Reforms to Protect the
Restored Republic

by Juan O’Eight
SOTN Exclusive

Introduction

This book is not intended to thoroughly document the ills being suffered by America and the World to convince skeptics. Those ills have been described in alternative news, and at the time this is written, it is anticipated that there will be progress toward Disclosure. Those who believe that America’s ills need to be cured by reparations, redistribution, intense censorship, the favoring of one race or color, rule by an elite class, the discontinuation of ownership, and the elimination of the enumerated rights in the US Constitution need to look elsewhere. Those who are still unaware of the intense amount of corruption, propaganda, misinformation, destruction of rights, infiltration of schools and universities, human trafficking, destructive cult-religion, bribery, blackmail, treason, economic manipulation, promotion of hatred of America, weaponized weather, and efforts to reduce world populations, need to do their own research and practice discernment in revealing likely truth. In this quest, persons need to avoid trusting “experts” more than their own eyes and common sense, and unfortunately need to dedicate a great deal of time to gathering reports and distilling likely Truth.

This book certainly is not designed to be “expert” in any sense other than applying logic to discerned truth and presenting this logic to the reader. And the purpose of this book is not to present a mature prescription for curing America’s ills. Instead, it is being offered as a potential starting point for discussion among the populace. That discussion does not seem at this writing to have begun to any serious degree in alternative news. Instead it is by scant rumor that such discussions have occurred behind closed doors, and without any degree of consensus. Bringing this discussion out into the open is an important step that needs to occur. The author cares little as to whether the specific reforms outlined in this work are adopted, but does care a great deal about whether the objectives those reforms are aligned toward are achieved. And it is no wonder that behind those closed doors there is a lack of agreement. As this book will assert and contend, the measures necessary to reform the system are radical, there is no support for them among the populace, because they are antithetical to currently ingrained culture. Therefore, behind their closed doors, those arguing for prescriptive measures strong enough to be effective are opposed by others who understand that without public support those measures would appear tyrannical, and would either be thwarted, or the degree of force necessary to implement them would be in itself anti-thematic.  This disagreement represents a classic dilemma so long as thinking goes on inside a defined box of acceptable and unacceptable solutions. Such disagreement also demonstrates a lack of awareness of how public opinion and support can be rallied and molded when faced with a challenge, the classic example being the citizenry of Britain during World War II. When it is clearly understood that moral courage, privation, and dedication are necessary to survival, very ordinary citizens become extraordinary sources of will and perseverance.

One of the themes of this book is that there are root causes of the ills suffered by America, and that if these are not well understood and addressed, there is no amount of truth, arrests, prosecutions, presentment of confessions, or anything else that will prevent a return of the same ills, perpetrated by a new generation of bad actors, because the ills are caused by systemic flaws. Further, the methods by which these ills are addressed need to be strong enough that the problems never return. A return of the same types of problems by bad actors would most likely be accompanied by an understanding of how and why this attack on America failed, and a determination to avoid those mistakes. As it appears the destruction of the bad actors of the current generation was at many points in doubt, the return of the same problems, with the final proof against these being a dedicated military sworn to defend the Constitution, which in this case was itself corrupted to a degree found insufficient, relying upon this same safety margin is in the opinion of the author a poor plan. A better plan is to institute reforms that will achieve the intent of the Constitution by means of checks and balances in the civilian governmental system. Of course, it is not a certainty that this can be achieved. The author certainly makes no claim to having the wisdom of the Founding Fathers, and yet the system they set up was captured and turned against The People. the author simply feels that this a quest worth taking up, to try to restore the Republic, to make one’s best effort in trying to make the dream of French philosophers of establishing a government that protects natural and inalienable rights, a dream that arguably was the thing that countless American patriots died for, a dream that is hallowed by their sacrifice, a dream that in fact provided the glow and aura of the New World, to try to make this dream live.

Another important idea of this book is, this attack on Society exists in many arenas, among them, government, economy, money, education, and media. To deal with the threat one must understand every one of these, despite misinformation. In every case, one is running counter to the existing culture in pursuing truth, because the institutions of society are (or, more hopefully, were, until recently) captured. There are relatively few individuals with the capability and patience and time and resources to investigate so many corners of Society and to feel confident enough in their observations that they may Act.

Popularity may be over-rated, but it is natural for a person to enjoy acceptance, and when not accepted to feel a degree of pain. When one examines and questions popular ideas, humans take issue because they view it as criticism of themselves, and, with those persons they feel they should have close relationships with, they view radical differences of perception as a barrier to relationships. Thus the members of Society who have engaged in distilling Truth, often referred to as “Digital Warriors”, have suffered isolation and rejection, but  enduring a degree of pain is necessary to any great human endeavor. It is said that the Great Awakening is a proliferation of a daunting amount of concealed Truth that, when disclosed, will change the perceived norms of Society and transform it. But for now, Digital Warriors are Radicals. In the future, as in the First American Revolution (and all Digital Warriors hope that future is imminent), Digital Warriors will be transformed from being known as  Radicals to being known as Patriots.

1.  Radical Reform

All reforms are thought of as radical when they are first suggested. Those who suggested independence from England in 1763 were largely labeled with this term and shunned. By 1775, the radicals were now called patriots, and were seen as leaders. It took that much time for challenges to the rights of people who thought of themselves as “free” to assert that freedom and to push back against incursions upon it. It took that much time for citizens to become aware of the need for a strong curative and to take action, despite the risk of some very negative consequences. But all the reforms and curative actions were at first shunned and had no following.

In The Glorious Cause, Robert Middlekauff writes:

“What seemed to be only common sense to Thomas Paine, and to most Americans in 1776, would have struck them as uncommon madness a dozen years before. Paine’s Common Sense, a sermon disguised as a political tract, informed Americans that their long-standing connection to England was preposterous, that it violated the laws of nature and of human reason, indeed that it aroused a repugnancy in ‘the universal order of things.’ And as for the institution to which they had always given their loyalty–the monarchy–it was ridiculous, and as unnatural as the traditional tie to the mother country. Monarchy, according to Paine, had a heathenish origin; it had been instituted by the devil for the promotion of idolatry. The word according to Thomas Paine was accepted easily enough by most Americans; they were a church of the converted, and he gave them exactly what they wanted to hear. They declared their independence six months after his essay appeared, citing the laws of nature and nature’s God as justification.” (pp. 3-4)

In the 60s the term “radical” was co-opted to represent communists and lawbreakers. Rules For Radicals was a blueprint for admirers of communism, progressivism, and socialism to act as “community organizers” to use politics to overcome government by unworthy means, with a focus on lying and deceit. Other books by “radicals” encouraged breaking any law that was inconvenient. However, the term “radical” should not be permitted to be hijacked. In this case, it is “radical” to suggest strong punishments, sequestrations, or other means of effectively dealing with the threat America has faced,  because all punishments or other measures that might work as a societal curative are tagged, perhaps by deliberate propaganda, as cruel or as a governmental (“Fascist”) overreach.

One example of the attack on punishments as being cruel is the attitude toward spanking children. The idea that spanking children who misbehave is cruel and unnecessary has been spread throughout the society, perhaps disguised as a natural phenomenon of societal evolution. It provides a profound example of what it means when we say someone is a radical. A person who claims that children should be punished at an early age when they do wrong, using pain (which in fact is a strong teacher, if one recalls the saying , “once burned, twice shy”), instead of being counseled and told to stand in a corner or go to one’s room, this is now thought of very negatively. Never mind the facts, which are, there once was a society in which people did not think they had to lock their doors, or in which children simply did not talk back to their parents, and in which children believed they had a Conscience. The facts are also, after one or two generations in which children did not appear to learn early about what happens when one does the wrong things, that as adults, they now seem to be wanting in morals and ethics, and are much more likely to think they will get away with doing wrong, and need not feel guilt or remorse, even if something terrible happens to another person. If they get the slightest bit of amusement from some action like throwing large rocks at automobiles from an overpass, to these, their actions were worth it, so long as they are not caught and punished. Another problem worth mentioning is that since schools do not have any type of physical punishment as a means of maintaining order, they now drug the miscreants, under the assertion that all misbehavior represents some type of chemical imbalance or condition (such as autism), which teaches these individuals little except to acclimate them to a life of drug “therapy”.

Yes, the relationship between spanking children and a corrupt, lawless, conscious-less adult society is dubious, but so is the notion that the removal of this practice has been replaced by something effective in producing moral, ethical, law-abiding citizens.

Further, it is worth noting that Society perhaps thinks that it perceives Progress as eliminating Pain. Perhaps it is seen as idyllic to try to totally eliminate Pain from our existence. A blanket observation like this is impossible to prove. But perhaps what we may come to believe about this is, pain is impossible to eliminate from life; that if we do not experience pain in measured amounts, used as a device in learning ethics and morality, that in fact, we will experience pain later, and, in fact, that pain will be much. much greater, inflicted on an unfathomable scale (as was visited upon the residents of Hamelin). The endurance of Pain is also necessary to developing Courage, and without Courage there is little hope of overcoming Evil. Without the Courage of a Lion, we instead must have the Meekness of Sheep.

During the same period in which there is a transition from Honesty and Conscience, one can see there is an attitude of the populace building up against capital punishment. This flies in the face of the facts, which are, of those who receive incarceration instead of capital punishment for capital crimes, a percentage of these get out of prison one way or another, and a percentage of these do their bad deeds again, and even again and again, such that more bad things happen to people in general than if the capital-felons were executed in the first place. In this respect, what we are seeing is the result of the overcoming of logic by emotion, backed up by, usually, a media focus on the perpetrators rather than the victims, and an inability to visualize the consequences of what is thought of as “mercy”. The media focus might be a clue that the direction of society has resulted from manipulation of thought.

The idea in mentioning these two examples is simply this: if one really wants to solve a problem of society, the solution is not going to be derived and succeed by applying the same tired attitudes and feelings and approaches that constrained the set of acceptable solutions. If a problem is so large that unless it is solved one simply won’t have a society that one wants to live in, or even a society that is safe to live in, or one in which one isn’t liable to be poisoned or enslaved or stolen from or worse, then one is going to have to reassess prior ideas and subordinate them to solving the problem. (Yes, we thought our society was safe enough, and at the time of this writing there has not yet been Disclosure, but based on reports, Disclosure will come soon enough with plenty of detail that really no civilized and even slightly empathic person wants to hear.) A solution should not be simply discarded by making a blanket statement such as “that is cruel”, “that is unusual”, or “that doesn’t fit”. Persons should realize when such a problem exists, learn why they have not been able to deal with it, and try to understand whether the first step is to harden themselves in order to implement a disagreeable but necessary remedy strong enough to be a cure.

Looking at reform in this way, as radical, it should be understandable why we do not see alternative news sites dedicated to discussing reform. Reform is unpopular, even in the face of a threat. Reform starts in the minds of The Few. Alternative news is a new media format born of necessity, but still responds to economic influence, still has bills to pay. By discussing reform, it is a logical consequence that a site would lose following. Alternative news sites have a mission in revealing Truth and they cannot hope to perform this without viewership.

A failure by the populace to discuss reform, however, would be a major mistake. A major problem is the rule of Elites. By live test it is patently observable that elites who rule devise rules that favor elites. Further, when living life in a favored class, these persons  for the most part lose any empathy or even sympathy they might have had for commoners, and treat any hardship or worse that comes to those deemed beneath their station as inconsequential. In that sort of isolated favoritism, it should be no surprise if elitism jumps to slavery or eugenics or even holocaust. For this reason, the general populace must discuss reforms, and there must be forums devised for this purpose.

But even though this is enough reason in itself to have public discussion of reforms, there is still another of equal significance. Even among a good elite, such as the one christened by alternative news as the “White Hats”, who are ascribed as dedicated to the removal of society’s bad actors and the implementation of good government, there can never be consensus on strong actions the public is wont to reject. Good government does not flourish in an atmosphere in which it is largely thought of as overreaching its authority. Among a wise and moral elite there will be those who remind others of this when a strong curative, strong enough to be effective, is suggested in closed-door meetings. If the strong curative had the following needed, it would already have been suggested and implemented. Therefore, relying on an elite to find consensus to effectively reform society may result in a wait until either Hell freezes over or the Bad returns again and perhaps this time is victorious. A good elite cannot reform Society without a politically strong following. The citizenry must discuss reforms or anything offered as reform will be a compromise that suffers from weakness and inability to perform its task.

