John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said, "Those who own the country ought to govern it."
John Jay wasn't a fan of self-governance, opposed the Bill of Rights and argued for a strong central government model during the constitutional debates.
He had, however, been a big supporter of George Washington during the War of Independence, who considered him essential to the ultimate success of the rebellion. And recognizing John Jay's contributions, offered him any position in the newly formed Republic he wanted. He chose Chief Justice of the first US Supreme Court. In that role he was able to shape the meaning and trajectory of the governing document.
In doing so he put into motion a theory of jurisprudence that immediately began to rein in the excesses in the Bill of Rights he had unsuccessfully argued against in the adoption of the US Constitution.
The first top court established the path redefining each and every one of the first ten amendments to be constrained from their original intent and plain language. The US Constitution isn't the problem. It's the sabotage of it led by politicians in black robes since the moment it was approved that is.
Note: the descendants of John Jay were early supporters of the eugenics movement, owned the earliest pharmaceutical companies, supported Rockefeller medicine and supported the eugenics practice of sterilization that the landmark case, Buck v. Bell upheld in Oliver Wendell Holmes "three generations of imbeciles is enough" 8-1 ruling. Cited by defendants at Nuremberg trials, "but you Americans do it, what's the big deal?" (precedent still stands in US)
Not all of the Founding Father's supported the governing contract we thought we had. Particularly the sections about individual liberty and freedom. Our constitutional protections of liberty as the majority of Founders envisioned can be restored by judges faithful to it. Not the case law precedents that have eviscerated it.
William Jay Schieffelin was the first son of William Henry Schieffelin and Mary Jay Schieffelin.
William’s mother was the daughter of John Jay, who was the grandson of John Jay. His paternal ancestors were Jacob Schieffelin and Hannah Lawrence Schieffelin
Schieffelin & Co.—The oldest wholesale drug house in New York City
The Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association (1912)
- Invitees: William J(ay) Schieffelin, Edward Bernays, Simon & Abraham Flexner, JD Rockefeller, Franklin D Roosevelt and a cast of other terribles. Though a few reformed their wayward thinking before they died.
That Eugenics NYT piece from over a century ago has a lot of interesting names, a rabbit hole I poked my head into a little to come up with this summary of VIP who's who's you may also find interesting. And connects many dots that are becoming apparent in our present.
Invitees:
- Edward Bernays, father of modern propaganda, advertising. Both Joseph Goebbels and Madison Avenue, informed by his teachings. Coined the phrase "quack medicine" to discredit natural healers. Successfully.
- Simon and Abraham Flexner. Authors of the "Flexner Report." Used by legislators and congress to criminalize natural healers, put natural healing schools out of business, asserted allopathic (western) medicine as the only real "evidence-based" healing, effectively killing homeopathy, herbalism and naturopathy:
- Rabbi Stephen S Wise. He is an enigma. He was the Jesse Jackson of American Jewry in the first half of the 20th century. A Zionist who's early work to establish a Jewish homeland in the British Palestine Mandate eventually led to the establishment of the State of Israel. He was FDR's most senior Jewish influencer. Did a lot of good for Jews. But...he also was who helped conceal the true horrors of the Holocaust from FDR and the public, and opposed efforts to expose it. I found this Wikipedia write up on him interesting. Particularly the section "Criticism":
And Rabbi Wise was an ardent eugnecist. One of the early faith leaders to advance it. As highlighted in the following book link. It's not to say that Rabbi Wise supported the Holocaust. But it shows how even Jews can co-author their own holocaust with their grandiose ideas about "fixing" mankind:
Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement
"She specifically documents how Protestant, Jewish, and a limited number of Catholic religious leaders contributed to making American eugenics the foremost eugenics movement in the world by the 1920s and sought the creation of a 'good society" in America by means of those methods that the eugenics movement advocated: sterilization, immigration restriction, incarceration, intelligence testing, and statistical analysis applied to the racial/ethnic/genetic backgrounds of families."
"The American eugenics movement became the model used by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, who turned their zealousness for eugenics as the means of preserving the health of the nation into, first, the murder of the disabled, and, subsequently, the brutalization and murder of millions of innocent men, women, and children in the final solution."
Both Rabbi Leon Harrison of Temple Israel in St. Louis and Rabbi Stephen Wise publicly expressed opposition to intermarriage, but some Reform rabbis objected. The advocates of intermarriage did not view Jews as a race, while the opponents did (pp. 106-7). In 1915, Rabbi Max Reichler (1886-1957) wrote an essay seeking to reconcile the divergent views and reconcile Judaism with eugenics."
