America was an attempt to create a society unmoored from the ancient regime, but supposedly still tethered by reason. The result was, as the anti-federalists predicted, especially Brutus, who warned the the Supreme Court would end up as the arbiter of to many disputes with how the Constitution was constructed. He was correct, as the Court has given so many "rights" not found in the text of the Constitution, nor in natural law.
First, we should have picked our own cotton, though we can blame the jews and Brits for setting up the conditions in the first place for the slaves trade.
Second, while the white propertied class running things would have worked pretty well, as things got industrialized you had plenty of "mechanics" as they termed them in the 18th Century. Cities full of tradesmen and merchants without land per se, but wealth. These people then acquired political power.
Third, even with tradesmen having the vote, a kind of WASP nation would have worked too, but there was the importation of masses of Catholics who were later given, or took political power. Still, they were white and respected the established order and did not try to make a Spain or pre-revolution France out of the place where the Catholic Church was given all sorts of powers, mostly in education.
But what really, really, really made things go off the rails, was the immigration act of 1965. We imported the 3rd world.
Yes. Change the law to end chain migration and 90% of the problem is solved. Chain migration is when Citizen Z from Shitholeistan comes over, then he brings his wife, and cousin, and grandma and so on and so on.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964? Make it apply to white people when we are a minority, it will change right quick.
Government was always the stationary bandit to protect you from the roving bandit. If you give people a measure of freedom, they are more productive, and thus there is more to skim off the top.
However, as a counter narrative, when you have a legitimate government to resolve contract disputes, it does cut down on the internecine violence quite a bit.
Then again, the Founding Fathers tried to set up a sort of natural aristocracy, with no direct elections for leaders except for members of the House of Representatives. I think they had read The Republic one to many times, and read about how Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic went off the rails. People of that era used to read the classics a lot more than today.
If I had to say what messed things up first, it was the direct election of Senators. The Electoral College never worked as intended from the very start, for the very guys who designed it. And the slavery question was a fundamental divide too, but that could have been solved the way the British did, if the South hadn't had left the Union. .
I suppose they should have been more explicit about some things, but it's not like they really could foresee things like drag queen story hour and such. This did happen gradually, and then all at once, as the cliche goes.
People have all sorts of plans, from gradual reforms to accelerationism to lead to Balkinization. Honestly, if we had fair elections, where politicians could be held responsible for fucking things up, we'd be well along the way to fixing this nation. Voter ID laws and ending mail in voting would solve most election fraud.
However, I'm not all dour on America. You see, the states still have a lot of power. This was demonstrated by Covid responses. States can be well run places, even if the feds fuck things up, which, in my opinion, is the only reason that this country hasn't fallen apart already. Plus, you even have Democrat run states that are 99% white, like Vermont.
Well if you were to create a country which was to be the strong arm, the army of your evil empire, you'd embolden it with ideas of justice, freedom and liberty only to trick it into using its drive towards good for your own evil ends. Thered be no problem with that for the cabal as you'd always control the information the public has. The public would never know who they were actually fighting or the real reasons why.
Free access to information, information about what your superiors are doing, is the only real freedom that matters, and thats never been a freedom anyone has ever had. Free speech? Sure thats important and part of it, but speech can be manipulated, language can change, lies can be told, speech can be drowned out.
Hopefully the founding fathers fucked up hard enough by giving us weaponry and ideals and free speech.... hopefully thats enough of a base for us to use the new free information we have access to to break these chains.
There's an important point not be be glossed over, which is that not all the Founding Fathers were Freemasons, and there was a quiet struggle over management of the American Revolution and the resulting nation.
This is best displayed in the framing of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution itself was a coup against the more liberal (in the old school sense) Articles of Confederation, and it was dominated by Freemasons (33%!) as we see here: Freemasons & the U.S.Constitution
There was no Bill of Rights included in the original, and this led to a bitter dispute over ratification. They only got it over the top with promises of a forthcoming Bill of Rights, and that was later created by Madison, a protege of Jefferson, neither of whom were Masons.
There is some reinforcement to this idea in that John Quincy Adams created the third political party in the US, the Anti-Masonic Party, which indicates that there was conscious and vital opposition to them in those days.
If the Masons had actually simply been running the show, I suspect they would have put in place a constitutional monarchy (see Alexander Hamilton) and there would have been no Bill of Rights.
I came here to post this same idea and you worded it better than I could have. Also wanted to add: I think they over estimate their contribution to this period of history as a recruitment tool.
To "stand under" suggested rights represents being at liberty of others; caused by consenting to their suggestions.
the constitution
CONSTITU (to set; to establish) -TION (through action)...form (life) represents the reaction established through enacting flow (inception towards death). Whenever you breathe; you respond to be within the constitution.
the Freemasons that gave us our perception
Perception represents impressed inspiration upon perceiving senses...not suggested information by others; who gain the power to shape (mason) the "free" will of choice of those consenting to their suggestions.
