I love all you’ve written here. After reading it, I feel more inclined to share with you a thought I’ve held for a long time, as a Canadian observing you Americans down there.
I trust you’ll hear this in the least offensive way possible. 😬
Your “founding fathers” narrative (and the devotees who cling to it without question) has always struck me the same way that religious indoctrination does. It contains the endearing heroic emotional “heartstring pull” required for people with compassion and goodwill to accept it and, for generation after generation, to defend it. Like many religions, it’s possible that the original seeds of intention are sown in fertile soil but over time and exposure to corruption the good intentions are overcome by bad apples. Weird analogy but you get the gist. 😉
At this point in my (un)learning, I’m questioning whether ANY of our current systems were ever constructed with good intentions and good will...from the get-go.
I appreciate your writing style. Haven't read many of your articles, but appreciate the politically oriented. Yesterday's meme was a gem. I'm feeling like that guy bound in every way by a system that has no constructive awareness of my existence. Consent of the governed? No consent necessary! That phrase brings to mind John Galt's (Atlas Shrugged) consent of the victim remark. Voting is nothing more then a ritual. Anyone who's looked into the matter minimally understands that political candidates @ the national level are preselected, and serve the interests of the selectors.
Your theme articulated concepts of which I had been only dimly aware in my own mind.
I’m def at the limit of my knowledge here! Politics is not reeeeally an area of interest for me. I find myself in the sovereignty conversation to find solutions for our culture malaise and decline from more of an ethical/spiritual perspective. You’ve got the political angle covered. ;)
I think it IS stunning that some clever humans from our past were able to design and implement systems of control that create the illusion of freedom for the citizenry living within them. 😉
For example, the amendments that half your citizens steadfastly defend and the other half try to change are treated like gifts or permissions granted by your Constitution rather than simply birthrights we all naturally own. It’s a brilliant way to prevent citizens from really breaking free from the control construct of hierarchy.
I’m trying to express this properly: it’s almost like your Constitution has cast a spell, that invokes the “left and right” to fight about the document rather than breaking free from the spell fully to see how the document itself is stealing your consent. It’s a trap within a trap, ultimately.
This is not to say that the US is not different from blatant tyrannies and overtly oppressive regimes that have been way worse to live under. BUT the illusion of freedom you (and Canadians, for that matter) all live under dissuades the citizenry from ever questioning the system. Covert slavery rather than overt. Not sure which one’s worse.
Yes they are hard to find. James Corbett is definitely a voluntary Anarchist although he doesn’t wave that flag. Check out Liberty Newspaper. Really great stuff!
Great piece! I’ll add something I heard Larken Rose say. People were worried how there could be a cotton industry WITHOUT slavery. I brought this up in my “Where Does Authority Come From” article. Jefferson also talked about tearing it down and rebuilding when it wasn’t working. Not working when it’s run by an oligarchy, the Central Bankers Jefferson warned about.
Thanks, but no need for condolences, I'm blessed to be so well connected to the reality of this world, to have been yanked behind the curtain of conventional reality, even though the knowledge and benefits gained have cost me a literal legendary fortune. I had developed trading systems, the last was the most accurate, in terms of timing transactions, and most elegant. Within 10 minutes of the demonstration of its value, it was stolen from my computer, and for sometime I was made to forget its existence.
My state of mind is such now that I think everything that happens works for the GOOD.
Thanks, Chris. The trouble is, this all sounds deeply leftist. "Permanent revolution," and all that. I think a lot of constitutional conservatives (that is, people who are conservative by nature) really do believe that some things are rooted in human nature and not subject to volitional revision: that the notion that there are aspects of ourselves that we must *receive* and do not *create* applies to human societies as well as human individuals, and that the kind of anarchy you are advocating is an affront in pretty much precisely the same way that transgenderism is an affront -- an affront to nature, to the God-given, to eternal verities. Now constitutionally, by the nature of your personality, something there chafes you, perhaps not in the spot where the radicals of sexual libertinism feel the chafe, but somewhere else. But your response is basically the same. tl;dr -- I read this and I feel like I'm reading a leftist who happens to map to conservatism on some issues. And frankly, it also reminds me of where the Founders were *also* leftists in this broad sense, and why I dislike revolutionary philosophies.
I love all you’ve written here. After reading it, I feel more inclined to share with you a thought I’ve held for a long time, as a Canadian observing you Americans down there.