"Rabbi Wise subsequently followed Rabbi Reichler s lead in seeking accommodation (pp. 108-9). In the same way that Protestants and some Catholics had come to support eugenics, Jews also came to be numbered among the advocates of the movement in the early twentieth century."
- William J Schieffelin - Descendant of John Jay, first Supreme Court Chief Justice of the US. Family owned the oldest pharmaceutical company in the US, headed up early Big Pharma trade association. Eugenicist:
- Paul U Kellogg - another enigma. He is the father of the modern "Social Justice" movement. And supported eugenics. But it's hard to reconcile with his work to help blacks and other minorities. I suppose someone can be a eugenicist without being a racist. Just get rid of the undesirables, disabled, antisocials without regard to race?:
- The American Society on Medical Sociology. This is the theory of medicine that gives rise to the gender/trans movement. Social justice through medicine. It is a form of "Marxist Conflict Theory" of how ruling classes can enact power through medicine. Eugenics:
- Yale University Civics Club. Prescott Bush, father of George HW Bush was a student at Yale in 2013. And had been president of his high school civics club in 1912. His family was already tight with the Rockefeller's, his father, Samuel Bush, worked for Frank Rockefeller, John D Rockefeller's brother. Prescott Bush was a eugenicist, who was also "Hitler's Banker." And was one of the six Yale students in attendance.
- Mrs. W K Vanderbilt. Aka Anne Harriman who married into the Vanderbilt railroad dynasty. Daughter of Oliver Harriman, from a railroad tycoon family himself, handled the finances, went into banking. Brother of Edward Harriman. Partner in bank Prescott Bush worked for as "Hitler's Banker."
This cast of eugenicists helped set up the medical system that is the tip of the spear today against individual liberty and freedom. I'll develop the field of Medical Sociology mentioned in the NYT piece into its essential role necessary to fundamentally transform a free nation into an authoritarian one in my next comment below. Leads directly to Covid-19 plandemic. How medical tyranny is accomplished.
And Medical Sociology gave rise to an organization, "Association of Internes and Medical Students," that was disbanded and scattered to other medical sociology movements after it was associated with the Red Scare during the McCarthy Anti-Communist hearings:
9.4 “To Combine Health Campaigns with Mass Movements”
11 The Patriotic Hygiene Campaign and the Construction of Clean New People
17.3 From “the Benevolent Medicine” to the “Formula for Money-Making”
19 A Public Country and Its Expansion
20 The Logic of Disease Politics
23 A Nation-State? A Democratic State?
From the book's official description:
"Diseases are everyday, ordinary occurrences intimately related to people’s daily lives. However, as the metaphor of the “Sick Man of East Asia” emerged against the backdrop of a weak modern China, health care and the curing of diseases were turned into grand state politics with far-reaching implications. This book, starting with the argument for diseases being metaphors, describes and interprets such incidents in China’s history as the Abolishment of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the Patriotic Hygiene Campaign and the Cooperative Medical Services. In an effort to reveal the internal logic of disease politics in the transformation of the state-people relationship, the book analyzes key aspects including the politicization and inclusion of diseases in state governance, the double disciplining of hygiene, legitimacy construction of the state, the remaking of the nationals, and the expansion of the “publicness” of the state. The book argues that disease politics in modern China has developed following the path from nationals to the people, and then to citizens, or from crisis politics and mobilization politics to life politics. In addition, a marked change has occurred in China’s state building: increasingly standard, rationalized and institutionalized means have been employed while the non-standard means, such as large-scale mobilization and ideological coercion, had been historically used in China."
That book was introduced to me in March, 2020 in the highly influential Council on Foreign Relations article instructing the west to follow China's authoritarian pandemic model:
That describes "Disease Politics" as a means to fundamentally transform a country of individual rights-based nationals into authoritarian collectivists in a global community. The book may as well be a blueprint for what is descending across the western world today, in the form of pandemic protocols experienced and WHO pandemic treaties planned. Me thinks Founder John Jay approves.
My rights are being violated? Maybe but only so much as I, or you, allow and obviously we make a hell of a lot of allowances. Building a program on rights is one thing, selling such is another kettle of fish.
I'm thinking the best approach is that it's the economy, stupid! Enlightened self interest. Bread on the table. Chicken in MY pot, two cars in MY garage.
The economy is upstream from culture and politics.
Laissez-faire capitalism; the economy, all hands off it except Adam Smith's invisible one. The market decides the value.
I'm so old I can remember buying ten White Castle hamburgers for a buck. The economy back then was far closer to laissez-faire, far less government regulation and control.
Maura's right, & applying such to The Freedom Scale, them there rights violations, too philosophical, a hard sell.
On the other hand, 10 cent burgers, most all would vote, work, fight for that!
