's greatest invention. Indeed, it even reflects her character: purposeless, irrational, subject to public opinion and passing fashions, rambling, confused, underhanded, scheming, in love with its own purity.” Unknown

“The Federalists, as has been said, had selected as many military men as possible as candidates for the convention. Forty six of the eighty-nine Federalist delegates had been officers in the Revolutionary armies, and twenty-three more had been militia officers, about half of whom had seen combat.” p262 Forrest McDonald We the People

"The military is government. The military works like government; is financed like government, and sports many of the same inherent malignancies of government, chief of which is its liberalism. Like the government, the military is freighted with pathological political correctness." Ilana Mercer

“…in England, whose government, for a thousand years and more, has been little or nothing else than a band of robbers, who have conspired to monopolize the land, and, as far as possible, all other wealth. These conspirators, calling themselves kings, nobles, and freeholders, have, by force and fraud, taken to themselves all civil and military power; they keep themselves in power solely by force and fraud, and the corrupt use of their wealth; and they employ their power solely in robbing and enslaving the great body of their own people, and in plundering and enslaving other peoples. And the world has been, and now is, full of examples substantially similar. And the governments of our own country do not differ so widely from others in this respect as some of us imagine.” p16 Vices are not Crimes

“All the monarchical governments are military. War is their trade, plunder and revenue their objects. While such governments continue, peace has not the absolute security of a day. What is the history of all monarchical governments, but a disgustful picture of human wretchedness, and the accidental respite of a few years' repose? Wearied with war, and tired with human butchery, they sat down to rest, and called it peace. This certainly is not the condition that Heaven intended for man; and if this be monarchy, well might monarchy be reckoned among the sins of the Jews.” p205 The Thomas Paine Reader

And thus we come full circle. It ought to be apparent to the reader that this "experiment" upon Limited Government, inclusive of "Balanced Powers" is an abject failure. This government has conducted itself in the same manner as its oppressors who provoked it into existence. Laws and tribunals Man needs. Governments Man does not, for the Laws under government control and authority always turns in upon itself.

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.