2. Welfare

Welfare is a term that ostensibly represents the adoption of the role of Charity by government. On its face, the assumption of charity as a valid mission of government seems benign to many, probably to most, while in fact it is dangerous.

Samuel Adams stated the idea that government welfare is wrong in principle in 1768:

“ The utopian schemes of leveling, and a community of goods, are as visionary and impracticable as those which invest all property in the Crown are arbitrary, despotic, and in our government, unconstitutional.”

When William F. Buckley argued that welfare programs should not be federalized, his statements were ignored and America proceeded down a path leading to what is seen today, as, instead, the notion of a “Great Society” flourished. Avowed moral outrage (now known for its deceptive quality as “virtue signaling”) was employed with the idea that the charity of Americans was tested and found wanting, and therefore the only “right” thing to do was to extract enforced charity. For this, government congratulated itself over its virtue, while portraying those whose funds were employed as “selfish” and “Mean-Spirited”.

As Dinesh D’Souza has pointed out in a number of his speeches, welfare is not charity. Welfare is money taken from some and given to others. It can be either taxed and redistributed, or it can be money that is created (generally “loaned” into existence by a banking system allowed to create money with no physical collateral), which gains its value by devaluing all other existing currency; or, it can simply be a legislated requirement of an industry that forces higher prices and thus funded by consumers. There are no good wishes associated with either the person the money was taken from nor from the government and the associated progenitors of the legislation. The legislators act not from any notion of Charity but from first, it is sad to say, the knowledge that Welfare goes through many sticky fingers (and from there roundabout to re-election funds) before some portion of it (enough to portray it as valid) reaches its goal. It is only second that they then tout Welfare as an accomplishment and a demonstration of their sympathy for the downtrodden, signaling their virtue. Yes, there are those who believe otherwise; it may actually be some time before the last of these lose their trust in Government; or, before those in Government lose the ability to find any traction from avowed trust in government, which in fact they privately disbelieve in, themselves.

The founding Fathers never trusted government, and the Constitution was devised to protect The People from their own government. Tyranny is often spoken of as being the worst form of oppression, but, in any case, those who had left for the New World did so at considerable risk with the notion that they would escape the confining aspects of the governments of the Old World. There was a lot of emotional capital invested in that migration, and they were attuned to rejecting the recurrence of the same ills after all their effort to find freedom from them.

3. Government as the Arbiter of Wealth

To the degree government decides who gets wealth, it becomes progressively more powerful and its ability to dictate to, dominate, harm, steal from, and enslave the public becomes greater. Actually, beyond an estimable and measurable point of wealth, even an individual follows this course, as it is impossible beyond some wealth-point to improve the quality of one’s own life, and so instead wealth is transformed to power. Control of wealth is power. The more of a nation’s wealth a government controls, the more power it has over its citizens, and the more tyrannical it becomes. The ability to shut down the livelihoods of the People and to turn off their ability to purchase necessities results in and is absolute power.

If a government can arbitrarily decide to take money from some and give it to others, it has control of an exceptionally dangerous power. One might believe, this is tolerable to some degree. However, by experience one finds the progenitors of redistribution of wealth never will agree to define any point beyond which wealth cannot be taxed. Control of some wealth creates a hunger for more. An excuse of some kind, especially accompanied by a deception, can always be devised to attempt to justify greater seizure of wealth and power. Moreover, if there is the power to simply create currency, there a bottomless well upon which to draw, and the extraction of wealth is conducted in secret, without knowledge and certainly not the consent of the public. Under these conditions there is no such thing as a Republic, at least not as defined in or intended by the Constitution. The Constitution identifies gold and silver as money, and states their expenditure must be authorized by Congress with spending bills originating in the House and thus public knowledge. The intent clearly is that all spending is done with the knowledge and consent of The People.  Thus, if asking whether a Republic and such secret spending can exist at the same time, the answer is no. A bucket with a leak that inevitably grows is not a bucket that anyone wants. No one wants a house with a foundation that is on shifting sand, no matter whether the rate at which this occurs will undermine it in 5, 10, or 20 years, if it will inevitably fall into the ocean. It should become clear that a Republic cannot become a little Socialistic any more than a woman can become a little pregnant. Once government starts deciding who gets whose money, once proceeding down that path, once it is deemed reasonable for government to do this, this path takes a good government that performs the reasonable tasks of government and turns it into something else. The government becomes a tool of those who wish to take from others. It becomes a criminal for hire.

Government has certain tasks it reasonably may perform. If it chooses to be the arbiter of who gets Money when the receivers are not providing similar value to the Public, then there is a rush to take sides and be on the receiving end, and the entire notion of government becomes a struggle between groups for money. Any group that is getting money is asking for More. Those who get paid for no work or service are in fact providing a service which is political support. There is never a point at which those who get Other People’s Money via government are satisfied, the government is measured by the Dow, by how well it delivers wealth, and not how well it protects Freedom and Human Rights. Money is supposed to be a means by which people exchange value and an enabler of specialization and mass production (the great creator of Wealth) and a reward to persons for helping others. Distributing money or currency for no value or labor degrades the work ethic and actually general ethics, in that those who receive money or currency flourish, thus it inculcates a society that approves any behavior that is financially rewarded, because people are by nature attracted to others who flourish. By live experiment we have proved that when permitting socialism, this degradation of society occurs, and while one cannot prove it occurs every time, there is no example of socialism which is not dysfunctional.

When government is the arbiter of who gets whose wealth, it may claim to be doing this in a moral way by portraying its ethic as moral, such as stating it redistributes wealth “from everyone according to their ability, to everyone according to their need”. In practice this happens only so far as is theatrically necessary to support this narrative; the rest is absorbed by corrupt officials and their puppet masters. Any nonprofit activity has no need for an honest and accurate audit because it has no constraining profit margin. No matter what it is called, when government is the arbiter of wealth, it is Socialism and Communism, and the word progressivism only describes a society that is progressing toward complete control of wealth by its government. It is important to note that a nation need never reach the point of total control of wealth, that long before this point is reached, government has so much power that it may oppress The People as much as it wishes — inevitably does.

4. Socialism is Criminal

The brand of Socialism attacking the US is Cultural Marxism. This variant uses, instead of workers, groups within society that this “ism” touts as exploited and worthy of reparations or favoritism or is somehow authorized to mistreat non-members. It also manipulates language and accuses language of the existing culture as being injurious.

Much has been written about Socialism and Communism as if they were a reasonable and thoughtful means of government, and that it is honorable and acceptable to espouse them as a political option. This is untrue. Socialism criminalizes government. Those who espouse Socialism are calling for, and are aiding and abetting, a crime.

By the Philosophy of Liberty you own your own labor and it is slavery for someone else to own it or the fruits of it. Dr. Ken Schoolland authorized including this in full, as follows:

“The Philosophy of Liberty is based upon the principle of self-ownership. You own your life. To deny this is to claim that another person has a higher claim on your life than you do. No other person or group of persons owns your life, nor do you own the lives of others. You exist in time: past, present, and future. This is manifest in Life, Liberty, and the product of your Life and Liberty. To lose your Life is to lose your Future. To lose your Liberty is to lose your Present. And to lose the product of your Life and Liberty is to lose your Past that produced it. A product of your Life and your Liberty is your Property. Property is the fruit of your Time, Energy, and Talents. Property is that part of Nature which you turn to valuable use. Property is the property of others that is given to you by voluntary exchange and mutual consent. Two people who exchange property are better off or they wouldn’t do it. Only they may rightfully make that decision for themselves. At times some people use Force or Fraud to take from others without voluntary consent. The initiation of Force or Fraud to take a life is murder; to take liberty is slavery, and to take property is theft. It is the same whether one person is acting alone, or the many are acting against the few, or even by officials with fine hats. You have the right to protect your own Life, Liberty, and justly acquired Property from the forceful aggression of others. And you may ask others to help defend you, but you do not have the right to initiate force against the life, liberty, and property of others. Thus, you have no right to designate some other person to initiate force against others on your behalf. You have the right to seek leaders for yourself but you have no right to impose rulers upon others. No matter how officials are selected, they are only human beings and they have no rights or claims that are higher than those of any other human beings. Regardless of the imaginative labels for their behavior, or the numbers of people encouraging them, officials have no right to murder, to enslave, or to steal. You cannot give them any rights you do not have yourself. Since you own your life, you are responsible for your life. You do not rent your life from others who demand your obedience.  Nor are you a slave to others who demand your sacrifice. You choose your own goals based on your own values. Success and failure are both the necessary incentives to learn and grow. Your action on behalf of others or their action on behalf of you is virtuous only when it is derived from voluntary mutual consent. For virtue can only exist when there is free choice. This is the basis of a truly free society.  It is not only the most practical and humanitarian foundation for human action, it is also the most ethical. Problems in the world that arise from the initiation of force by government have a solution. The solution is for the people of the earth to STOP asking government officials to initiate force on their behalf. Evil does not arise only from evil people, but from good people who tolerate the initiation of force as a means to their own ends. In this manner, good people have empowered evil people throughout history. Having confidence in a free society is to focus on the process of discovery in the marketplace of values, rather than to focus on some imposed vision or goal. Using governmental force to impose a vision on others is intellectual sloth and typically results in unintended, perverse consequences. Achieving a free society requires courage to think, to talk, and to act, especially when it is easier to do nothing.”

5. Courage

Rather than reiterate and summarize, it may be best to use Dr. Schoolland’s reference to courage as a transition to discussing it. Much has been made of the meekness of a sector of the US population, who are willing to be led by Government into whatever (even destructive) circumstance, to the degree of labeling them with the term “sheeple.” This seems to rather contrast with rugged individualism which characterizes Americans as more reliant upon themselves, stemming from their frontier experience. To the degree these attitudes cannot be reconciled, and are sequestered to a degree by State boundaries, some observers feel the only solution is Balkanization. A distinct problem with this approach would be the maintenance of security against attack by modern weapons, as the dissolution of the Union into two or more entities would block access to the sea by “Flyover Country” and also revisit the problems of alliances with nuclear powers and the stationing of nuclear weapons on nearby borders that was roundly rejected in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Consequently, survival, which overweans other societal impetus, demands that America “pull together” as a nation. Since A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand, Americans shall have to be more and more a melting pot rather than be diverse. If as reported there has been an influx of persons smuggled across borders and in the country illegally, who have brought their ideas of government, generally tribalistic, with them, there shall have to be either a huge effort at teaching and demanding citizenship based upon the Idea of America, or enforced repatriation, or both.

Courage means enduring pain whether directly or indirectly (by means of sympathy and empathy) to accomplish Good, whether for the good of Humanity or for one’s country. Those with little Courage will resist forceful solutions even when there is a dilemma in which pain is to be endured in either direction, because they cannot withstand the responsibility of imposing Pain, and Force always means that there will be persons who do not get what they want.

One might say, Americans of today have had it too soft, that “Progress” has built a society of convenience and minimized pain and sacrifice. By some reports this pain was never really avoided as it was concentrated upon a number of persons who were trafficked and destroyed. The book The Time Machine may have been more prescient than one would care to think, visualizing a passive surface population in a dull, leisurely, mildly pleasant, and purposeless existence, who serve as food for an underground population. Nevertheless, there still remain type “A” persons who are goal driven, there still remain persons who are vigilant there still remain believers in Liberty and Freedom, and the transition to this type of split society has been perceived and by reports interrupted and turned back. 

Pain and pleasure are opposites and are perceived as contrasts. If one were to construct a measurement for pain and pleasure such that pain ranged from zero to minus ten and pleasure from zero to plus ten, and then eliminated all the activities that resulted in the negative measurements, human nature would then simply re-orient. In effect, it would move zero to plus 5. All the less-pleasant items would be perceived as pain. Actually, this condition exists in many humans, witnessed in adults as griping about stupid and inane things, due to not having experienced real pain. In children, what we witness, when there is no real pain such as from punishment, the child cries anyway, because its perception of pain shifts to lack of pleasure; it cannot have something it wants, which could be something material, but could also be simply attention or controlling other people. If children are not disciplined using pain, does it not seem logical that as these children age, rather than grow into adults, they continue to feel the same way, they must have things others have that they don’t, they must get attention, they must control others.