To chose suggested information (want) represents ignoring perceived inspiration (need). This behavior tempts others to exploit ignorance of perceived (reality) with suggested (fiction); which requires consent by free will of choice, and so narratives have to be shaped through suggestion to trick the many into choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law.
the USA
Temporary form (life) within ongoing flow (inception towards death) represents a "DIVIDED STATE". The parasitic few suggest "united" states; "united" nations and european "union" to mix the differences back together; hence to corrupt perceivable inspiration; communicated to senses as moving differences. What the many ignore is that UNITY (unitas; the state of being one; oneness) implies differentiation (form) out of sameness (flow).
freedom
"free" will of choice as the responding center of perceivable "dom"inance of balance aka free-dom aka free choice to live within the dominating process of dying aka temporary growth within ongoing loss.
animals
The parasitic few suggest humans over animals; while the many ignore HU'MAN, adjective [Latin humanus; Heb. form, species.] + AN'IMAL, noun [Latin animal from anima, air, breath, soul.] aka being animated (animal) form (human).
production
PRODUC (produced) -TION (through action), hence being a reaction out of NATURE, noun [Latin from nature born, produced]. A RE(response to) ACTION cannot produce; only RE(respond to) PRODUCE (being produced). What does reproduction imply? https://pic8.co/sh/TwJrwc.jpg and what does the want to produce lead to? Replacement Migration. Why? Ignorance of reproduction for suggested temptations... https://pic8.co/sh/9GkCdX.jpg
can they take the freedom away
Each one represents free (choice) within dom (balance) of natural law even when ignored. What others can take away are the consented to liberties under the laws of men.
the master of his own destiny
That represents the host weakness that is being parasitically exploited aka your want for destination; while ignoring that living isn't outcome oriented (hence processed from inception towards death aka dying); but a response (choice) to origin (balance) aka the struggle (need) to resist temptation (want).
Your want for outcomes is what allows the parasitic few to lure you to follow suggestions towards death; while you ignore to resist for the sustenance of life.
Human history is full of examples of a ruling class controlling their subjects
Being subjected to suggested his-story implies ignoring ONEs story as the perceiving within ALL perceivable.
did our perception change?
One (life) exists within constant change (inception towards death); hence perceiving constantly changing differences as inspiration to sustain self. Others suggest sameness like for example "Let us realize, oh, that a change can only come"..."When we stand together as one"..."We are the world, we are the children"
what if our understanding of God was also given to us
RELIGION, noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew" aka choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law; in ignorance of the original bond aka perceivable balance (offer) to perceiving choice (response) natural law.
"in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" aka one consents to stand under (understanding) those who suggest "in the name of" (in nomine). That's contract law aka ignorance of perceived inspiration (need) for suggested information (want) aka ones choice of want over need.
America was an attempt to create a society unmoored from the ancient regime, but supposedly still tethered by reason. The result was, as the anti-federalists predicted, especially Brutus, who warned the the Supreme Court would end up as the arbiter of to many disputes with how the Constitution was constructed. He was correct, as the Court has given so many "rights" not found in the text of the Constitution, nor in natural law.
First, we should have picked our own cotton, though we can blame the jews and Brits for setting up the conditions in the first place for the slaves trade.
Second, while the white propertied class running things would have worked pretty well, as things got industrialized you had plenty of "mechanics" as they termed them in the 18th Century. Cities full of tradesmen and merchants without land per se, but wealth. These people then acquired political power.
Third, even with tradesmen having the vote, a kind of WASP nation would have worked too, but there was the importation of masses of Catholics who were later given, or took political power. Still, they were white and respected the established order and did not try to make a Spain or pre-revolution France out of the place where the Catholic Church was given all sorts of powers, mostly in education.
But what really, really, really made things go off the rails, was the immigration act of 1965. We imported the 3rd world.
Civil Rights Act of 64, and then the Immigration Act of 65. Those work hand in hand.
Yes. Change the law to end chain migration and 90% of the problem is solved. Chain migration is when Citizen Z from Shitholeistan comes over, then he brings his wife, and cousin, and grandma and so on and so on.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964? Make it apply to white people when we are a minority, it will change right quick.
Government was always the stationary bandit to protect you from the roving bandit. If you give people a measure of freedom, they are more productive, and thus there is more to skim off the top.
However, as a counter narrative, when you have a legitimate government to resolve contract disputes, it does cut down on the internecine violence quite a bit.
"Iron Law of Oligarchy" I would think.
Then again, the Founding Fathers tried to set up a sort of natural aristocracy, with no direct elections for leaders except for members of the House of Representatives. I think they had read The Republic one to many times, and read about how Athenian democracy and the Roman Republic went off the rails. People of that era used to read the classics a lot more than today.
If I had to say what messed things up first, it was the direct election of Senators. The Electoral College never worked as intended from the very start, for the very guys who designed it. And the slavery question was a fundamental divide too, but that could have been solved the way the British did, if the South hadn't had left the Union. .
I suppose they should have been more explicit about some things, but it's not like they really could foresee things like drag queen story hour and such. This did happen gradually, and then all at once, as the cliche goes.
People have all sorts of plans, from gradual reforms to accelerationism to lead to Balkinization. Honestly, if we had fair elections, where politicians could be held responsible for fucking things up, we'd be well along the way to fixing this nation. Voter ID laws and ending mail in voting would solve most election fraud.