But of course, as will all your suggestions. As will any rational suggestions.
The main point I was trying to make though is that while freedom is what's being offered selling such as burgers is an easier sell than selling it as rights.
Yeah. That was a big point in the book I mentioned, too!
But… someone has to do the philosophical work in order to know what the best course is, and what the correct principles are. And which burgers to sell.
Frankly, given plethora logical fallacies, humans simply don’t think — much less behave — logically, reasonably, rationally. We like to believe or opine or feel or even self-deceptively “know” that we behave such, but the reality is that we are an exceptionally ILLOGICAL species.
Logic simply doesn’t explain HOW human cognition (aka memory, knowledge, perception) and meta-cognition (aka insight) work.
Want to understand HOW the human mind works in terms of reasoning? Try to fully understand MOTIVATED reasoning. Get some real insight into what motivates why you think one way instead of other ways.
I don’t put much stock in what we humans have come up with as “philosophical truths” in the specific context of “The wisdom of the wise will vanish, and the intelligence of the intelligent will be hidden.” This being said, I don’t expect anyone to cognitively (or meta-cognitively) behave as I do. I pity the man who is in any way similar to me. 😅
Check (if you wish) the syllogisms and reasoning in the chart at the end of this piece. https://christophercook.substack.com/p/exact-moment-i-became-anarchist Can you find any premises that are not true or any conclusions that do not follow from the premises? Sometimes, philosophical truths are there and true whether people agree with them or not.
(Also note that God would not make a universe based on rules, and grant us the ability to reason, and yet somehow make the rules unintelligible through reason. That would be arbitrary and cruel, and God is not cruel.)
Maybe the rules of logic are like the laws of physics and natural law. Humans discover them, but they don’t have their origin in human reasoning.
Frankly, I have no idea what God has in store for humanity, given the history of pathocracy. I have no idea why God has given the psychopaths so much power or why God has allowed the psychopaths (along with the malevolent deceivers in league with the father of lies) to become so powerful. Maybe 🤔 God wants to show everyone (1) how evil humans can become and (2) the consequences or effects of humans allowing the psychopaths unfettered control over human affairs.
I want to believe that God has a logical motive behind creating evil, as per Isaiah 45:7. The word “evil” is the same Hebrew word used when describing the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of the good and the evil. Maybe God uses evil doers to punish even worse evil doers.
Anyway — and sorry — this is supposed to be about philosophy (particularly about political philosophy) and not about theology or existentialism or ontology.
"Frankly, I have no idea what God has in store for humanity, given the history of pathocracy. I have no idea why God has given the psychopaths so much power or why God has allowed the psychopaths"
—Personally, I think the answer is simple. God granted us freedom because it is absolutely essential. To make us real. To make love real. To make everything real. It's not real if we're not free. It's not real if we are compelled (to love, do good, etc.)
So, in this free universe of free people, bad things are going to happen, and people are going to do bad things. It is up to US to make it right. Not to sit waiting for God to do something about it, or to divine His will. We already know what the right thing to do is. God wove that into the universe, and that knowledge into us. Now we just have to do it.
God has warned US (i.e. humanity collectively) about the secret combinations of the devil. The consequences of WE ignoring this warning are evident in terms of what the world is becoming, i.e. totalitarian and pathocratic. The vast majority of people are not psychopaths. Yet the vast majority of people are TOLERANT — How liberal of US! — of psychopaths having taken over religious, political, financial and academic establishments. This “tolerance” is touted as good. Woe unto them who call evil “good”. This is precisely why I believe that liberals are spiritually sick-unto-death and cancerous. Will the conservatives prevail, in the realms of religion and politics and economics and academia?? I suppose this all depends on if one is motivated by optimism or pragmatism or cynicism or nihilism.
Personally, I’m not at all optimistic about the commoners — obviously including people who are entirely motivated by and grounded in common sense and common knowledge — overcoming the global pathocratic system. Frankly, I don’t know how it can be. How many slave revolts have there been historically? How many have succeeded? I’d say that the attempt by the English colonies in North America to completely throw off the power of the English Crown and the power of the City of London was a complete and dismal failure, seeing what the USA has become. Maybe I’m missing some very, Very, VERY big pieces of the puzzle in my worldview.
Bastiat figured it out and spelled it out in "The Law" released in 1850. Your readers may find this interesting as to where we are today. https://www.courageouslion.us/p/the-law-2024
Right On Christopher! Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were the True drivers of Freedom. TJ also tried hard to free the slaves in his initial drafts of the Declaration of Independence but was forced to take it out or the southern states would not accept it.
Key Driver of the AWI: A few of the main things are he brought into America Thomas Paine, brought in the French to supply America and eventually with their army and navy which was key.