Learning to tolerate pain is part of maturing because it goes hand in hand with deferred gratification, which is absolutely necessary to organized, cooperative, civilized, moral behavior. Deferred gratification is a characteristic of a responsible adult; responsible and adult should be synonyms. Adulthood should not really be conferred by age; and citizenship should not be conferred by birthplace. Either of these should depend upon knowledge, wisdom, and behavior.

Courage means doing what has to be done despite the obstacles. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “ The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Those who are adult must be willing to accept the responsibility to act, to defend themselves, but more than that, to defend a society that gives them something irreplaceable, Liberty. They shall have to push aside those who have led sheltered lives and have no taste for strength. For decades the problems of America have lain dormant while multitudes of persons who were never spanked, never put through strong discipline, never learned the pain necessary to prevail at the highest levels of competition, while these persons had their say, and where are we now? Those who advocate following along with inertia at this point, we now see where that leads, we see the Sea ahead and, if not sheep, lemmings running to the Brink. Common Sense dictates, it is time for the Adults to Take Charge.

Samuel Adams wrote “ It does not take a majority to prevail… but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting Brushfires Of Freedom in the minds of men.” Rather than push aside those who have followed Socialism to the brink, there is this idea that sufficient numbers of them can be dissuaded. At the same time a degree of doubt exists that this is possible, based on understanding the power of propaganda over time in creating an enduring narrative, a cultish ethos, such that the patriots are fighting cognitive dissonance, as described in the Allegory Of The Cave. The hold over persons in believing false narratives is so strong that humans are in some cases willing to go so far in trust and belief as to immolate themselves, to “Drink The Kool-Aid“. It seems impossible to estimate how strong the clinging to a cult-belief in false narratives might be, and how possible or impossible it is to “wake up” Americans simply by supplanting propaganda with Disclosure. If this were an easy task it would seem the US military would not be so disinclined to go ahead, disclose truth, and to proceed with cleaning up society in view of the public. It would appear that there is a group of believers in Mainstream Media narratives who will cling to MSM as long as it is still there, and might or might never be satisfied by a replacement. This group might parallel those who called those who called for independence from England “radicals” right up until when at Lexington and Concord the word came that the British were killing Americans and they had to choose sides as Tories or Patriots.

There is a difference between the population today and that of Revolutionary times. In Creation of the American Republic, in the first chapter, Gordon S. Wood states:

“Where the people of other countries had invoked principles only after they had endured ‘an actual grievance’ the Ameri­cans, said Burke, were anticipating their grievances and resorting to principles even before they actually suffered. “They augur misgovernment at a distance and snuff the approach of tyranny in every tainted breeze.” The crucial question in the colonists’ minds, wrote John Dickinson in 1768, was “not, what evil has actually attended particular measures—but, what evil, in the nature of things, is likely to attend them.” Because “nations, in general, are not apt to think until they feel,… therefore nations in general have lost their liberty.” But not the Americans, as the Abbé Raynal observed. They were an “enlightened people” who knew their rights and the limits of power and who, unlike any people before them, aimed to think before they felt.” (p. 5-6)

Americans had seen Tyranny in the Old World, and now dearly hoped to avoid having it revisited upon them in the New. Wood states the Patriots prevailed in winning the battle for public opinion by clinging to the avowed principles of the rights of British subjects:

“It was an amazing transformation and even after the Declaration of Independence Americans continued to express their as­tonishment at what had happened. As they themselves keenly realized, their interpretation of the English constitution was the point on which their understanding of the Revolution hinged. For it was the principles of the English constitution that the colonists clung to throughout the dozen years of controversy with the mother country. They said over and over again that it was “both the letter and the spirit of the British constitution” which justified their resistance. Even as late as 1776 they assured themselves there was “no room at all to doubt, but we have justice and the British constitution on our side.” This repeated insistence that they were the true guardians of the British constitution, even enjoying it “in greater purity and perfection” than Englishmen themselves, lent a curious conservative color to the American Revolution. By recurring constantly to “the fundamental maxims of the British constitution; upon which, as upon a rock, our wise ancestors erected that stable fabrick,” by repeatedly invoking those “explaining and controuling principles, which framed the constitution of Britain in its first stages, . . . and which have been her constant companions through all the mutilations and distortions she has suffered in her progress to the present rank she holds in the world”—by language such as this—the Americans could easily conceive of themselves as simply preserving what Englishmen had valued from time immemorial. They sincerely believed they were not creating new rights or new principles prescribed only by what ought to be, but saw themselves claiming “only to keep their old privileges,” the traditional rights and principles of all Englishmen, sanctioned by what they thought had always been.” (pp. 12-13)

(Note: “In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution.” Wikipedia)

Wood states that in Revolutionary times there were also persons who were just willing to go along with whatever societal impetus existed:

“ Those Whig spokesmen who bothered to go beyond a simple articulation of Whig maxims offered an especially impressive conception of the patterns of culture and history. They knew it would be no simple task to awaken the people to the dangers confronting their liberties. “The experience of all ages” showed that the people were “inattentive to the calamities of others, careless of admonition, and with difficulty roused to repel the most injurious invasions.” The Whigs were struck with “the easiness with which the many are governed by the few, . . . the implicit submission with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers.” Many could therefore conclude with David Hume that it was on custom or “opinion only that government is founded, and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular.” The people through history, Americans noted over and over again, were generally docile and obedient, disposed “to be as submissive and passive and tame under government as they ought to be.” In fact the people were naturally “so gentle that there never was a government yet in which thousands of mistakes were not overlooked.” Men were born to be deluded, “to believe whatever is taught, and bear all that is imposed.

This customary deference of the people was really what explained the   overweening dominance of the ruling few through so many centuries of history, for it “gradually reconciles us to objects even of dread and detestation.” Because of the Whigs’ particular conception of politics, their otherwise sophisticated understanding of the historical process took on a primitive cast, and history became the product of self-conscious acts by rulers seeking to extend their power over an unsuspecting populace. In significant, piecemeal changes, none of which seemed decisive or unbearable at the time, “spread over the multitude in such a manner, as to touch individuals but slightly.” In a variety of metaphors the colonists sought to express their understanding of how the rulers, possessing their own “particular purposes,” slyly used the historical process. Every one of their acts of usurpation was “like a small spark [which] if not extinguished in the beginning will soon gain ground and at last blaze out into an irresistible Flame”; or it was “like the rollings of mighty waters over the breach of ancient mounds,—slow and unalarming at the beginning; rapid and terrible in the current; a deluge and devastation at the end”; or it was like “a spot, a speck of decay, however small the limb on which it appears, and however remote it may seem from the vitals,” that would grow and corrupt “till at length the inattentive people are compelled to perceive the heaviness of their burthens,” usually, however, too late for the people to resist. “They find their oppressors so strengthened by success, and themselves so entangled in examples of express authority on the pan of the rulers, and tacit recognition on their own part, that they are quite confounded.” All history was therefore an object lesson in the power of the seemingly insignificant.“(p. 37)

For the radical Americans who were later recognized as patriot leaders, Wood wrote in The Idea Of America that:

“The Americans were fortunate in being born at a time when the principles of government and freedom were better known than at any time in history. The Americans had learned ‘how to define the rights of nature–how to search into, to distinguish, and to comprehend, the principles of moral, religious, and civil liberty,’ how, in short, to discover and resist the forces of tyranny before they could be applied. Never before in history had a people achieved ‘a revolution by reasoning’ alone.” (p. 51, large-print edition)

6. Liberty

In searching the Internet for reports, to compare and contrast and evaluate according to logic and detail and character, one does not see the word “Liberty” very frequently. One may go to US Debt Clock and see all manner of measures; one may scour the US Stock market; one may listen to broadcasts on mainstream media and on alternative media; but there is no measure of Liberty. Instead every other type of measure is touted as important.

Is the notion of Liberty treated as “passé”, that is, outdated and obsolete? Or does this term have some emotional content that patriots are reluctant to express, as the dearest things are held private?

To capture the emotions surrounding the Idea Of Liberty is worthwhile to make a complete statement about the requirements for a Restored Republic built around The Idea Of America. A complete statement should not be avoided because one fears being viewed as passé. Let us for a moment imagine a brief statement by Joseph Pulitzer, who, when seeing the demise of the establishment of the Statue Of Liberty, due to the failure of fund-raising for its base, took it to heart, and made an appeal to his readers to help:

My Readers:

I write to you now on the subject of Liberty and about the Statue you have heard so much about.  You know me as a Crusader.  To fight against corruption and neglect, I have required a command of the facts that is superior to those who might attack and try to embarrass and destroy this paper.  In the case of Liberty, here are the facts I have learned:

It takes three things for citizens to enjoy Liberty, which, more than the absence of slavery, is a state in which The People may live their lives as proudly, independently, and fearlessly as possible.  These three things are:

First, Liberty needs a system of government that distributes power among the people, so that none has too much over the other.  You all know the pain-staking effort our founding Fathers made developing this Engine of Freedom for us, and how they shed their blood to secure it. 

Second, Liberty requires a People who understand and believe in her. There has been no greater example in our country of this understanding and belief – no, I will call it Love – than when hundreds of thousands of our Brothers arose and, “as He died to make men holy, they died to make men free.”  Ending slavery was Mankind’s greatest single step toward Liberty.

But third, Liberty needs a Lamp Of Light by which to enlighten the Darkness.  The People need a tool to help them see Truth, so they may effectively and justly direct the Engine of Freedom toward the common good.  I have tried to make this paper, the World, serve that cause; and it is my dream that the explosion of our circulation, powering us into the heights, is a signal that this type of revolutionary journalism has justly found its place in your hearts.

Now, you might ask, Well, Mr. Pulitzer, it seems as though we have all the blessings a nation shall ever need, shall we not now relax and enjoy them? A reasonable thought. But, an Engine of Freedom needs Energy and Constant Vigilance – and these are needed, not only from those in government, but most importantly, from us all, every Citizen.  The power of the Public Sway must be focused and adept!  Only in this way will the System not decay, the Lamp not run dim, and the Love not become Empty.

It is in maintaining our cause for Liberty that we need the Statue.  The fuel of Abolitionism has run its course! Now, we must embrace The Idea, carry it into our hearts, nurture it, treasure it.  But an idea, by itself, is something one may neither see nor touch, to guide it to our Soul.  Yet here, before us now, we may embrace as our own, a great Statue, beaming with the Spirit of Liberty – a great, indomitable Lady, a Defender of Freedom, brimming with Resolve and Passion.  Here is a vision, an embodiment of an idea as Great as the Greatness of The Idea she represents.

But in order to embrace her, this great gift from all of the People of France to all of the    People of America, we need, for our part, to complete the Pedestal.  To do this, I call upon you all now to help.   Let us not wait for the Rich any longer!  I ask you all to give something, however little, and to write to us.  I will print your letters and the name of every contributor in our paper.  Let us do this, together.  For in this unity, there is Strength, Honor, and a Legacy for our great nation. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Pulitzer

7. Legislated (Positive) Versus Natural Law

The Philosophy Of Liberty was included to demonstrate reasoning from the most basic of premises to describe how people should behave toward each other, generally called natural law, which is defined in Wikipedia as follows:

“Natural law is a system of law based on a close observation of human nature, and based on values intrinsic to human nature that can be deduced and applied independent of positive law (the enacted laws of a state or society). According to natural law theory, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by “God, nature, or reason.” Natural law theory can also refer to “theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality.”

It should be no surprise that a person who wishes to profit from actions that harm others, by taking their property, their liberty, or their lives, would ideally prefer to find a method of doing this that is not prohibited by Government, or, if so, to alter those prohibitions, so as to avoid any negative consequences. Even better than this is to find a way also to change the thought and culture of a society such that the transgression they wish to use to their profit (or perhaps even their perverse enjoyment) is accepted by the society, that is, normalized. If an action is accepted by society, this is the pinnacle of minimizing risk, as there will be a very diminished chance that societal thinking will quickly change, the laws reversed, and some kind of restitution (if not punishment) implemented.

