Logic in the Matrix: the Declaration of Independence
by Jon Rappoport
February 27, 2017
Logic, these days, has been replaced in schools with a mind-control apparatus that involves the following:
EVERY POINT OF VIEW IS EQUAL.
EVERYBODY HAS TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE WHOLE.
TRUE CRITICAL THINKING, WHICH IS THE EXCLUSIVE TERRITORY OF THE INDIVIDUAL, LEAVES PEOPLE OUT OF THE GROUP AND IS THEREFORE PREJUDICIAL.
If you favor this new formulation and think it’s useful, I have condos on Jupiter for sale.
The point of modern education, more and more, is the GROUP.
“Good people belong to the group.”
“The Group is everything.”
“If you don’t belong to the Group, you have a mental disorder.”
Why is all this emphasis put on the Group?
The answer to that question also gives you the reason logic isn’t taught in schools anymore:
The independent self-sufficient individual is being phased out.
The independent individual who knows how to think and make lucid judgments on his own is a threat to the EMERGING RELIGION OF GLOBALISM.
The emerging religion of Globalism is a fuzzy image of THE GROUP.
The hive.
The colony.
The nest.
The planet.
Some people think education has been hijacked for the purpose of training children to become robotic workers for the State. That’s partly true, but education is also the proving ground for the religion of the Group.
This religion doesn’t need or want logic. Logic would be disruptive. It would differentiate one student from another. It would reveal there are ways to analyze information that actually come to valid conclusions. Logic isn’t fuzzy. It doesn’t promote the all-inclusive hive.
A year ago, I spoke to a teacher who was introducing his class to logic. He told me, “These are very bright kids. They’re all going to college. They said they couldn’t learn logic. They couldn’t do it. They had some kind of mental block.”
As we talked further, it became obvious that the mental block was an idea of THE GROUP. These kids had already been indoctrinated into “cooperative thought.” They instinctively realized that, if they studied logic, the Group would break apart. Each student would have to stand on his own, and that prospect was frightening.
In the religion of the Group, one of the key concepts is “the sustainability of the planet,” a catchphrase which is the leading edge of a vast movement to decide how the individual, as a UNIT, an energy-consuming UNIT, will be regulated in the overall scheme of things.
The individual’s life will be ruled by decisions of the “wise ones,” who understand how to distribute all the available resources of the planet.
I’ve actually had students tell me, in their fumbling way, that they have an obligation to think like everyone else. Or if they’re rebels, they have a duty to rebel like other rebels.
Logic is a sword that cuts through all that. It wakes up the sleeping mind. It doesn’t paint vague pictures. It has nothing to do with what the Group thinks or has been taught to think.
Logic isn’t a cooperative enterprise. That’s why it was exiled from school systems a long time ago.
I’ve talked to many teachers (I used to teach school) who tell me they lead their students on this basis: “we’re all in this together.”
It sounds nice, but it has nothing to do with education. It’s a con. It’s a way of avoiding teaching. Once a teacher walks down that road, he’s finished. He’s regressing back to being a child. He’s forfeiting his position. He’s involved in socializing. It can work for a picnic but not for school.
The cooperative spirit in the classroom is the prelude to the religion of the Group. “We’re all in this together” is the initial sales pitch.
I remember, 40 years ago, I had an argument with a teacher who was very annoyed that I was attacking the “spirit of the group” concept. He was absolutely convinced that the atmosphere he promoted in his classroom was instrumental in making education work. He was deeply offended that I was questioning it. For him, it was inconceivable that I couldn’t see the value of “sharing and caring” in the classroom. Hadn’t I ever played sports? Didn’t I know what a team was? Hadn’t I ever experienced the joy of friendship in a group?
I told him many of his kids were scoring quite badly in exams.
Apparently, this was beside the point. He was heroic, he was a good guy, he was a cheerleader for friendship and tolerance, he was concerned about feelings and self-esteem, he was doing his best to make good human beings out of his kids.
I knew all his moves. I had seen them before.
They didn’t make a dent, because in my college days the most compassionate professor I’d had taught me logic. He was also the most exacting professor. He put his students through the mill, and it was exciting. And when, years later, I started working as a reporter, I was already ahead of the game.
A person either wants to think for himself—and knows how to—or he prefers the hazy hive-like existence of belonging to something that is less than he is.
It’s that simple.
Logic gives you the option of making the first choice and avoiding the second.
I finished my formal education just before the really big group-wave hit. The educrats and the elite planners were putting the finishing touches on their blueprint for “participatory education.”
Under that system, the students would be encouraged to believe their random ideas and feelings were just as important as their teachers’. By extension, the students were really in class to make their feelings known and help lead the way to a more just world.