I did not know he was an anti-federalist. That is great. I am still learning about them. Like most of us, I am better educated about the federalists, since they won!
Unfortunately. And they write Musicals and Songs about them (Hamilton) which gets Big Play by the Media. Imagine this for the man who was a driving force for the Rothschilds Central Bank.
In this Substack it sounds as if you are comparing the Government to God. That you are Darwin explaining that we are moral animals evolved from savage animals. We naturally have a moral code of law and order within us. We don't need a ruling God, king or Government for that moral code to exist.
The atheistic religion of Woke put the individual identity above the collective truth. Christians argue it was the death of God that left a void that the individual self filled. I believe it is trial and error. A mutation, if you will.
What will the death of Government bring? I doubt it will be the anarchy that everyone expects, but it will change life as we know it.
The founding fathers are just apart of the evolution of the moral animal. So, is the monarchy and God. I guess we are at the cusp of the next evolutionary state of the moral animal development.
Authority is just made up limits, boundaries and rules, by the moral animal. These things can bring security and protection via a collective order from the people or it can be smothering. It can hold back growth and away to survive change.
My dad told me in a dream, "Sometimes it is okay to break the rules. Just make sure you break them to make something better and not just because you don't like the rule."
I wonder that you are describing natural authority as capable of bringing about “security and protection”, but such authority is only imaginary “limits, boundaries and rules” invented by moral animals, while there might also be supernatural authority, which transcends human morality and is sublime, i.e. beyond ordinary human understanding. “The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father.”
Maybe when it comes to ideas such as “authority”, there are secular, worldly explanations as well as spiritual, otherworldly explanations? I don’t know much about what real power is.
I agree with you 100% that authority is will. You have the will to lay down your life and pick it up again for whatever you believe in. The evolution of morality is not about doing what we are told but having our own will, self authority, self discipline, self awareness, self governance and taking responsibility for our own actions to create order out of choas. I don't believe God has authority, will or is moral. To me God is a North Star and guiding lighting. God is not about creating order out of chaos. That is a human desire. Anything that is supreme, is a North Star, a guiding light and a sun that we reach for and helps us grow. God guides us aĺ through the chaos not makes order out of it. That is what religion is all about. Religion, Monarchy and politics is just apart of the moral animal evolution, which is about creating order iut of the unknownand chaotic. Anything that is supernatural is imaginary, however, a lot of imagination becomes reality. Reality is a canvas for imagination.
I love that you comment on feelings and thinking. Both are vital and worth balancing.
The individual and the community is another polarity that we must dance with.
It reminds me of the word hero you used in the last section. The hero's journey is generally a masculine journey, regardless of gender. Not everyone fights the dragons or saves the damsel in distress.
Those of us who do not fight the dragons and face the hero's journey choose connection, relationship, and community. We have a different journey full of unique obstacles. It is a path that involves finding and establishing our Self in relationship, how to be alone, and how to be together with healthy interactions. The feminine way (regardless of gender). Everyone carries both masculine and feminine energy. We must learn to dance with both.
I share this because often we only see one side of the story. Our world is full of stories and movies that portray a hero on their journey to save the day. We often forget those who hold things together, bring in the orphans with open arms, or gather together in times of need.
I'm not suggesting I disagree with anything you have said. I am just expanding the conversation in case this is valuable. It will take all of us to focus on our own path, whatever that is.
"I love that you comment on feelings and thinking. Both are vital and worth balancing."
—I took a personality test recently that had me something like 52 percent thinking and 48 percent feeling. That's probably not far off. On a day to day basis, I am a thinker, but the thought sits atop of an ocean of emotional motivations.
Yes, this is a good expansion. We need both energies. And we need the true diversity of individuals (rather than the left's group-based 'diversity').
I agree that it is important to know how to be alone. Some people hear that you went to dinner by yourself and think it's weird and impossible. But if you're comfortable with yourself, it's perfectly fine. My wife went to Disney by herself a few years ago (long story as to why). She had a blast, and didn't start missing us until a couple of days in.
I am also of the view, however, that people generally need people. More people today are alone than ever, and it is not healthy. I know that our movement attracts individualists, and people are are more self-reliant, and that is great. But all the evidence shows that outcomes are better with human contact. So they key is to be an actuated individual and then share yourself with other such people. I know specific circumstances vary, but I think family and community are best if possible.
That is part of what I am doing with the distributed nation concept.
We don't want control. We don't want rulers or centralized anything. But we do want **something** more than nothing.
We want more than just atomized individual freedom-lovers on their own islands—believing roughly the same thing, but rarely talking and never working together. We want some sort of community without any sort of collectivism.