To remove the penalties associated with legislated law, the legislature must be infiltrated, bribed, and blackmailed. When this is done in earnest, positions in the legislature are attractive to criminals, and conversely these positions are unattractive to honest persons, except for the most dedicated and brave. The legislature is then besieged by people who don’t want to work, whose ethos is to get the most for doing the least; accomplishing this makes them happy, they have absolutely no sense of public service. They enjoy themselves; their ego swells as they think of themselves beating The System. They are more than willing just to take orders from their controllers, as to formulate opinions on what is good and bad legislation based on facts would be work. They pride themselves that they do no work. Humanity is here to serve them, not the reverse.

These people who don’t want to work are no better than, even perhaps the same as, the boys in Pinocchio who get on the wagon for Playland (renamed in film as Pleasure Island). There are some very strong parallels between Pleasure Island and another one known as Lolita Island, in that the same entrapment and harnessing of the participants appears to have occurred, although in the latter, the subjects of their pleasure suffered greatly. It is sad to say but even the leaders of this movement, who are (or were) “more equal than others” and relatively well off, appear by reports to be meeting unhappy fates, both before meeting Justice, enslaved and manipulated as puppets, and after meeting Justice. It is perhaps worthy of being considered that Pinocchio is discussed as a portrayal of growing up, becoming an adult, which entails accepting work and responsibilities, instead of devising means to avoid them (“beating the system”). Thus we see there are two diametrically opposed philosophies, Work Ethic versus the avoidance of same.

The desire to avoid work is present not just in corrupt legislators, but throughout the infesting Deep State. It works against these creatures, though: knowing this about them allows ordinary citizens who are attempting to practice Discernment (deciding based on conflicting reports what is likely true) an advantage, because those opposed to work ethic, which we might also call brigands or pirates, have neither the talent nor the patience to write detailed narratives. They wish only to repeat over and over again a small number of talking points, attend sumptuous dinners, ride in luxury, consume their drugs of choice, and reside in mansions. Accordingly, those who wish to discern truth benefit from the general rule that The More Detail, The More Likely A Report Is True.

8. Charity

One may speak of Charity as a virtue. Those who are relatively selfless, who care about others as much as or more than themselves, are praised for having this characteristic. Sympathy, and beyond that, empathy, are the binding forces of communities.

What we have witnessed, however, is that man’s emotions, whether for good or not, are exploited. The impetus for Charity among mankind is manipulated and weaponized.

Organized charity is not something that is well-regulated by Mankind. Charity may be in the mind of the Giver, but once there is another person or organization employed to manage it, there is (by reports) likely Corruption. By contrast, Enterprise has a form of regulation called a bottom line. Any enterprise will (or should) eventually fail if it does not control costs and make a profit. To do this it must undergo some degree of audit. Charity really cares little on the whole, about audits, since the goal is simply to spend the money contributed in some way, while spending enough of it in whatever cause it has collected on behalf of to appease the contributors. It is sad to say, charities are largely havens of corruption, and although not universally corrupt, the degree to which this is true is probably at least similar to the degree of corruption of the other institutions in a nation, and probably worse due to the relative lack of safeguards.

One might ask whether the problems of organized charity could be controlled by instituting government-imposed audits, but this raises the idea that the corruption of a link between government and charity is simply reconfigured. It is a better solution to direct charity towards one’s own neighborhood or personal circle, accepting the responsibility to verify along with the act of contribution. This probably means doing away with corporate “charity drives” in which they influence their employees to contribute funds (and then subsequently use the totaled amount of contribution as “PR”). Charity should be voluntary or it is not charity. Another impetus should be charity by means of providing a job. If work is created that is essentially under-productive or unproductive, that is, make-work, as a measure to institute relief, then the associated compensation should be below what productive jobs pay, enough to encourage persons to seek productive jobs and to move away from these. There should be no standard that “expects someone to make a living” from make-work, it must be a temporary solution, for otherwise it is a drain on society that is unsustainable and creates a political influence that is harmful.

It is worth stating at this point that the problem of involving Government with Charity is not new. There is a chronicle surviving in which Davy Crockett, for a time a member of Congress, described this problem, which is included in full. This story is excerpted from a book, The Life of Colonel David Crockett, by Edward S. Ellis.

“ Crockett was then the lion of Washington. I was a great admirer of his character, and, having several friends who were intimate with him, I found no difficulty in making his acquaintance. I was fascinated with him, and he seemed to take a fancy to me.

I was one day in the lobby of the House of Representatives when a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support – rather, as I thought, because it afforded the speakers a fine opportunity for display than from the necessity of convincing anybody, for it seemed to me that everybody favored it. The Speaker was just about to put the question when Crockett arose. Everybody expected, of course, that he was going to make one of his characteristic speeches in support of the bill. He commenced:

“Mr. Speaker – I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the sufferings of the living, if suffering there be, as any man in this House, but we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for a part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I have never heard that the government was in arrears to him. This government can owe no debts but for services rendered, and at a stipulated price. If it is a debt, how much is it? Has it been audited, and the amount due ascertained? If it is a debt, this is not the place to present it for payment, or to have its merits examined. If it is a debt, we owe more than we can ever hope to pay, for we owe the widow of every soldier who fought in the War of 1812 precisely the same amount. There is a woman in my neighborhood, the widow of as gallant a man as ever shouldered a musket. He fell in battle. She is as good in every respect as this lady, and is as poor. She is earning her daily bread by her daily labor; but if I were to introduce a bill to appropriate five or ten thousand dollars for her benefit, I should be laughed at, and my bill would not get five votes in this House. There are thousands of widows in the country just such as the one I have spoken of, but we never hear of any of these large debts to them. Sir, this is no debt. The government did not owe it to the deceased when he was alive; it could not contract it after he died. I do not wish to be rude, but I must be plain. Every man in this House knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as a charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much of our own money as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Like many other young men, and old ones, too, for that matter, who had not thought upon the subject, I desired the passage of the bill, and felt outraged at its defeat. I determined that I would persuade my friend Crockett to move a reconsideration the next day.

Previous engagements preventing me from seeing Crockett that night, I went early to his room the next morning and found him engaged in addressing and franking letters, a large pile of which lay upon his table.

I broke in upon him rather abruptly, by asking him what devil had possessed him to make that speech and defeat that bill yesterday. Without turning his head or looking up from his work, he replied:

“You see that I am very busy now; take a seat and cool yourself. I will be through in a few minutes, and then I will tell you all about it.”

He continued his employment for about ten minutes, and when he had finished he turned to me and said:

“Now, sir, I will answer your question. But thereby hangs a tale, and one of considerable length, to which you will have to listen.”

I listened, and this is the tale which I heard:

Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some other members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. When we got there, I went to work, and I never worked as hard in my life as I did there for several hours. But, in spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made homeless, and, besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw so many women and children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done for them, and everybody else seemed to feel the same way.

The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done. I said everybody felt as I did. That was not quite so; for, though they perhaps sympathized as deeply with the sufferers as I did, there were a few of the members who did not think we had the right to indulge our sympathy or excite our charity at the expense of anybody but ourselves. They opposed the bill, and upon its passage demanded the yeas and nays. There were not enough of them to sustain the call, but many of us wanted our names to appear in favor of what we considered a praiseworthy measure, and we voted with them to sustain it. So the yeas and nays were recorded, and my name appeared on the journals in favor of the bill.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about the election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there, but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up, and I thought it was best to let the boys know that I had not forgot them, and that going to Congress had not made me too proud to go to see them.

So I put a couple of shirts and a few twists of tobacco into my saddlebags, and put out. I had been out about a week and had found things going very smoothly, when, riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came to the fence. As he came up I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly, and was about turning his horse for another furrow when I said to him: “Don’t be in such a hurry, my friend; I want to have a little talk with you, and get better acquainted.”

He replied: “I am very busy, and have but little time to talk, but if it does not take too long, I will listen to what you have to say.”

I began: “Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates, and – ”

“‘Yes, I know you; you are Colonel Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again.’

This was a sockdolager… I begged him to tell me what was the matter.

“Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended, but you gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it in that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the Constitution to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting or wounding you. I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest. But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.”

“I admit the truth of all you say, but there must be some mistake about it, for I do not remember that I gave any vote last winter upon any constitutional question.”

“No, Colonel, there’s no mistake. Though I live here in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say that last winter you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by a fire in Georgetown. Is that true?”

“Certainly it is, and I thought that was the last vote which anybody in the world would have found fault with.”

“Well, Colonel, where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?”

Here was another sockdolager; for, when I began to think about it, I could not remember a thing in the Constitution that authorized it. I found I must take another tack, so I said:

“Well, my friend; I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing Treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just as I did.”

“It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of; it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means. What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see, that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he. If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20,000,000 as $20,000. If you have the right to give to one, you have the right to give to all; and, as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity, and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity. Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about two hundred and forty members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week’s pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men in and around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life. The Congressmen chose to keep their own money, which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from the necessity of giving by giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.”

I have given you an imperfect account of what he said. Long before he was through, I was convinced that I had done wrong. He wound up by saying:

“So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.”

I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go talking, he would set others to talking, and in that district I was a gone fawn-skin. I could not answer him, and the fact is, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

“Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it full. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said there at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot.”

He laughingly replied:

“Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before, but I will trust you again upon one condition. You say that you are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgment of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and, perhaps, I may exert some little influence in that way.”

“If I don’t,” said I, “I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say, I will come back this way in a week or ten days, and if you will get up a gathering of the people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it.”

“No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section, but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. This is Thursday; I will see to getting it up on Saturday week. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you.”

“Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name.”

“My name is Bunce.”

“Not Horatio Bunce?”

“Yes.”

“Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me; but I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend. You must let me shake your hand before I go.”

We shook hands and parted.

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public, but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence and incorruptible integrity, and for a heart brimful and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and a confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight, talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have told you Mr. Bunce converted me politically. He came nearer converting me religiously than I had ever been before. He did not make a very good Christian of me, as you know; but he has wrought upon my mind a conviction of the truth of Christianity, and upon my feelings a reverence for its purifying and elevating power such as I had never felt before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man, and I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue, and, to my surprise, found about a thousand men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.

In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying:

“Fellow citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only.”

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation as I have told it to you, and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

“And now, fellow citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

“It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit of it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so.”

He came upon the stand and said:

“Fellow citizens – It affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Colonel Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today.”

He went down, and there went up from the crowd such a shout for Davy Crockett as his name never called forth before.

I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

“Now, Sir,” concluded Crockett, “you know why I made that speech yesterday. I have had several thousand copies of it printed and was directing them to my constituents when you came in.

“There is one thing now to which I will call your attention. You remember that I proposed to give a week’s pay. There are in that House many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week’s pay, or a dozen of them for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid by money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $10,000, when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it.”

The money of The People is not theirs (Congress’s or the Banks’) to give to others (whether by direct grant or surreptitiously expanding the currency and devaluing savings).

Advocating Socialism is advocating using Government to steal the money of others: “redistribution” is stealing; and the fact that government does it makes it non-criminal by legislative law but does NOT make it non-criminal by natural law. Thus Socialism depends upon criminalizing government and upon the populace being either confused or unaware of what the purpose of government is when advocacy of Socialism is permitted behavior, and is characterized as “politics” rather than crime. (Notice there has been a consistent narrative that Communist writers in Hollywood were persecuted for their politics.) Criminalizing government spreads a moral message throughout the society that destroys societal ethics and thus penetrates every sector and activity of that society. Thus, even by enforcing laws that have been ignored, in removing those engaged in criminal behavior, if the system is not reformed, it will re-grow the same behavior but just as with weeds, the re-growth can (and since there is some degree of accompanying intelligence, likely would) be a strain that is resistant to the previous cure.