I trust you’ll hear this in the least offensive way possible. 😬
Your “founding fathers” narrative (and the devotees who cling to it without question) has always struck me the same way that religious indoctrination does. It contains the endearing heroic emotional “heartstring pull” required for people with compassion and goodwill to accept it and, for generation after generation, to defend it. Like many religions, it’s possible that the original seeds of intention are sown in fertile soil but over time and exposure to corruption the good intentions are overcome by bad apples. Weird analogy but you get the gist. 😉
At this point in my (un)learning, I’m questioning whether ANY of our current systems were ever constructed with good intentions and good will...from the get-go.
"Now, we have a choice. If you believe in natural law and the cause of human liberty, as the Founding Fathers did, you can…
a) insist that we remain at 2.0 forever, or
b) continue their work and take us to 3.0."
I am going with B, all the way. Awesome image at the end. Is that an AI prompt? I love it. Perfect.
I appreciate your writing style. Haven't read many of your articles, but appreciate the politically oriented. Yesterday's meme was a gem. I'm feeling like that guy bound in every way by a system that has no constructive awareness of my existence. Consent of the governed? No consent necessary! That phrase brings to mind John Galt's (Atlas Shrugged) consent of the victim remark. Voting is nothing more then a ritual. Anyone who's looked into the matter minimally understands that political candidates @ the national level are preselected, and serve the interests of the selectors.
Your theme articulated concepts of which I had been only dimly aware in my own mind.
Thanks
Thanks for your reply.🙂
I’m def at the limit of my knowledge here! Politics is not reeeeally an area of interest for me. I find myself in the sovereignty conversation to find solutions for our culture malaise and decline from more of an ethical/spiritual perspective. You’ve got the political angle covered. ;)
I think it IS stunning that some clever humans from our past were able to design and implement systems of control that create the illusion of freedom for the citizenry living within them. 😉
For example, the amendments that half your citizens steadfastly defend and the other half try to change are treated like gifts or permissions granted by your Constitution rather than simply birthrights we all naturally own. It’s a brilliant way to prevent citizens from really breaking free from the control construct of hierarchy.
I’m trying to express this properly: it’s almost like your Constitution has cast a spell, that invokes the “left and right” to fight about the document rather than breaking free from the spell fully to see how the document itself is stealing your consent. It’s a trap within a trap, ultimately.
This is not to say that the US is not different from blatant tyrannies and overtly oppressive regimes that have been way worse to live under. BUT the illusion of freedom you (and Canadians, for that matter) all live under dissuades the citizenry from ever questioning the system. Covert slavery rather than overt. Not sure which one’s worse.
Yes they are hard to find. James Corbett is definitely a voluntary Anarchist although he doesn’t wave that flag. Check out Liberty Newspaper. Really great stuff!
Great piece! I’ll add something I heard Larken Rose say. People were worried how there could be a cotton industry WITHOUT slavery. I brought this up in my “Where Does Authority Come From” article. Jefferson also talked about tearing it down and rebuilding when it wasn’t working. Not working when it’s run by an oligarchy, the Central Bankers Jefferson warned about.
Thanks, but no need for condolences, I'm blessed to be so well connected to the reality of this world, to have been yanked behind the curtain of conventional reality, even though the knowledge and benefits gained have cost me a literal legendary fortune. I had developed trading systems, the last was the most accurate, in terms of timing transactions, and most elegant. Within 10 minutes of the demonstration of its value, it was stolen from my computer, and for sometime I was made to forget its existence.
My state of mind is such now that I think everything that happens works for the GOOD.
Thanks, Chris. The trouble is, this all sounds deeply leftist. "Permanent revolution," and all that. I think a lot of constitutional conservatives (that is, people who are conservative by nature) really do believe that some things are rooted in human nature and not subject to volitional revision: that the notion that there are aspects of ourselves that we must *receive* and do not *create* applies to human societies as well as human individuals, and that the kind of anarchy you are advocating is an affront in pretty much precisely the same way that transgenderism is an affront -- an affront to nature, to the God-given, to eternal verities. Now constitutionally, by the nature of your personality, something there chafes you, perhaps not in the spot where the radicals of sexual libertinism feel the chafe, but somewhere else. But your response is basically the same. tl;dr -- I read this and I feel like I'm reading a leftist who happens to map to conservatism on some issues. And frankly, it also reminds me of where the Founders were *also* leftists in this broad sense, and why I dislike revolutionary philosophies.