I have been working to thread that needle. As you read forward, you will see a lot more on how I propose we do that.
"We do not solely want to feel or suspect that our principles might be true. We need to know."
That's a very important point: going by feel is basically what gets the Leftists bogged down every time.
"There is good reason to believe that order can be maintained without empowering a government that violates individual rights every day, as a part of its normal operations."
The thing is, we've gotten to a point where through some sleight of hand and universal obligatory schooling (I have a bee in my bonnet about that, fair warning) there has been a redefinition of just about every term involved: freedom, power, government, democracy etc. In fact, from the point of view of the present system it is regular people with their goddam individual rights that just keep standing in the way of law and order.
(I skipped the start of this because I want to read the book, sounds fascinating.)
" In fact, from the point of view of the present system it is regular people with their goddam individual rights that just keep standing in the way of law and order."
—This has been a part of the leftist project since almost the beginning. They've been saying, for 150 years, words to the effect of "The era of the individual is over; the era of the collective is here." Sometimes in almost as many words.
Today's global elitism seems to be a continuation of the core leftist project by other means.
Right, though I’ve been thinking lately that it starts in the Enlightenment and the push for Universal Suffrage that resulted from that. “Let’s give them all votes… oh wait they are not voting right. Let’s rig the system!”
It probably was both: the people who wrote the manifestos didn’t exactly hang out with the plebes, did they? So it seems like they had this beautiful idea in the cloistral seclusion of their writing rooms or lovely drawing room discussions, and they lobbied for Universal Everything, and then the pesky plebes started showing up and voting wrong and all the rest of it.
Yeah, for sure the intellectuals of history tended to be from a different caste as the masses. And no doubt that colored their views somewhat.
That said, in defense of some of them, at least…
There was simply no way for the plebes to demonstrate any intellectual thoughts they might have, because they lacked access and were just trying to survive. Thus, we are only likely to learn about the work of non-plebe intellectuals.
But also, some of them really did risk their lives to defy the state. Locke wrote under a pseudonym. Algernon Sidney was beheaded (as was Cicero 1600 years earlier). So some of them were risking their lives to champion the ideas of natural law.
(On the other hand, you had lunatic snotbag intellectuals like Rousseau, who totally fit the bill of what you described.)
Okay. I have problems with this. National security for one. Smaller more diffuse units each voluntarily gathering together hiring private companies to oversee their security. Does every single smaller unit also support a well-equipped military?
Also, assuming as I do, that justice is the highest good, who will adjudicate the laws, that I assume will be voted on by the citizenry?
My rights are indeed natural rights. These natural rights were endowed upon me by my creator. But, Christopher, what is to keep others from taking from impinging upon my rights? Law. And if we are to a nation of laws, there must be an enforcement mechanism. Perhaps I am mistaken, but where is mechanism for the enforcing the agreed upon laws to protect my natural or God-given rights? Help me here.
“Social contract” is such an unfitting name for this implied agreement. A contract is a, voluntarily signed, binding agreement between two or more parties clearly delineating who does what when. None of that is given in this figment.
Realizing that is so powerful, especially for Americans. We have been steeped in the Anglophone/Enlightenment classical-liberal tradition—told that all of that is the foundation of freedom. That we cannot doubt the Founders or Locke because they gave us that freedom. And they did do a lot. But they were not perfect. We must upgrade!
If we place the attention on ourselves, then our first question should be "how do we make ourselves NOT-Victims?"
We have to begin there and see where we are creating victimhood. If we express the energy of a victim, then we are sure to draw a willing perpetrator.
It's not very satisfying to not blame someone else for our troubles, but if we do not recognize our own energy that we project, we will never understand what we are creating.
I agree. The only question I have is the degree to which I think this is true. Could a person fully manifest non-victimhood and yet still get victimized? I fear so…
This book, Christopher - is something that gives generational hope to America-Again. Once completed I suggest we subscribers purchase copies and vigorously promote it to the generation who are feeling hopeless enough not to fight for their country and their future in & of America. Instead of surrendering to the new world order & crime syndicate, Inc. Keeping that rubbish where it belongs; across the pond. And saying with pride to the rest of the imperial *ilk* nations. :::: "Nice try but not in this one or any other century‼️"
1. Amendments to our [Pledge of Promise]: America, for which it stands, one nation, [With] God (this time), indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all [Americans].
Being an example instead of the rule.
A. I'd recommend, if you can consider, including something from the newly amended Constitution regarding immigration policies that aren't too welcoming for folks who might still "game the system", as it's been, for far too long.