9. Freedom Of Speech

Freedom of speech in the US is not absolute despite the relatively simple language in the Bill of Rights, and Wikipedia discusses it in this way:

“While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it is not absolute, and therefore subject to restrictions. Time, place, and manner restrictions are relatively self-explanatory. Time restrictions regulate when expression can take place; place restrictions regulate where expression can take place; and manner restrictions regulate how expression can take place. A restriction may occur if someone is protesting loudly in front of someone’s house in a neighborhood in the middle of the night, or if someone was sitting in the middle of a busy intersection during rush hour, for example. These actions would cause problems for other people, so restricting speech in terms of time, place, and manner addresses a legitimate societal concern. Restricting this speech would be constitutional because the restrictions are content neutral, meaning they would restrict anyone from saying anything in these situations, no matter what their message is; they are narrowly drawn, meaning the restriction was examined specifically for the case in question to determine how to serve the governmental interest at stake; the restrictions serve a significant governmental interest, meaning other fundamental rights are important to citizens, such as sleeping peacefully at night or people getting to work or home from work; and there are plenty of alternative methods of communicating their message, such as writing an editorial in the paper or moving to the sidewalk at a different time in the day.”

A popular expression for restrictions on free speech is: Freedom of speech does not include the right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater when there is no fire. If speech may, not offend, but injure a person, it is not protected speech. (The 1913 Italian Hall disaster made  this famous.)  It is well established that Socialism does injure people by enabling Tyranny that does not regard human rights of any kind. That tyranny occurs because government is the arbiter of who gets money. It is moot whether one wants to argue that there is a difference in this respect between socialism and communism. That communism has killed millions is well known. It is simply the power harnessed by this aspect, suppressing human rights in favor of centralized power, that socialism and communism (even if there were a difference) have in common, that makes one just as dangerous as the other.

Socialism is also anathema to Good Government and to The American Idea. Building a nation around an Idea, and not just geographic borders, once one is certain that Idea is the Best, one wants citizens who embrace the idea, and it is counter-productive to enable organized detractors. It is The Idea of America, Liberty, that (if in fact the White Hats prevail) is saving America and subsequently the world from tyranny. For doing this, for living in the hearts of Men since the Assassination of JFK, this Idea should be respected and treasured. There must not be a subsequent war against Socialism, as America has already experienced how damaging the past six decades have been.

For these reasons, and to clarify, it seems reasonable to clarify Free Speech as not including the right to recommend criminalizing government by redistributing wealth it does not own. Any taxation should be spent for the good of the entire public and should not array one sector against another or favor those of some portion, with the power to do this in the hands of Government. A reasonable reform would add specific speech to the Constitution that put an end to Socialism, Communism, and Progressivism as reasonable political speech. In this, as stated above, it is a legitimate societal concern.

10. Sequestration and The Social Contract

Now that America has gone down the path of a decision that some degree of Socialism was benign and seemed beneficial, it has experienced this timeline. Does anyone still believe that the benefits of trying to institute a “Great Society” relying on Welfare outweighed its costs? Granted (unless the physics of the Universe would permit otherwise) this live test can only be run once. But once something has happened, once a live experiment has revealed a set of results, logic dictates, it certainly can happen again, and perhaps even every time.

Those who still avow belief in Socialism will claim that the problem was, America did not institute enough socialism, that, as D’Souza observes, they say “this time they will get it right”. It would seem, though, that at this point, in the last few years especially, society has been burned enough that the true believers of Socialism are now fewer in number. However, there is no acid test for this. No one really knows the degree to which the populace, having been fed propaganda from all corners for decades, will embrace or reject a return to what logic dictates is “good government”. Some residents may feel it is wrong to take the country away from those they embraced and celebrated as leaders, and reject any explanations of wrongdoing, holding fast to their ingrained ideas, in what is described as and logically appears to be a cult following. These persons may hold fast to the notion that they despise America, a notion that was injected into their schooling.

If one believes that what has occurred in America is in fact a War, largely psychological in nature, then there is a distinct question as to how to institute Peace. By the Irish example we see that a very few persons backed by contributed funds of disparate individuals and organizations can cause a great deal of mayhem. In this sense, this war is different than some may say as constituting a Second American Revolution, but may also be seen as a Second Civil War. In the first Civil War, the leadership capitulated and instructed their armies and citizens to become good citizens of the Union. In this war there is no centralized leadership with the following or authority to inculcate reconciliation. That is a good recipe for an IRA-style guerrilla war.

The closing of the Frontier is an important element in this. Americans have always believed that they are citizens by birthright. Citizenship never required an expressed contract, nor were native-born Americans given an option to elect an alternative to citizenship. Reasonably a contract requires two-party assent. It seems wrong to insist that by virtue of the location of someone’s birth a person incurs an obligation to fulfill a contract.  It would seem a person once becoming an adult should decide this for oneself. With the closing of the Frontier, there is no option to move away from a government that contends one is contractually bound. Perhaps there is some validity to the idea that, still in Alaska, there is the opportunity to move to the wilderness and live in a State Of Nature. But this is not intellectually fulfilling, in that Alaska is so environmentally challenging. One should not have to freeze to death to assert one’s own natural rights. If there were to be a guerrilla war against America, a key impetus to this might be that persons who do not care for government as instituted are presented with no alternative but to try to undermine society through sabotage and other activities.

At the same time it is acknowledged that America has a number of island possessions, only half of which are populated.  Why can’t a number of these possessions be repurposed as havens for those who don’t really consider themselves Americans, have been taught to despise America, cannot accept pledging their allegiance to it, and refuse to be bound by its laws? With a little thought and not an exorbitant amount of funds, such a course could be instituted. If we think people who hate America are potentially dangerous, and are certainly a disruptive influence, and we don’t want to treat them as Japanese Americans were treated in World War II, perhaps a Protectorate or group of protectorates could be established on these island possessions, currently largely wasted (unless one believes birds more important than humans). Certainly a level of support ensuring subsistence survival could be provided that would really be cheaper than any kind of supervised incarceration. Any American opting to surrender their citizenship and move to these possessions (completely voluntarily or to avoid some kind of imposed domestic sentence) could potentially enjoy the company of those of the same persuasion, while having the freedom to institute the type of government they think is preferable to that of the United States. Such persons could, given the opportunity, try to prove that there is a form of Socialism that works.

The poetic justice involved in instituting an offshore haven for America’s detractors was depicted in a work entitled The Man Without A Country. In this story by Edward Everett Hale, a person denounces America at his trial and states he wishes he may never again hear of America. His sentence is then passed, which states he shall be sequestered at sea and his wish honored. At his death it is discovered he over time realized his love for America and had collected a store of patriotic drawings and tracts. This consequence seems difficult to anticipate after witnessing one particular State of The Union address in which one third of those present acted in a rather haughty and bellicose manner, steaming in silence and radiating disgust.  However, it might be reasonable to provide against the possibility that those who surrender their citizenship might learn from living outside American protection of freedoms, and to establish some pathway for re-instituting citizenship. Certainly the offspring of these persons might be granted the privilege of applying for citizenship and leaving this territorial preserve.

11. Voting Requirements

Following the first Civil War, many captured soldiers were required to speak or sign an Oath Of Allegiance before they might be allowed to return to their homes. After this, there were undocumented and inexact but apparently effective efforts at keeping Confederates and their sympathizers off voting rolls. In later legislation there were some requirements for an Oath Of Allegiance prior to voting. There is enough evidence existing to make the statement that one’s ability to vote in a Southern state was largely suppressed during reconstruction.

The “Sanctuary City” movement, devised to nullify Federal immigration law, is enough by itself to validate the statement that certain states or cities were in rebellion during this war. It follows that, given actions following the first Civil War, there is precedent for some effect on voting rights in this conflict.

But before devising a curative, it is important to recognize the difference between the United States Of America and every other nation in the world. That difference is represented by its Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States is a document devised to invent a system of checks and balances such that no one person or group has too much power over the other. This system is devised to protect the individual from Tyranny. The Founding Fathers had witnessed tyranny, and, drew upon statements of French Philosophers to formulate this system. Given recent events, it seems that miscreants found ways of going around its protections, ways not anticipated by the Founders. The Constitution is built around an Idea sometimes called The Idea Of America. It is entirely significant that the US Military has traditionally and still does demand all its members swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. These are the defenders of Liberty and though the military was infiltrated by others, the core defenders of Liberty outnumbered them and prevailed.

It is an inherent problem to have a nation in which voters pay the bills and are supposed to control the government and thus the military by their votes, while the Military, which as all have seen by recent events, defends the rights of citizens under the Constitution and is not bound to follow the orders of legislated law or executive orders or anything else that conflicts with the Constitution or the Geneva Convention, since it is deemed an illegal order to suppress the rights granted by the Constitution or to propagate a crime against humanity such as one that violates the Nuremberg Code. This scripture is multiplied in its importance by the Nuremberg trials following World War II, in which defendant after defendant claimed immunity from prosecution for crimes against humanity on the excuse that they were “only following orders”. As a reaction, all US military training incorporated the proviso that it is the responsibility of every American soldier to know what is a legal and an illegal order, and that they themselves are responsible and prosecutable if they follow an illegal order. For this reason, the swearing of allegiance to the Constitution was an irreplaceable component in enabling American liberty to survive this conflict.

On this basis, and with what Americans have now witnessed, it would seem that:

1) No one should vote who will not declare by Oath Of Allegiance to America, in particular, the Idea Of America that the Constitution is designed to defend.

2) One’s allegiance should be undivided: there should be No Dual Citizenship.

3) One’s allegiance, once declared, should contractually bind a person to supporting and defending the United States, and should be associated with consequences if that oath is broken. One such infraction would certainly be the selling of one’s vote to another for any valuable consideration, as a right to vote is not intended to be a saleable commodity.

4) It should be ascertained, probably by test, a test perhaps similar to that taken for a drivers license, that the person taking the oath fully understands the Idea Of America and the citizenship responsibilities voting naturally implies.

12. Truth

Today we are witness to competing narratives of what is going on. Discernment is a difficult task at best, with the advantage going to parents who have the experience of returning home to find things broken or missing and questioning the children. It takes a combination of observation, logic, the words used, knowledge of character, and the reading of body language to reconstruct what likely happened. Unfortunately for most Americans, they do not usually have the time to compare narratives and digest news and opinion from mass media and alternative media. The perpetrators behind the scenes who wish to dominate nations became so good at reaping an economic harvest that several dozen persons accumulated over half of world wealth. Most families in the US and elsewhere not only are struggling to make ends meet, but in fact, the ends do not meet, and they know it is unsustainable when income falls short. Everyone must work who can find a job. There is simply no time to investigate media narratives and decide what is likely truth.

A republic is a representative form of government in which people elect representatives. To conduct an election in which the will of the people is not thwarted, the people must have, in addition to an honest voting system, Truth. A method of building honest Government was by electing honest People. In former times each man or woman lived and often died by the idea that their Word was their Bond. There were no credit cards, so one’s ability to do business relied upon what was thought of one’s character. To attack one’s character was considered as an attack upon one’s person, which one had every right to defend in a duel. Persons spent a lot of time and effort in building trust. That effort involved much thought about ethics and morality and how one treats other individuals. Thus the notion of electing honest persons who were good citizens, called “upstanding”, was common, and certainly, more feasible in a society concerned with morals and ethics.

Today, by contrast, the ability to portray a candidate as honest and upstanding when no such characteristic exists, is simply a matter of theatrical acting and deceptive advertising. Since few have personal contact with candidates, now that populations are so large, there is little means of assessing Character. In fact, there is so little means of ascertaining character that the voters who vote to receive goods, services, and money really no longer care whether the person they vote for is law-abiding or not, they only care about the result, which is their own economic benefit.

Given today’s technology it is probably time to think about the need for representative government and the adjustment of the rules concerning it. The more that elites make backroom deals the more the public suffer. Elite rule always favors the elites who concoct it. If State issues can be returned to States and City issues can be returned to Cities, then there is less need for log-rolling, a compromise that bands various groups with diverse interests together to each get something they want in a bill. By limiting the length and scope of legislation, issues can survive or fail based on their own merits. An easily and quickly readable bill can and should be read by the populace and understood. In a number of cases, perhaps even most, citizens could vote directly on instituting or retracting bills, and if they can vote on their telephones, could quickly recall and replace legislators who are acting against The People and for their own private direct or indirect benefit.