Learning would be done through osmosis, the result of the students and teachers rubbing off on each other. “It’s a process.”
Slice that baloney any way you want to, it’s still baloney. And when the meal is over, the students have no knowledge of logic, which is the foundation for rational thought. They’re cut loose on a river with no paddle. They have an inflated sense of self-worth, and no understanding to back it up.
Out in the world, after school is behind them, what do you think these graduates are going to be attracted to? Anything and anyone who sounds like he’s talking about the GROUP, who praises and elevates the GROUP, who promotes the Collective, who emphasizes how we’re all in this together for a better world.
Only it isn’t a better world. It isn’t, because these half-educated young adults never became truly independent individuals. And because “better world” is the flag behind which sits the actual scenario: self-appointed elite priests directing the distribution of all resources from Central Planning.
Eventually, these ex-students complain, “We didn’t think we were signing up for this!”
Small correction: you didn’t really think at all, because you never learned how.
Since logic is no longer taught as a required subject in schools, the door is open to all sorts of bizarre reactions to the presence of information.
Here are three favorites:
One: grab the title of an article, make up your mind about how you “feel,” and ignore everything else.
Two: Actually read the article until you find a piece of information that appeals to you for any reason; latch on to it, and run with it in any direction. In all cases, the direction will have nothing to do with the intent of the article.
Three: From the moment you begin to read the headline of the article, be in a state of “free association.” Take any word or sentence and connect it to an arbitrary thought or feeling, associate that thought with yet another arbitrary thought…and keep going until you become tired or bored.
You might be surprised at how many people use these three “methods of analysis.”
The very idea that the author of the article is making a central point doesn’t register. And certainly, the notion that the author is providing evidence for the central point is alien.
A college liberal education? These days it could be imparted in a matter of weeks, simply by hammering a small set of values into students’ skulls—along with requisite guilt and fear at the prospect of wandering off the reservation.
Logic as a subject is viewed with grave suspicion, as if it might involuntarily take a person down the wrong track and dump him in a politically incorrect ditch—a fate to be avoided at all costs.
Therefore, the practice of rational debate is out. Too risky. Besides, the preferred method of dealing with opponents is screaming at them, shoving them off stage, and whining about “being triggered.”
If you think obtaining what’s called a liberal college education is vastly overrated (and absurdly expensive), you’re right. Learning logic, instead, would be a good start down a different road.
And an analysis of the principle of “greatest good for the greatest number” would be very, very useful—since it underpins so much of values-centered education these days.
What does greatest good mean, specifically? How would it be achieved? Who would implement it? How would the implementation affect individual freedom?
Wrestling with these questions would open up whole new territories of insight.
As I’ve mentioned in past articles, when I taught a few basics of logic to middle-school students, the clutter in their minds receded. They found the ability to follow a line of thought. For the first time, they recognized there was such a thing as a connected flow of reasoning from A to B to C to D. The lights went on.
The world may be sinking into deeper levels of know-nothing non-rationality, but that’s not a good excuse for trailing along down into the swamp. It should be a wake-up call to go the other way.
No matter what anyone says, it’s not a crime to be smarter than other people.
Logic is a set of tools. The more a student uses and sharpens them, the more alert, acute, and independent he becomes. The less he relies on any group.
And eventually he doesn’t mind not relying on the group. He enjoys his independence.
He feels comfortable and confident in it.
As he should.
Several years ago, I came across a letter to the editor of Commentary Magazine, from its January 1979 issue. The author was a Jefferson scholar, Wilbur Samuel Howell.
Howell made several key points. As a college student, Jefferson studied philosophy and logic under Professor William Small, at William and Mary. Small had come to the college from Aberdeen, Scotland, where he had studied under William Duncan, a renowned logician and author of Elements of Logick. Indeed, Jefferson later remarked that Professor Small gone a long a long way toward shaping his life.
Therefore, it’s no surprise that the Declaration of Independence would adhere to a logical structure. Indeed, the Declaration is a kind of argument from first premises, through to a conclusion.
I went back and read the Declaration, and I’ll open up its logical structure.
It begins with this:
“When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
Jefferson, in this prologue, indicates that the people should state their reasons for separating from a ruling power. Before he goes on to do that, he enunciates his first premises.
All men have rights, and to secure them, they create governments.
Second, the people have the authority to abolish any ruler that tries to destroy those rights, and, in its place, the people should institute a new government.
Third, when a long history of tyrannical abuse proves that the old government cannot be corrected, the people have a duty to overthrow it.
Here is the text:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. –Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.”