B. 2nd amendment AND anti- censorship fortifications.
C. Getting these mini communist/immigrant countries out of our lives; the so-called "towns" allowed under the obviously flawed and massive loopholes within the current verbage within international real estate policies.
D. Implement cybersocioeconomics to eliminate the international fiat currency monopolies once and for all.
E. Finally, shredding international trade agreements with hostile nations, countries, and states. Void deeds and confiscate land or property there-on purchased by the same hostiles.
Especially the properties purchased that are situated way to close to our strategic military defense systems. 🤔
My gratitude goes out to your dillegent heart and love of country. And for what it's worth, the rest of America.
Not entirely because it's "in the works" was what I understood, so I decided to kinda wait for the completed edition. You've probably covered a lot of what I included as a suggestion, correct?
The version that is posted there is what I submitted for the contest. I am sure I will update it somewhat in future, but that is at least a polished version.
I’ve described it differently, and said people just want to be left alone, but it’s really the same sentiment.
The problem is most people live in a state of cognitive dissonance where they think they should be left alone to do what they want to do, but also think it’s somehow their duty to use the government to harass their fellow citizens.
We are all righteously indignant when someone starts using the political process to mess with things we care about, but perfectly willing to inflict the same thing on complete strangers and rebrand it as civic virtue.
We need to decide
Do we want to f*** with our neighbors or be left alone.
At this point it should be obvious to everyone that the 2 are mutually exclusive.
But you know, I personally do think that the philosophical arguments work. I mean, there was a point before I understood. Then I was exposed to the arguments, and I understood. Why can't that work for others?
I think philosophical arguments can work , but I think it’s obvious that isn’t enough in aggregate. If that was all it took we would have won already as the philosophical argument went viral hopping from person to person.
People at their core will place what they perceive as practicality above ethical arguments. Let’s say for arguments sake that I had the ability to see the future, and our ideas led to an utter hellscape. I can’t say I’d pick the hellscape over just bad.
You don’t have to go full utilitarian and prove freedom and personal sovereignty has better outcomes across the board, but I think it’s wrong to think you will win on philosophical ideas alone. People still want to be comfortable that everything will still be OK, and the dramatic departure from the current system is going to raise anxiety levels.
Thomas Jefferson was quite aware of and accepted the moral arguments against slavery yet seemed to chose the expedients of the existing system. I think ideological arguments are a start, but they aren’t the end with very many people.
" I can’t say I’d pick the hellscape over just bad."
—Same.
"I think it’s wrong to think you will win on philosophical ideas alone."
—I don't. But they have to be in there somewhere. Somewhere, the points have to be demonstrated.
Even if it's just for me—I need to be able to say that I am SURE I am doing the right thing, espousing the right ideas.
I know there has to be more too, but it is an essential component. I think others *should* want it there too, but I get that some people are swayed more by other things.
Completely agree a philosophical underpinning is necessary for me. In terms of mass persuasion I think it’s necessary, but not sufficient. It has to be less scary than the status quo which means things have to get worse or we need to get better at assuaging those concerns.
I think you are doing great. I’ve had another philosophical argument I proposed which suggests we should culturally apply a beyond a reasonable doubt standard to legislating. If you acknowledge that all laws deprive somebody of life liberty and property you have to acknowledge that we aren’t providing the same level of proof before punishing average people that we apply when punishing criminal defendants.
I don’t know if that’s persuasive or not, but I think a reframing of legislation as punishment that needs a high bar is accurate, and maybe pushes people towards a more skeptical view of state power.
So much of government is this "tacit" agreement crap whereby if you fail to disagree, you are automatically assumed to agree with their tyranny. Of course, like most of big tech and big pharma, they never give you the option to disagree.
This is why I have joined In Power where they attempt to use Lex Mercatoria laws implementing NOLs or a Notice of Liability which can subject these perps to daily fines if they try to force an issue without proving it is safe to do so. Anyway, it sounds interesting to me to find out how this works.
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court said, "Those who own the country ought to govern it."
John Jay wasn't a fan of self-governance, opposed the Bill of Rights and argued for a strong central government model during the constitutional debates.
He had, however, been a big supporter of George Washington during the War of Independence, who considered him essential to the ultimate success of the rebellion. And recognizing John Jay's contributions, offered him any position in the newly formed Republic he wanted. He chose Chief Justice of the first US Supreme Court. In that role he was able to shape the meaning and trajectory of the governing document.
In doing so he put into motion a theory of jurisprudence that immediately began to rein in the excesses in the Bill of Rights he had unsuccessfully argued against in the adoption of the US Constitution.
The first top court established the path redefining each and every one of the first ten amendments to be constrained from their original intent and plain language. The US Constitution isn't the problem. It's the sabotage of it led by politicians in black robes since the moment it was approved that is.