The ability to effect the speedy removal of legislators by voters might do well to be accompanied by a new focus on Truth. A number of institutions of learning employ an Honor Code on the basis that it is essential in developing leaders worthy of the public Trust.  Lying while in public office should not be tolerated because it defeats the idea of a Republic; instead it should result in removal and permanent disqualification. The same might be said for withholding the whole truth, except in cases of battlefield kinetic warfare or large-scale deterrence of war. The US Government should have an explicit Honor Code.

In discussing corruption in the legislature, it is vitally important to emphasize that there must be a sea change in thought. Those contemplating a political career should be thinking of it as a public service, a chance to help others, and not an opportunity to serve themselves. Certainly it is unreasonable to think people in government should be selfless for their entire lives; there were many men and women who volunteered to spend two years in the Peace Corps, who endured hardship for a portion of their lives, to accomplish something for their Fellow Man. The “sea change” that may be appropriate is to standardize the path, such that anything that must be learned is learned in a disciplined and standardized way, such as attending a specialty school. The days in which legislators spend the bulk of their time in fund-raising must be ended, perhaps by having only one term of office or completely financing campaigns (which is certainly cheaper if campaigns are limited to a series of publicly funded debates and there are successively-eliminated candidates). Legislating must stop being thought of as an expert task appropriate only to elites. The needs of a legislative district are in fact relatively easy to discern and enumerate. There does not need to be an individual who cloaks those needs in “isms” or who is vulnerable to bribes or blackmail. If there is a reasonable method of identifying the concerns of citizens, of collecting this kind of data, then there should also be some method that makes it a burden for a legislator to thwart the opinions of those he is supposed to represent. If this can be developed it should indicate whether someone favors the thinking of the citizens he serves, or instead favors certain business interests or even the interests of other nations. As well, legislators should be the most closely monitored persons in the world concerning their financial assets. This would make legislators less of a weak point at which the system of government can be attacked.

However, if it is instead not possible to rely upon some relatively gentle, external mechanism of keeping legislators on course, the alternative is to apply strong deterrence. A Sword Of Damocles would need to overhang public office, which would be a constant reminder of consequences if the public trust were to be betrayed. The motivation of private gain must be deterred if it cannot be removed. This can be achieved either by increasing the likelihood of discovery, or increasing the penalties associated with discovery, or both, as necessary. In this case, the penalties would need to increase until the intolerable behavior ceased. The punishment is designed, not to fit the crime, but to deter the crime. A deterred crime has no victims.

To have the public back strong penalties for violating public trust, the Public must be thoroughly aware of the dangers of having representatives who do this, take it seriously, and realize their own lives and nation are at stake. Moreover, citizens must reject the notion that Lying is acceptable. Sadly, there are a good deal of voters who think it is okay to lie, so long as the result is of some benefit to themselves. The culture that exists, that lying is acceptable behavior, that it is okay to lie and lie and lie again, this is a moral problem that must be surmounted to return to Good Government. Lying in public office is a core cause of the problems that have led America to the brink of destruction. The bad actors have attempted to normalize lying by stating that there is no such thing as objective truth, that there is my truth and your truth. If that were so one could never indict, prosecute, or punish, society would be lawless, because no one could agree on evidence, and anyone who acted based on their own private opinions of what is right and wrong could do whatever they wished.

But probably the most important thing one should observe about Truth, especially when trying to gauge events based on reports by those of a “Truther Movement”, is that there is no provision in the Constitution that entitles a citizen to truth. Nothing designates Truth as a Right in the Bill Of Rights. As a consequence those sworn to defend the Constitution have absolutely no problem with lying or failing to state the whole truth. The latest episode of American history in which a war is transpiring and neither side admits to it, and in which a smokescreen of theater persists from day to month to year, this theater might have been avoided if there had been a specific constitutional restraint against both lying to the Public and withholding Truth. Granted, there might well have been a cost in human life that might have been greater. But also, the delay experienced in implementing swift Justice might also have resulted in time for the bad actors to rally and prevail. An addition to the Bill Of Rights, and a forum in which the questions of citizens must be answered and answered truthfully and completely, may be an absolute necessity in protecting a Restored Republic from Tyranny and future threats. Perhaps that forum might take the form of a House of Citizens (which could be a part-time and even voluntary involvement of citizenry taking place virtually) that meets and discusses topics periodically such as those that were placed on the White House website as some form of citizen agenda input, a form which did not result in most of the topics, despite receiving the requisite up-votes, to be treated seriously. A forum in which the President was subject to direct questioning on the concerns of citizens (such as chemtrails) would be a landmark addition to the rights of Americans.

The purpose of this discussion is to prepare for the future. Even though in the near-Present, in this war, we are aware that delay might have been beneficial in the aspect of civilian casualties; nevertheless, in a future conflict, should one occur, there is no telling whether Time would enable Tyranny to ultimately claim victory. Consequently, and despite certain chapters in The Art Of War that praise deception, we have not proven that honesty is not the best policy, and after this episode of having to wince through competing narratives and cult followings for obvious liars, charlatans, doubles, and fakes, it well could be the case that humanity develops a hunger for truth and honesty that remains for some time. During that time we have the opportunity to implant reforms to systems, reforms that will discourage and hopefully defeat future bad actors.

13. Secrecy

The alleged justification for withholding Truth is Secrecy. John F. Kennedy spoke in 1961 to newspaper publishers on the dangers of secrecy. He said “there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.” Does that sound familiar? He continued: “That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.” In alternative news there is a general interpretation of this speech as initiating a war between secret societies and American citizens that only now is being resolved in favor of government By The People.

The “poster child” for secrecy is the trails we are seeing in the sky which are unnatural, and for which the narrative that they are “contrails” flies in the face of science and engineering. There is a general awareness that these began with weather manipulation and with the development of over-the-horizon radar. These “chemtrails” disperse to block the sun and are often followed by rain although no rain was forecast. Over time also there is a sooty covering that one finds over one’s driveway and walkways and even on fruit.   All this comprises irrefutable evidence that something is going on in secret and whatever it is the government will not talk about it or even permit public questions regarding it. In one regard these trails are a Good, for they provide evidence that those who discern large-scale facts that contradict official narratives are not suffering from mental conditions; this is particularly important within one’s marriage. However it is better for the Public to be universally informed of anything not specifically and unquestionably a war secret. It is a very large possibility, perhaps probable, that chemtrails help the people who deploy them, for example, in trying to defend America from some kind of strategic nuclear launch threat, while when looking at the total picture, these trails pollute the atmosphere, play havoc with the weather,  degrade the food supply, and make the populace more susceptible to biological attack by lowering Vitamin D levels. The Public, The People, are not being offered the opportunity to vote on this; it constitutes government seizure of power from The People.

Another method of imposing secrecy is legislative smoke-screening. A bill of thousands of pages containing very diverse elements written in confusing, obfuscatory, and vague language is quickly passed without readings or hearings authorizing mountains of spending. The reform to this ill is 1) requiring an adequate period for public review without exception, 2) limiting the length and diversity of topic of bills, 3) requiring any public spending bill above a given threshold to receive public approval via telephone vote, 4) prohibiting federal spending (direct or indirect via “grants”) on any program that is local in scope, 5) limiting the types of things the federal government may spend public money on, to include interference in the private economy (including the “plunge protection team” manipulating the Dow), particularly subsidization and “stimulus”, implemented under the “prime the pump” credo but in fact a prop-up for failing industries and businesses with hidden kick-backs, and as a means of destroying small business in favor of a smaller group of larger, easier-to-control businesses, and 6) absolutely forbidding the purchase or sale by government of stocks, bonds, debt  notes, or any other financial asset except as part of repatriation of industry to America from overseas in vital industries, and in this case with a reasonable sunset provision.

Another method of imposing secrecy is compartmentalization. Large defense programs had “need-to-know” restrictions added so that each person would only be aware of what crossed one’s own desk. This method allowed very few persons to have a complete picture of the overall product. This method of imposing secrecy creates an environment that is ripe for directing the output toward some kind of nefarious or deceptive goal. There should be new regulations put in place that severely restrict or eliminate compartmentalization. The business model for future agencies should include many points at which everything in the business is known, and also an atmosphere in which everyone has as part of their job a cultivated awareness of the entire enterprise. There can be no more ignorant, narrowly-focused specialists. Many people should understand the entire process, and should question it, should be required under penalty to question it, if they are witness to events that indicate things happening that are inconsistent with the avowed process. It is reported that the “poster child” for this criminal technique was the Apollo space program because the Van Allen radiation belts and other radiation and temperature challenges were in fact too dangerous to penetrate. If that report (and others) is true it would help to explain how in subsequent years so many persons were so arrogantly confident they could maintain Big Lies. But it is also true that this Event has surrounding it such strong emotions that one would expect it to be the absolute last candidate for Disclosure.

But the simplest method of imposing secrecy has been finding ways to spend without the necessity of public authorization. By reports this was solved by rogue agencies by operating criminal businesses. Enforcing the laws, especially those for crimes against humanity, helps, but it is worth realizing that incarceration has limits in terms of deterring crime, especially highly-remunerative crime. Prisons have become relatively tolerable, and when criminals have outside friends who are very well funded and can finance an endless number of lawyers, it turns time in jail into a vacation in which one simply waits for one’s cohorts to effect one’s release. Accordingly, it takes capital punishment or some form of irretrievable sequestration or banishment to deter crimes or to absolutely prevent recidivism.

14. Oligarchy and Wealth Limits

This work would be intolerably long if links and proof were the methodology, but instead, following the logic is what is requested of the reader, with it being the obligation of the reader to widen horizons and compare various versions of “facts” and come to an opinion of what is likely truth. The next item the Reader is asked to consider is the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. In this novel the protagonist comes in contact with a book explaining the dark way in which the world is run entitled The Theory and Practice of Oligarchal Collectivism. As one might imagine, the avowed theory and the actual practice are different. If the bad actors, sometimes called Khazarian Mafia and sometimes called The Cabal, did not read this book, it would probably be as incredible as if community organizers never read Rules for Radicals, since in both cases patterns of behavior in books are repeated in life. These would seem to be mandatory reading if one wishes to formulate curative reforms.

At what wealth-point does a wealthy person become an oligarch, that is, a member of an oligarchy, a small number of persons, an elite, who rule over others, despite whatever avowed, ostensible mechanism the populace thinks is in use? Wikipedia states:

“Throughout history, oligarchies have often been tyrannical, relying on public obedience or oppression to exist. Aristotle pioneered the use of the term as meaning rule by the rich,^[4] for which another term commonly used today is plutocracy. In the early 20th century Robert Michels developed the theory that democracies, like all large organizations, have a tendency to turn into oligarchies. In his “Iron law of oligarchy” he suggests that the necessary division of labor in large organizations leads to the establishment of a ruling class mostly concerned with protecting their own power.

By reports there are persons worldwide who have been engaged in bad activities, including quite wealthy persons. It would seem logical that there is some wealth-point at which, by live test, in a multi-decade timeline in which lessons were learned “the hard way”, there is some wealth-point at which a person’s wealth is more likely to be used for bad purposes that are destructive to society.  One could say the same thing about corporations, except one would establish a different wealth-point; this was the basis for Theodore Roosevelt’s “trust-busting, which is incorporated in a field of law called Competition Law.  There are considerable reports that both individuals and corporations have been involved in trying to rule via oligarchal control, to the detriment of citizens worldwide. Thus, in both areas, it would seem there needs to be a means of limiting growth of assets and wealth. At certain wealth-points, the likelihood that a person or corporation turns its assets to gaining political power to protect and even to expand its wealth, this likelihood becomes a probability.

Let us speak for a moment about individuals. Is it true that “Together 50 families hold about half of the wealth of the bottom half of all U.S.households, an estimated 65 million families, and their wealth grew at ten times the rate of ordinary families during the last 40 years? Is it true that “Just eight men own the same wealth as half the world”? or is it more true that the number is more like the 26 richest people?

Even if there was not the problem of such persons misusing the funds that exceed what anyone could reasonably spend on an enhanced life style, one must ask, does it seem that this is how the world should reasonably function? Should there be a hierarchy based largely on wealth that is inherited and unearned? Should the accident of birth be rewarded over competency and labor and inventiveness and skill?