However, I'm not all dour on America. You see, the states still have a lot of power. This was demonstrated by Covid responses. States can be well run places, even if the feds fuck things up, which, in my opinion, is the only reason that this country hasn't fallen apart already. Plus, you even have Democrat run states that are 99% white, like Vermont.
It means they were decent and honest people.
Well if you were to create a country which was to be the strong arm, the army of your evil empire, you'd embolden it with ideas of justice, freedom and liberty only to trick it into using its drive towards good for your own evil ends. Thered be no problem with that for the cabal as you'd always control the information the public has. The public would never know who they were actually fighting or the real reasons why.
Free access to information, information about what your superiors are doing, is the only real freedom that matters, and thats never been a freedom anyone has ever had. Free speech? Sure thats important and part of it, but speech can be manipulated, language can change, lies can be told, speech can be drowned out.
Hopefully the founding fathers fucked up hard enough by giving us weaponry and ideals and free speech.... hopefully thats enough of a base for us to use the new free information we have access to to break these chains.
1% of the total global population is 10,000,000. Ten million people is larger than all of the armies of the world combined, by a lot.
They are vastly outnumbered.
There's an important point not be be glossed over, which is that not all the Founding Fathers were Freemasons, and there was a quiet struggle over management of the American Revolution and the resulting nation.
This is best displayed in the framing of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution itself was a coup against the more liberal (in the old school sense) Articles of Confederation, and it was dominated by Freemasons (33%!) as we see here: Freemasons & the U.S.Constitution
There was no Bill of Rights included in the original, and this led to a bitter dispute over ratification. They only got it over the top with promises of a forthcoming Bill of Rights, and that was later created by Madison, a protege of Jefferson, neither of whom were Masons.
There is some reinforcement to this idea in that John Quincy Adams created the third political party in the US, the Anti-Masonic Party, which indicates that there was conscious and vital opposition to them in those days.
If the Masons had actually simply been running the show, I suspect they would have put in place a constitutional monarchy (see Alexander Hamilton) and there would have been no Bill of Rights.
I came here to post this same idea and you worded it better than I could have. Also wanted to add: I think they over estimate their contribution to this period of history as a recruitment tool.
To "stand under" suggested rights represents being at liberty of others; caused by consenting to their suggestions.
CONSTITU (to set; to establish) -TION (through action)...form (life) represents the reaction established through enacting flow (inception towards death). Whenever you breathe; you respond to be within the constitution.
Perception represents impressed inspiration upon perceiving senses...not suggested information by others; who gain the power to shape (mason) the "free" will of choice of those consenting to their suggestions.
To chose suggested information (want) represents ignoring perceived inspiration (need). This behavior tempts others to exploit ignorance of perceived (reality) with suggested (fiction); which requires consent by free will of choice, and so narratives have to be shaped through suggestion to trick the many into choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law.
Temporary form (life) within ongoing flow (inception towards death) represents a "DIVIDED STATE". The parasitic few suggest "united" states; "united" nations and european "union" to mix the differences back together; hence to corrupt perceivable inspiration; communicated to senses as moving differences. What the many ignore is that UNITY (unitas; the state of being one; oneness) implies differentiation (form) out of sameness (flow).
"free" will of choice as the responding center of perceivable "dom"inance of balance aka free-dom aka free choice to live within the dominating process of dying aka temporary growth within ongoing loss.
The parasitic few suggest humans over animals; while the many ignore HU'MAN, adjective [Latin humanus; Heb. form, species.] + AN'IMAL, noun [Latin animal from anima, air, breath, soul.] aka being animated (animal) form (human).
PRODUC (produced) -TION (through action), hence being a reaction out of NATURE, noun [Latin from nature born, produced]. A RE(response to) ACTION cannot produce; only RE(respond to) PRODUCE (being produced). What does reproduction imply? https://pic8.co/sh/TwJrwc.jpg and what does the want to produce lead to? Replacement Migration. Why? Ignorance of reproduction for suggested temptations... https://pic8.co/sh/9GkCdX.jpg
Each one represents free (choice) within dom (balance) of natural law even when ignored. What others can take away are the consented to liberties under the laws of men.
That represents the host weakness that is being parasitically exploited aka your want for destination; while ignoring that living isn't outcome oriented (hence processed from inception towards death aka dying); but a response (choice) to origin (balance) aka the struggle (need) to resist temptation (want).
Your want for outcomes is what allows the parasitic few to lure you to follow suggestions towards death; while you ignore to resist for the sustenance of life.
Being subjected to suggested his-story implies ignoring ONEs story as the perceiving within ALL perceivable.
One (life) exists within constant change (inception towards death); hence perceiving constantly changing differences as inspiration to sustain self. Others suggest sameness like for example "Let us realize, oh, that a change can only come"..."When we stand together as one"..."We are the world, we are the children"
RELIGION, noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew" aka choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law; in ignorance of the original bond aka perceivable balance (offer) to perceiving choice (response) natural law.
"in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti" aka one consents to stand under (understanding) those who suggest "in the name of" (in nomine). That's contract law aka ignorance of perceived inspiration (need) for suggested information (want) aka ones choice of want over need.