Note: the descendants of John Jay were early supporters of the eugenics movement, owned the earliest pharmaceutical companies, supported Rockefeller medicine and supported the eugenics practice of sterilization that the landmark case, Buck v. Bell upheld in Oliver Wendell Holmes "three generations of imbeciles is enough" 8-1 ruling. Cited by defendants at Nuremberg trials, "but you Americans do it, what's the big deal?" (precedent still stands in US)
Not all of the Founding Father's supported the governing contract we thought we had. Particularly the sections about individual liberty and freedom. Our constitutional protections of liberty as the majority of Founders envisioned can be restored by judges faithful to it. Not the case law precedents that have eviscerated it.
This is excellent information about Jay! Thank you for sharing it!!
Some of the sources that inform me to make the assertions I make:
A lefty wrote this. But it speaks to systemic truth when you step outside his bias:
The Supreme Court, hegemony, and Its Consequences
Minnesota Journal of Law & Inequality, December, 1987
https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1371&context=lawineq
Bio:
William Jay Schieffelin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Jay_Schieffelin
Early life
William Jay Schieffelin was the first son of William Henry Schieffelin and Mary Jay Schieffelin.
William’s mother was the daughter of John Jay, who was the grandson of John Jay. His paternal ancestors were Jacob Schieffelin and Hannah Lawrence Schieffelin
Schieffelin & Co.—The oldest wholesale drug house in New York City
The Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association (1912)
https://sci-hub.st/https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fjps.3080161113
Eugenics connection:
Choosing Audience for Brieux Play
JD Rockefeller, Jr Suggests Those Who Have Aided White Slave Investigation
Social Workers Approve
Think the Drama Will Impress the Moral of Eugenics - Proceeds for Education
New York Times, Sunday, February 23,1913, Page 13
https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-new-york-times-edward-l-bernays-m/31090629/
- Invitees: William J(ay) Schieffelin, Edward Bernays, Simon & Abraham Flexner, JD Rockefeller, Franklin D Roosevelt and a cast of other terribles. Though a few reformed their wayward thinking before they died.
Thank you!
That Eugenics NYT piece from over a century ago has a lot of interesting names, a rabbit hole I poked my head into a little to come up with this summary of VIP who's who's you may also find interesting. And connects many dots that are becoming apparent in our present.
Invitees:
- Edward Bernays, father of modern propaganda, advertising. Both Joseph Goebbels and Madison Avenue, informed by his teachings. Coined the phrase "quack medicine" to discredit natural healers. Successfully.
- Simon and Abraham Flexner. Authors of the "Flexner Report." Used by legislators and congress to criminalize natural healers, put natural healing schools out of business, asserted allopathic (western) medicine as the only real "evidence-based" healing, effectively killing homeopathy, herbalism and naturopathy:
https://ac.news/the-1910-flexner-report-rockefellers-corporate-illusionists-create-foundation-and-framework-for-sick-care-medicine-over-a-century-ago/
- Rabbi Stephen S Wise. He is an enigma. He was the Jesse Jackson of American Jewry in the first half of the 20th century. A Zionist who's early work to establish a Jewish homeland in the British Palestine Mandate eventually led to the establishment of the State of Israel. He was FDR's most senior Jewish influencer. Did a lot of good for Jews. But...he also was who helped conceal the true horrors of the Holocaust from FDR and the public, and opposed efforts to expose it. I found this Wikipedia write up on him interesting. Particularly the section "Criticism":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Samuel_Wise
And Rabbi Wise was an ardent eugnecist. One of the early faith leaders to advance it. As highlighted in the following book link. It's not to say that Rabbi Wise supported the Holocaust. But it shows how even Jews can co-author their own holocaust with their grandiose ideas about "fixing" mankind:
Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement
https://sci-hub.se/https://www.jstor.org/stable/42944393
"She specifically documents how Protestant, Jewish, and a limited number of Catholic religious leaders contributed to making American eugenics the foremost eugenics movement in the world by the 1920s and sought the creation of a 'good society" in America by means of those methods that the eugenics movement advocated: sterilization, immigration restriction, incarceration, intelligence testing, and statistical analysis applied to the racial/ethnic/genetic backgrounds of families."
"The American eugenics movement became the model used by Adolf Hitler and the Nazis, who turned their zealousness for eugenics as the means of preserving the health of the nation into, first, the murder of the disabled, and, subsequently, the brutalization and murder of millions of innocent men, women, and children in the final solution."