It is reasonable to criticize a wealth limit with the rejoinder that, in this book, there was the specific criticism of governments taking wealth from individuals and spreading it around, basically to political cronies who kicked-back to campaign funds. That problem must be solved, but, it would seem also that the problems of oligarchal control and trust-busting must be solved, as well. This should not be an insolvable dilemma. In the first place, as is well known, a presidential order to confiscate the assets of bad actors is by reports still in use and in full force. The degree to which corporations and super-wealthy individuals were members of the “club” that were engaged in bad actions is perhaps staggering. Once a certain percentage of these have been arrested and “processed” it would seem the idea of dealing with the remainder, in reorganizing world wealth systems to reward the contributions one makes to society rather than the accident of birth and participation in some kind of exclusive elite to the detriment of others, it would seem this problem would be reduced in scope.  Recall that the objective, Liberty, is achieved when no person or group has too much power over the others. Liberty is a much more important objective than each individual right. Certainly the right of free speech is not a pure right because it does not entitle one to incite a riot. The right to be secure in one’s property, then, does not entitle a small group to own half the planet and use that ownership to overwhelm the ability of governments to serve The People and to make them instead serve The Elite.

If you were a visitor from another planet you would notice about the last 60 years that although the standard of living increased marginally for some, for most their resources were drained, being absorbed by a progressively smaller elite class. You would see that resources were being aligned to serve these elites and that what they were not able to consume, they devoted toward securing their place at the top of the pile — which consumed and did not create wealth (which is done by entrepreneurs creating things worth more than it takes to manufacture them). Meanwhile an awful lot of yachts and planes and mansions and estates were purchased that the elites never used very much. but they were serviced and manned and ready all the time. Dedicating those resources to the very few, who waste them, this has been a characteristic of the human race. Also, the human race has perpetuated the idea of generational wealth as something one should strive for. Sports figures, for example, were declining contracts until they received an offer that was far and away more than they could consume in their lifetime, and spoke of generational wealth as fulfilling a need. In fact, what generational wealth accomplishes is, it creates a class of persons, a person’s offspring, who almost universally never work, are privileged, and look down upon “commoners”. These people constitute parasites upon society, as they generally only consume, rarely contribute. But the worst part of elitism and royalty, this system of privileged families, is the gawking approbation one continues to see in the population, probably based upon people imagining they themselves are secretly related to some such family and will receive riches and approbation out of the blue. What visitors from other planets might relate is, the celebration of generational elites generally results in stagnation and a waste of resources, and if the people of Earth had an outlook on what is right and works, that rewards should go to those who do things to help others, rather than those born with a silver spoon, they would have a much improved society. To do this, when seeing royalty, people should look upon this negatively, with disgust as part of a sea change of thought. Incidentally, if reports are correct, society will soon learn royalties have been predators upon societies and there will be social change in attitudes.

15. Media and Education

In the early days of radio, commercial messages were replete with harmonious ditties, and many of the products advertised were in fact new products. Today, there is little new in any product, because when patents are filed, they are bought up by the existing industry, or they are pre-empted by the government on the basis that the technology is classified and of public importance, when in fact, it is exactly the same reason at work in a different way. When a mafia or cabal own an industry, they insert their relatives into positions of authority. Innovation is placed on permanent hold. Change is scarce or non-existent. The emphasis is on draining wealth from the industry, and research and development are virtually terminated. In this atmosphere, there is nothing new to advertise. So it should come as no surprise when, with nothing improving, advertising turns to deception, primarily trying to depict products as happiness, or supporting other kinds of propaganda, such as showing illegal aliens as hard workers who have responsible and technical jobs in society. If one turns off the sound for commercials, it is easier to see how very often the narratives associated with the pictures shown are lies and deception. Advertisers take as their goal to make people believe things they would not based upon objective evidence, especially that the use of some product engenders great joy.

The news, of course, is entirely captured by who pays the bills, the advertisers. The advertising companies are generally owned by other companies that are located in many countries, including Communist China. There is also a great deal of Chinese money in Hollywood. Thus it should come as no surprise that the last major film to be produced that was critical of Communist china was The Red Violin, produced in 1998; or that the Chinese were depicted as heroic in The Martian produced in 2015. There are also a great number of reports of cultish behavior in Hollywood and an attempt to normalize this behavior by depicting it in film, such as a Netflix film depicting underage girls in adult outfits. There is also the substitution of themes which one can easily see by comparing 1958’s Dunkirk with 2017’s Dunkirk. The former has a theme of many diverse people pulling together to accomplish something important to the survival of their nation (similar in theme to John Ford’s They Were Expendable), while the latter Dunkirk film substitutes a made-up story imposed upon the subject matter, in which the theme is, it is alright to lie to someone if they are mentally inferior. This second theme is one of the bases upon which the cabal has been operating on a daily basis, as by report, and backed up by considerable evidence, they consider all non-elites inferior.

The reader can probably recall, off the cuff, many more examples that represent the differences between television, radio, and movies of the 1950s and prior, and what is present today. But what is important is a prescription for change. That prescription is, at least in part: no more commercials. All media should be pay-per-view. The compensation per view should be the same whether it is a network news program or an alternative news read by one person who is reporter, editor, and interviewer. This is entirely technically feasible. In this way there will be no more propaganda on media, at least, none that results from a direct payment. the marketplace will have a chance, instead, to exercise Adam Smith’s “Unseen Hand” as described in The Wealth Of Nations. Programs depicting propaganda and objectionable content will respond directly to audience demand or lack of it. Programs that try to erode American values will, it would be hoped, just cease to be produced. It seems reasonable to expect a return to morally and ethically constructive content, since Disclosure will likely expose considerable wrongdoing that was aided and abetted by media propaganda and participated in by the media in a general sense. The backlash of this will engender a period of considerable change. However, the removal of sponsorship is a logical requirement for removing bias from the industry.

What should be added to fill the void is the ethics and the morals we wish to follow. Stories were traditionally used to teach how people should act. In the past, at the end, it was common to read “and the moral of the story is ____.” Teaching morals to children was common, for example, in the works of Enid Blyton. Emphasizing moral content in media and literature and in schooling would be really necessary in rebuilding America in an enduring way. It would also constitute a new direction from the trend started in the 60s that “if it feels good, do it”. It would be a return to encouraging children to develop a conscience and to follow it, with first and foremost The Golden Rule as guide. While certainly America and the world have had enough of censorship on the part of the elites who wish to direct world thought according to what profits elites, we do have experience of censorship boards in the film industries. American film industry censorship should be examined to determine how to cultivate the type of content that molds society in a positive way. America has already experienced what it means to have the media, in the name of some avowed good, divide citizens along various lines as a device to promote Cultural Marxism. Government, especially Good Government, depends upon having a citizenry who have common views and are united in seeking the common good. America is often touted as being a “Melting Pot” because many persons came to America seeking to and learning to become American because they had suffered under Tyranny and craved Liberty. They took the time to learn a common language and thus were able to work together establishing mass production industries that created wealth by constructing products more valuable than the components. They pledged their allegiance to this new country and learned to love it for what it provided to them. It should now be no great mystery as to the ideas that will make our nation work and the ideas that will pull it apart into pieces that are essentially at war with each other. Cultivating a national moral ethic is worthwhile and will build a society we want to live in. But after what this nation has been through, in having its moral ethic degraded and diminished, rebuilding it by asking permission of the persons who lack it is not the answer. The adults now have to exert their will, take charge, and make this happen. If there is push-back, the fact is, America is engaged in a war for its survival, and embracing morals and ethics are part of what is needed to win that war.

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to W.C Jarvis:

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”

As the States in rebellion will be in the process of reconstruction, harnessing the votes of the remainder to engender enlightenment should not be a problem.

16. Money

One might think that a chapter about money is the least important chapter, while others might feel it is the most important. Fortunately, this chapter does not need to be long, because Mike Maloney has put together a discussion, an excellent video series that is free to the public, called “Hidden Secrets of Money“. Here one may learn the difference between currency and money, what is fiat currency, how money can be created “from thin air”, and other information in a format that is easy to understand and should be required learning in high schools or even in junior high schools. There needs to be a thorough understanding of money going forward because otherwise financials will be manipulated in favor of the elite and the ordinary citizen will suffer, and the money taken from him by stealth and skullduggery will even be used against citizens, as it has been.

In a country that is systemically sustainable and good to live in, money serves as a reward to those who help others, invent products, and use their labor to make life better and the country a better country. In a country where there are many short-circuits to this intent, where devious people have figured out means to get money without themselves laboring to provide something of value to others, The People suffer from parasitic individuals. Parasites need to be plucked out and cast off. It is much better to devote some energy to doing this on a consistent basis than to put it off until one falls sick. Unfortunately, the latter case, writ large, has befallen America, and the curative will be both distasteful and painful.

Money is a great good that permits mass production which in turn is the key to massive improvements in the standard of living. It allows persons to specialize in what they contribute in some narrow but important way, while the reward they receive is according to their own desires.

Money is also a means of voting for the best products. Every purchase of a product is a vote for its quality and usefulness and capability. In this way the best products survive and the worst fade away. Without manipulation, which is government interference in the economy, and which costs everyone money for the government to do, the process of price discovery operates. Price discovery means prices are a function of the real cost of manufacturing goods together with the relative importance and enjoyment each consumer feels about them. If a nation does not pay for manipulation, which is a cost, it can also offer its products on the world market at a lower price, perhaps at the lowest price, and the more products a nation sells on the world market, the wealthier it becomes.

The “Plunge Protection Team” was incorporated into the US economy on the basis that it was a Good, but in fact, it is a source of manipulation. Once one decides it is alright for the Government to participate in the economy, what occurs is, the Government accepts the economy, represented by indicators like the Dow industrial average, as a “report card”  on government. As a result, Government then wants the Dow and other indicators to go up and up, never down, and the only way this can occur, given the facts of financial cycles, is by inflating the money supply and buying more and more stocks. Further, since the Dow consists of average prices of a limited number of stocks, those stocks benefit to the demise of others. This is not financial justice and when there is no financial justice it does proliferate throughout the society. Also the cost of continuously propping up the Dow is a great drain over time. When a price is propped up or depressed, it will return to its actual value when the manipulation stops. Manipulating a price over time, in which the price moves further and further from its actual value, results in what is described as a coiled spring. There today is so much manipulation going on, in so many different areas, with so many securities overpriced, that the situation is referred to as “The Everything Bubble“.  This bubble of overpriced securities is considered in many circles to be several orders of magnitude larger than what was experienced in previous financial crashes.

The degree of manipulation has also ruined price discovery to such a degree that, though there once was a stock market that responded to financial indicators called “fundamentals”, such that expected earnings were predictable based upon fundamentals, now what is going on is more like a rigged casino. A lot of the involvement of citizens, and even of financial advisors, is based more on perceived inertia, the idea that if something is going up it might well keep going up. many of the prices do not respond according to accurate news reports. And whether an industry or stock is favored, such that it is in the manipulated and “successful” few, depends on backroom deals and feedback funding loops to political campaigns.

To cure manipulation, there needs to be an absolute ban of same with penalties visited upon perpetrators and the chain of command they work under. Also needed is a ban on fiat currency and a return to currency based upon something of value like gold and silver. International trade imbalances need to be periodically resolved using gold and silver, and if an imbalance exists, it needs to be addressed by producing goods domestically. There are various devices for achieving this, including a tariff, which one often sees written about as having negative consequences such as a trade war. By reports, though, a trade war seems rather a mild form of international competition compared to the Psy-op war that is currently in progress and hopefully is on the brink of ending in favor of the White Hats and the Restored Republic.