What remains is for Jefferson to list the abuses of the British Crown; to prove, in other words, that the King has, in fact, brought on such a stream of tyrannical actions.
Well, here are the abuses:
“He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
“He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
“He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
“He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
“He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
“He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
“He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
“He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
“He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
“He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
“He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
“For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
“For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
“For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
“For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
“For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
“For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
“For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
“For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
“For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
“He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
“He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
“He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
“He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
“He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”
At this point, Jefferson makes it clear that the colonists have tried, without success, to correct these tyrannical abuses through peaceful means. They are not acting in haste:
“In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
“Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity.”
Jefferson then announces his conclusion, based on the prologue, the original premises of his argument, and the examples he has cited to confirm that the heart of these premises is true:
“We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. 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.”
—Fire, passion, even poetry, held within the flow of a logical progression.
Jefferson was not only a devoted student of logic, he wanted to make the great case for freedom and independence by using its power.
In his mind, freedom and logic were connected.
If in our schools, in 2017, logic as a distinct subject has been reduced to paltry terms, how are students able to grasp the majestic nature of freedom, as expressed in the Declaration? How are they able to understand that living in freedom is more than vaguely drifting from one slogan to another, one addled piece of political rhetoric to another?
Note: James Madison, thought of by many as the father of the Constitution, studied logic intensely at the College of New Jersey. In fact, there are 122 pages of Madison’s own handwritten notes from the course. The course followed the pattern laid down in a famous 17th-century book, Logic or the Art of Thinking.
Note: My collection, The Matrix Revealed, contains a basic-starter logic course for inquiring minds. And my collection, Power Outside The Matrix, contains an extensive 11-hour audio presentation, Analyzing Information in the Age of Disinformation.
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Mr. Rappoport! I thank you for your incredible leadership back to Logic and Freedom. Thank you for another kick in the butt. Sir!
On the subject of group work in a University (UW)…it is a requirement in each course to complete a major project based on group work. As a 60 year old, this is what I found: Students today do not complete any coursework until 3 am the morning before it is due – this includes “group work.” While I took the work seriously (sorry I did in most cases), the end result was that the group benefited from my work and contributed little if anything to the end result. They do attend scheduled classes and listen to the lectures….but work? Ah, no. They expect to pass because they attended lectures…and they do. Everyone gets a trophy – whether they participated or not.
Oh yes. The group projects are the worst part of the education experience. They leash the individual’s performance to the performance of a few others, load up motivated students with excessive amounts of work, and allow the dregs to coast off their peer’s toil.
It’s insane trying to write a paper in a group when the majority of the team is unable to outline their thoughts and the general structure of the paper. Few seem to be able to conduct research and find sources. Fewer are able to write coherently.
“Stop pasting in information. We’re creating a research outline, not doing the research right now.”
“You probably shouldn’t use the first person in this technical report.”
“So any progress on those interviews? Oh, you talked to your roommate. Great.”
“You really can only meet at 10 p.m.?”
and of course: “Don’t worry about it. I’m going to revise it later tonight.”
The most infuriating part is that any arguments against the merits of group projects are met with “This is what it’s like in the real world. You have to learn to work with people.” It’s insidious conditioning.
The education system seems so irrational. But, since I’ve begun reading Jon’s articles, it all makes sense.
Take heart. In the real world, all those people who graduated because you did the work…..well, they’ll find out that those student loans for learning how to address a transgender properly take a long time to pay off when you work as a protester for Soros.
thanks for the repartee. it is especially appreciated in the morning : – }
Of course!
Pity the ‘levy war’ has become so dominant. Much of this applies now to the UK and far more so to the EU.
I have never read a more eloquent tribute to logic and independent thought. Thank you, Professor Rappoport.
Yes, this is how I was taught and it has served me well. I can’t even read most articles today because they are so poorly written and so illogical.
Thank you for a great article….and so right on the money.
I noticed you have a course but the cost is out of my reach. Can you recommend anything you have written (or others have written) that teaches the basics of how to think logically and make decisions that would be available for those of us with limited incomes?
Thank you again and for your response to my question.
Daniel LeBlanc
Although written for teachers, Teaching Argument Writing, Grades 6-12 by George Hillock is by far the best introduction to logical reasoning at a cheap price.
I’m an American living in Sweden (the belly of the beast) with 2 children, now in their 20’s. Your articles have been instrumental in helping me to…uhh…”vaccinate” them against the hive mentality. You hold a special place in our ever increasing list of extraordinary people we call “The Pantheon of Unsung Heroes”. Many thanks to you, Jon.
Fascinating! Never thought to compare logic to freedom in such a manner – but ’tis so. Thanks for this!
Good read
When I was a kid many years ago, we were told to put on our “thinking caps” by our teachers in order that we apply reason to a question. Now, young adults in hysterics go marching with pink “pussy hats.”
Thomas Jefferson was not Mr. Spock from Star Trek. People that are taught Euclid’s Elements of Geometry are trained in deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning are the two ways logic is practiced. You might have mentioned these.
I know for a fact that the so called “geometry” text books used in public schools here in Pennsylvania do not contain Euclid’s elements of Geometry. Algebraic formula describing two and three dimensional areas are not geometry. Geometry is not mathematics.
Mathematics professors are not geometers. Only Euclid’s Elements is geometry. When you study the discipline of Geometry it trains your mind to recognized when you are being lied to.
Going to college in the mid to late 70’s I left several years to work overseas. When I returned in ’85 I returned to college interested in pursuing a postgraduate degree. But the instruction methods had changed radically. Before we were to work alone on our studies, but by the mid 80s it was group study. My first reaction was “What is this BS?” I was a bit disoriented about the value of this new method.
But it soon became apparent that opinions trumped facts and that generally the biggest idiot in the group became the leader. This dumbed down the process to the level of the least capable ruling over the better capable. I noticed the other students didn’t protest abject stupidity and went along to get along.
I went through this idiocy for one semester and I figured out that I’m not being educated and paying a lot of money to commit brain suicide. I quit and sought my education via personal mentors, which proved superior what the universities had to offer.
This article woke up within me how evil and deleterious education has become.
One experience I’ll never forget, I was called to teach as a substitute a class to high school students. I gave them an assignment and they all stared at me puzzled. So I gave in and said it’s okay to study in groups. Suddenly their expressions were of relief and quickly formed into groups and started solving the problem as a group.
They had no idea how to solve a problem on their own. They didn’t know where to start. They were completely lost and we as a civilization are on the path to becoming lost and it’s scary that the biggest idiots of the study groups have graduated to become the gen X and gen Y leaders.
Excellent piece, Jon. I agree completely. Much of what masquerades as rational thought these days is mental emotionalism. The exercise of logic is as uncomfortable to Normals living in The Truman Show as is the assumption of personal responsibility. Immersing one’s self within the hive and believing what the hive believes avoids the risk of personal error. An excellent read on this subject is ‘The True Believer’ by Eric Hoffer.
I’ve encountered on numerous occasions those three reactive elements on You Tube comment sections. It is astonishing how rampant it is in the world. Simple facts can be written out in short sentences and readers will STILL miss the main concept and its logical extension.
As for the Declaration of Independence–for many years I had nagging thoughts about what was written there. One day I actually read each sentence and thought about their meaning. I came to the conclusion that there are at least three logical fallacies contained in its introduction. Like most everyone else, for years I just breezed through it not questioning every statement, disregarding that mental hiccup that spoke: Wait a minute, is that really true?
As far as Rights are concerned, the document is a farce. The authors assume that a person knows the meaning of “Rights” without the need for definition. (Madison in a letter to the State legislature, attempted to delineate the rights of the majority vs the minority and failed miserably in his logic.) The English did not know any better the meaning of Rights in the 1700s than the common American does today. Englishmen, who trace their Rights back through the Magna Carta, don’t realize the king did not consent out of recognition and honor of their proposed Rights, but from the threat of combined force to depose or imprison him. Analyze the preamble of the Bill of Rights and you will find Congress violated the entire precis of the Declaration with regard to Rights.
The truth is, the Declaration’s Signatories were not declaring independence from English democracy, but the Divine Right of kings–monarchy, to which they substituted the combined Natural Rights of the majority. Is plunder any less tolerable, whether by one man, a minority, or a majority? Can the will of the majority supersede the UNALIENABLE right of the individual? Only through force.
The Revolutionary War was not fought over freedom, independence, nor equality. And most certainly not over Rights. It was fought over who had the power to control colonial money:
“The inability of the Colonists to get power to issue their own money permanently out of the hands of George III and the international bankers was the prime reason for the revolutionary war.” –Franklin
“A reform is a correction of abuses; a revolution is a transfer of power.” –E.R. Bulwer-Lytton
Bastiat was correct: “if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if
law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder-is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?”
Government cannot rightfully do that which the individual cannot rightfully or legally do.
George Carlin told his spectators that any Right (“that which a person has a just claim to; power, privilege, etc.”) that can be taken away is not a Right, but a privilege. If Man was endowed with Natural Rights by his Creator, then that Creator has an obligation to maintain them in the recipient where the recipient cannot, and the recipient is justified in asserting them by any means. But we see that no such intervention by any Creator throughout history in the cause of individual or collective Rights was ever instigated. Man has always been compelled to assert them by collective force. And therein lies the fallacy of the English system of Representative government.