An important aspect of instituting a reform of the system includes the economic stability of States and local jurisdictions. Some of these have sound fiscal management compared to others in which corruption has destroyed small business and industry and left bondholders with unfulfillable IOUs. Some states are bankrupt many times over. If the federal government were to make whole the losses of citizens in these states, it would be another form of socialism, because the federal government uses Other People’s Money, it would draw upon the value of money held by The People in states with good government. If one considers that pension funds are generational liabilities, this would steal from and to a degree enslave citizens of sound states to support others. This is not a curative that would harmonize with everything else that has to be done in  getting rid of Socialism. Once a currency is no longer fiat but is backed by a physical resource like gold or silver, something that cannot be created out of thin air, once there is a finite amount of the resource backing the currency, then a drain on that resource affects the soundness of even a good government. One of the purposes of states should be to allow citizens who disagree with local policy to move to another jurisdiction that is harmonious with their ideas. It does not teach any State about consequences if they are remiss in controlling their treasury and assets and don’t focus on weeding out corruption. The good states should flourish and the bad states should go bankrupt when they are insolvent and go into receivership as territories. If there is pain in the badly managed states, that will serve as an incentive for the citizenry to pursue justice and to seek honest leadership.

The socialistic vehicle for taking money from some states and giving it to others, beyond specific projects, is grants-in-aid. Money goes to Washington and comes back in this form. This is Socialistic redistribution masquerading as a virtuous method of achieving progress. This method is unacceptable in deriving a solution. The US has just engaged (if this war is indeed over) in an insurrection, a war of rebellion between states. The fact that the war was conducted using psychological and biological and weather and other types of indirect warfare does not change the fact that it was a war. Washington DC was occupied as a foreign, conquered territory. Following such a war it makes absolutely no sense that the states in rebellion, subsequently conquered, now would receive reparations from the states that prevailed. Those states and jurisdictions in rebellion shall have to suffer to some degree.

17. The Military

This is a message to the White Hats and the Military.

You have embarked on a course from which there is no return. You have taken over Government. You have painted yourself into a corner with paint that is deadly to walk on. In this corner there are two doors, a White Door and a Gray Door. We should talk about what’s behind the White Door, because as you will realize is true, the Gray Door inevitably turns Red and then Black.

To proceed through the White Door, you must embrace Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth. There can be no shilly-shallying around asking people how much of The Truth can we tell the Public. There must be complete Disclosure. There can no longer be Elites who decide what they want others to know because they then decide, even for the truth they are willing to disclose, how to word it to fit with a narrative that benefits them or their cronies. Once there is a point where Secrecy takes over, that point is in motion and maneuvered politically and there simply is no spot at which it may drop anchor successfully. On top of that, the Truth is difficult and expensive to suppress, and over time that difficulty and expense (and nefarious activity like “retirement-murder”) mushroom until finally there is an explosion of Disclosure.

You will have to disseminate Truth throughout the populace. The precedent for this is the practice in World War II where Allied forces required all German citizens to walk through the concentration camps before they could receive their ration cards. The same need for relief now exists. As a prerequisite to relief or its continuance you must require the populace to witness the wrongdoing and understand what good government and what bad government is so they can understand how and why the wrongdoing happened. This means viewing videotapes, walking through hospitals where “little people” are being cared for, seeing tunnels and DUMBs, listening to confessions, listening to the tales of dead people who aren’t dead, and remedial training in The Idea Of America, Citizenship, Morality, Ethics, Sound Money, and The Constitution. As you can see, this is not a simple problem any more, as simple as leading an occupied population through a camp one time.

There is no Emperor of Socialism (as in Japan) to order this part of our nation to comply with the requirements of citizenship. There is no Military Commander (as in the Civil War) to sign articles of surrender and tell the population to go home and become good citizens. Only some of those doing wrong in this country are going to change their attitude and embrace The Idea Of America and disavow Socialism and become good citizens. For some others, only force means anything to them. They have been brought to believe America is inherently evil and that they have a right to whatever is not nailed down. Unfortunately, the infrastructure of America is vulnerable, and these persons will think they can make a living out of surreptitiously gathering funds to finance and fight a guerilla war. You will have to deal with this type of activity using harsh cures.

You will also have to establish Good Government. This means reforming Government so it performs its rightful tasks, such as repairing infrastructure, maintaining the Parks, providing power and water to The People, and providing unrestricted communications (such as ending the telephonic assault by scammers on the populace, which has been a nightmare for The People, unassisted, to resolve). This means identifying the purpose of chemtrails to the Public and from there deriving a consensus for their continuance or turning them off. It means releasing the Truth about numerous Events such as 9-11, the JFK assassination, the Apollo program, and many instances of weather warfare. This also means destroying Socialism at its root. Any impetus for Socialism must be denied the Public Bullhorn and denied a place at the table of government and the advocates of Socialism must find on social media that their entreaties are unviewable. Those who espoused Socialism must be denied any further career in government or in any form of communications or education. Remember, Socialism is not “politics”, it is crime. We are witness to where this crime leads because we are there. Socialism cannot be permitted to return.

To effect the demise of socialism, the Constitution will have to be amended. This should be less difficult than one might imagine, since the states in rebellion must revert to the status of territories until they are “reconstructed”. The remaining States will be happy to embrace a means by which bad government is now treated as criminal. the US will have to guarantee a republican form of government in every State, and that does not mean permitting tribalistic, divisive, anti-American, financially unstable, and (by natural law) criminal government in States or even in counties or cities or towns. Liberty must be a product of every level of Government in order for it to prevail. The federal government must be a guarantor of Liberty.

Once passing through the white door, there can be no more doubles, clones, or masquerades. It is obvious that legislators must be who they say they are. There can be no more replacement of persons by means of masks or any other devices, to continue their careers despite being ill or sequestered or dead. If there is a problem maintaining security of the President, then perhaps there should be two presidents, one designated for the ceremonial and public appearances, with the authority to deliver the words of the other President in speeches.

Do you hesitate to open and pass through the White Door? Well, then, what is behind the Gray Door?

The Gray Door leads inevitably to the demise of any and all of the military who took control for the sake of the Constitution and their sworn Oath. Socialism must either be treated as a reasonable basis for government or destroyed. If the Military decline to destroy Socialism, it will return. Some of the first moneys that it acquires will likely be dedicated to dealing with a list of military leaders they see as traitors. Whether the means is lawfare or some form of murder or mayhem, visited upon either these leaders or anyone they hold dear, the Socialists understand now that military leaders never really retire, they are never released from their Oath, and are their sworn enemies.

By embarking upon a rescue of America from foreign and domestic enemies, you have now emulated the signers of the Declaration Of Independence. You have signed your death warrant should this rescue fail. The Signers closed their Declaration with:

“And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

You must realize, Socialism cares little about the rights of individuals. It divides people into classes. As a class the Military have been required to think for themselves, as they are instructed not to follow an unlawful order, upon pain of prosecution. Socialism thinks nothing of doing away with entire classes of citizens. It is too large a problem for them to wait until some of these act and only then to prosecute the actors. This is the Second American Revolution, and without signing anything you are in the same status as the original Patriots. Your lives, your fortunes, and your sacred honor are all at stake if you do not prevail in establishing good government that will endure for the balance of your lives. To do this, Benjamin Franklin would tell you, “We must hang together or surely we shall hang separately.”

Opting for the Gray Door would mean most probably that you, individually, though a member of the military, have qualms about using force against domestic enemies. Being a defender at the Gates of the nation or for international commerce or against kinetic warfare may seem much more reasonable and justifiable. The justification for War may seem to you to boil down to being placed in “it is him or me” circumstances. The notion of a war of ideas, and that America itself is an idea, and that it is this Idea that men die for and not a fruited plain or mountain majesties, may seem far afield. After all, there are other nations, and those nations have patriots, and their nations are not ideas. What you are confronted with now, though, is that the entire world was captured by Tyranny, save for Americans who treasured Liberty in their hearts, and these devised a Plan for its return, and now that Plan is on the Brink of success. America was the last respite of Liberty, based on a simple Oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That Oath is the basis of your sacred honor. You must fulfill that Oath.

The Gray Door may also be thought of as a path of least resistance, which it is, for a time. Rather than use force to require compliance, why not simply write everyone a check and then tell them to sign off on something? One check then becomes two and then the Dole, with strings attached, and while the nation is trying to stop the manipulation of its economy so that price discovery works, and so that efficiency means The People are adding value and creating wealth, instead, there is manipulation of The People, which is an overhead cost, who then must keep re-electing those who support their dole, and there is the taxation of anyone working to pay people not to work and to be political supporters for perpetuating this. Mailing out checks is a simplistic solution that is only thought of when a nation is not serious about solving problems.

The purveyors of Socialism are domestic enemies. They want to use the Treasury as a means of political control. Once they have the ability to write checks, they solidify their power, and from there we have The Present. If Socialism is not condemned, abolished, and suppressed, this Present will remain. You do not have much of a future in this Present.

If the US Military were now to pass through the Gray Door, and if Socialists return to power, it should not be surprising, it should even be expected, that there would be a purge of the military, as this is the only place from which a well-organized counter-revolution could emerge. Perhaps a purge would be to the degree to which Stalin purged the military in 1937-8. By report an intercepted list was released of US commanders the CCP planned to purge (execute), once chaos was brought about and “UN (actually CCP) soldiers” were invited in to restore order, that convinced a number of “fence-sitters” to join the White Hats. This falls into line with reports of lists (coded by color) of citizens from over a decade before that identified citizens who also were designated to suffer from a purge. While reports of this type seem fantastic, discernment requires “following down the rabbit hole” to a conclusion before discounting reports that don’t revolve around former norms. In point of fact, a reader of science fiction would, in these times, feel that if many of the reports one reads are untrue and made up, that the creativity of science fiction writers must somehow have increased over the last decade by several orders of magnitude.

It is safe to conclude that any person retiring from military service at this point cannot retire even to an isolated life of fishing and hunting, and feel secure, when receiving a retirement account that identifies a clear path to one’s bank account and home, and that one cannot be certain that should Socialism ever re-emerge, there will not be severe consequences to pay. It is a matter of survival, or at least one of peace of mind for military members, that every effort be made to stamp out Socialism and to educate the citizenry on why this must be done. If not, the Gray Door will be stained with the blood of patriots and become the Black Door of a sarcophagus.

Summary

This book tries to fill a perceived void after searching for websites and books that try to specifically identify the reforms needed in a society, one that has been captured by a rogue, criminal elite, and in which this is deemed intolerable, and after Discernment, Disclosure, Arrests, and Justice, the society is resolved there shall be no recurrence. If there are those who feel it is alright to tolerate this type and level of criminality, probably because they avoided, by chance or privilege, personally suffering the ills visited upon the country as a whole, and are thus unwilling to lift a finger to try to build or rebuild the society of Liberty the Founding Fathers attempted to construct, these persons deserve to live forever under Tyranny and for that tyranny to wreak its greatest havoc upon them personally. If there are those who think the ills America has observed simply arose by the faintest chance, that nothing systemic really needs to be fixed, and that these ills could never arise again, these persons need to swallow a Red Pill and wake up. If there are those who think it is alright to follow the crowd and do no thinking for themselves, because public acceptance is more dear than reason, they need to be thoroughly scolded by their mothers, as was the author, with the question, “Why don’t you start using your head for something besides a hat rack?!”

Outlawing the criminality of government is not an option, it is a necessity. This is not the time to take two aspirins and call someone next decade. The persons who visited the attempted destruction of the nation upon America and who dragged the American Idea in the mud must be permanently removed from influence and wealth (which is influence) and “processed” (at GITMO) and, as necessary, sequestered or “taken off the Earth plane”. The governmental system, meanwhile, must be altered to remove the loopholes and workarounds found to subvert the system and harvest its wealth, and the level of detection, indictment, and punishment must deter those contemplating a repeat of these criminal activities. Anyone who thinks e pluribus unum (from many, one) needs to be rewritten, and that United We Stand, Divided We Fall is passé, needs to try out their theories on an island preserve with like-minded persons. Anyone who thinks it is okay to lie, cheat, and steal, so long as they personally benefit or it “feels good”, needs to be sent back to Sodom and Gomorrah, to just before God got angry. Truth, Justice, and the American Way must not be a fantasy. This is not the time to put the nation on cruise control and see where inertia takes it. Every person who believes they are an American needs now to prove it by actively working toward a curative that reinforces the intent of the Constitution.

Anyone who thinks this is not stated forcefully enough, such that they need some additional motivation to act, the author requests you visit any US Chief Master Sergeant, or Marine Drill Instructor, or both, whether on active duty or retired, and ask for their unvarnished interpretation of these remarks.

___
https://stateofthenation.co/?p=75461