If Rights are unalienable, they cannot be given nor taken. They cannot be transferred nor apportioned. Representative government is an abrogation of that premise, especially by ballot. How congruent is the English system of government with Natural Rights? How logical is that?
JB you are missing many points and are incorrect on many as well. Common law was the ancient law and the people were well versed in, which is what our republic was based on. Rights are inherent, and its up to the people to see that the government they created protect these rights and serve the people. People are much stupider today then they were back then, which is really sad, considering Dickens tales of life of the common person. The pinnacle of our (modern)society was the time of Laura Ingalls Wilder.
The people have failed because they disparage a divinely inspired template for freedom/responsibility and do not exercise these rights. The result is ignorance and half truths, such as yours, deliberate or not? No, they did not grant the majority any power, which is why we have a constitutional republic, not a democracy. They did depose the king and make a nation of laws not men.
Our inherent right to property, liberty, life and the pursuit of happiness are basic rights which all animals possess, respect and practice. Only humans defy natural law and seek to enslave and control and harm each other. Wolves do not need a constitution for they have honor.
The fight over who controls our money, which is property, has been ongoing. Andrew Jackson wrestled control back from the bankers only to have the people fail to defend their right to property, hence fiat currency continues to make everyone debt slaves, with few understanding or caring about this. This takeover has progressed to seek to create a nifty one world government which seeks to control every aspect of your life thru this one little thing; money. You make it sound as if this is a frivolous fight. Without control or ownership of your property, you can not live, you can not feed yourself or your family. This is a most important right, given to us as a birthright.
Jon has again done a beautiful job in framing divine law with logic. It could be nothing less or it would not be divine.
These documents are not a farce, they are merely a beginning of a higher level of being that humans can consent to and build on, or not.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other”. – John Adams
A republic is not an easy form of government to live under, and when the responsibility of citizenship is evaded, democracy decays and authoritarianism takes over. Earl Warren, “A Republic, If You Can Keep It”, p 13.
The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his (God’s) laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. 1772, Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109.
JB! Finally someone on here gets it!
What is not right action (violence or force initiated that causes harm to another) by an individual can NEVER be bestowed upon a group, and that INCLUDES police and military folks!
JB is spot on here. The false religion of external authority still reigns supreme in this land and nearly EVERYONE has faith in it.
There is no need for laws folks, because if it is outside of Natural Law principles than it is errant, if it aligns, it is superfluous. Life, is quite simple, but your controllers, who have manipulated societies for as long we have a record, use FEAR to bind you into falling victim to their mind control aka (Govern/MENT – Control, to rule / Mind). Might does not make right and the whole premise of government authority is based on the notion that it does.
There is a massive difference between force and violence (the only error I notice in JB’s comment was the incorrect word “force” was placed where “violence” should, and it is critical to make that distinction).
Force = the energy necessary to make change. What is perceived as violence in the terms of a forceful encounter between an aggressor and defender is actually all FORCE, but only one actor engaged in VIOLATION or Violence. It ABSOLUTELY matters who started it.
Pardon the caps, I have no other way of emphasizing my words, to my knowledge anyway.
I find it interesting that we have folks who don’t believe humans have rights, but rather privileges, yet these people are the ones clamoring to stop “VIOLENCE”, well, how can you have a violation of something that doesn’t have an inherent right? Additionally, they are the first to run to an external authority who has illegitimately gained a monopoly on the initiation of violence (see mind control), to enact real violence against people who “might” become violent or who, God forbid, want to put something in their body or want someone else to put something in their body. Imagine that? The hypocrisy. And its rampant. Heck, I bet half of the readers here actually believe it is rightful behavior to make laws on drugs.
Is that you? Do you believe you or anyone else has the authority to rule someone else’s body, so as to vacate them from their self-ownership because of what they “may” do when they become addicted? A nation comprised of vapid children, throwing tantrums and running to mommy and daddy because they didn’t get their way. 99.9999% of the population are guilty of this crime, DO THE MATH.
this isn’t hate folks, just tough love. The time for lubrication over agitation is over. We see what collectivism gets us, and its time for some stern talking.
it felt good to read your comment, honestliberty. almost like taking a
shower.
Far be it from me to comment on what Americans think or what they don’t think, but the Truth of this matter is that Americans have NO idea the Declaration of Independence has been sold at auction, as a Historical Document of NO value.
So too has your CONstitution, along with the Magna Carta.
Go check inventories of Christies auctions.
America…..is a Colony of Britain. Get over yourselves and move on!
Absolutely brilliant article!