Both Rabbi Leon Harrison of Temple Israel in St. Louis and Rabbi Stephen Wise publicly expressed opposition to intermarriage, but some Reform rabbis objected. The advocates of intermarriage did not view Jews as a race, while the opponents did (pp. 106-7). In 1915, Rabbi Max Reichler (1886-1957) wrote an essay seeking to reconcile the divergent views and reconcile Judaism with eugenics."
"Rabbi Wise subsequently followed Rabbi Reichler s lead in seeking accommodation (pp. 108-9). In the same way that Protestants and some Catholics had come to support eugenics, Jews also came to be numbered among the advocates of the movement in the early twentieth century."
- William J Schieffelin - Descendant of John Jay, first Supreme Court Chief Justice of the US. Family owned the oldest pharmaceutical company in the US, headed up early Big Pharma trade association. Eugenicist:
https://sci-hub.st/https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fjps.3080161113
- Abraham Jacobl, the first leading pediatrician, president of the American Medical Association. And a leading eugenicist:
https://stanforddaily.com/2019/11/18/eugenics-on-the-farm-ray-lyman-wilbur/
- Paul U Kellogg - another enigma. He is the father of the modern "Social Justice" movement. And supported eugenics. But it's hard to reconcile with his work to help blacks and other minorities. I suppose someone can be a eugenicist without being a racist. Just get rid of the undesirables, disabled, antisocials without regard to race?:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_U._Kellogg
- The American Society on Medical Sociology. This is the theory of medicine that gives rise to the gender/trans movement. Social justice through medicine. It is a form of "Marxist Conflict Theory" of how ruling classes can enact power through medicine. Eugenics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_sociology
- Yale University Civics Club. Prescott Bush, father of George HW Bush was a student at Yale in 2013. And had been president of his high school civics club in 1912. His family was already tight with the Rockefeller's, his father, Samuel Bush, worked for Frank Rockefeller, John D Rockefeller's brother. Prescott Bush was a eugenicist, who was also "Hitler's Banker." And was one of the six Yale students in attendance.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
https://books.google.com/books?id=sQSvBYR0xKUC&pg=PT35&lpg=PT35&dq=%22prescott+bush%22+%22civics+club%22&source=bl&ots=y-gQTD9psX&sig=ACfU3U3mzt2Pd8cwb_q4hMGqry9k-rz8rA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiumLiu1sqEAxVwHNAFHViyBqIQ6AF6BAgJEAM#v=onepage&q=%22prescott%20bush%22%20%22civics%20club%22&f=false
- Mrs. W K Vanderbilt. Aka Anne Harriman who married into the Vanderbilt railroad dynasty. Daughter of Oliver Harriman, from a railroad tycoon family himself, handled the finances, went into banking. Brother of Edward Harriman. Partner in bank Prescott Bush worked for as "Hitler's Banker."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Harriman_Vanderbilt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Kissam_Vanderbilt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Harriman
This cast of eugenicists helped set up the medical system that is the tip of the spear today against individual liberty and freedom. I'll develop the field of Medical Sociology mentioned in the NYT piece into its essential role necessary to fundamentally transform a free nation into an authoritarian one in my next comment below. Leads directly to Covid-19 plandemic. How medical tyranny is accomplished.
"Medical Sociology.":
https://www.sociologygroup.com/medical-sociology/
Medical Sociology is also tied to Marxist "Conflict Theory":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_theories
And Medical Sociology gave rise to an organization, "Association of Internes and Medical Students," that was disbanded and scattered to other medical sociology movements after it was associated with the Red Scare during the McCarthy Anti-Communist hearings:
"Association of Internes and Medical Students":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Internes_and_Medical_Students (AIMS)
AIMS helped midwife Disease Politics:
https://academic.oup.com/jhmas/article/74/2/127/5481292
It's interesting to note that "The other side of Obama's brain" Valerie Jarrett's father was a member of AIMS. And a eugenicist:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/communism-in-jarretts-family/
Medical Sociology. How to use infectious disease - the fear of - to "fundamentally transform a society. Here's how Mao's China did it:
Rural Health Care Delivery
Modern China from the Perspective of Disease Politics
Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2013
https://library.lol/main/DB87C08A174B849E1EB0476138787AED
('GET' .pdf download)
With chapter and section titles like:
5.3 Discipline Imposed by Hygiene
9.4 “To Combine Health Campaigns with Mass Movements”
11 The Patriotic Hygiene Campaign and the Construction of Clean New People
17.3 From “the Benevolent Medicine” to the “Formula for Money-Making”
19 A Public Country and Its Expansion
20 The Logic of Disease Politics
23 A Nation-State? A Democratic State?
From the book's official description:
"Diseases are everyday, ordinary occurrences intimately related to people’s daily lives. However, as the metaphor of the “Sick Man of East Asia” emerged against the backdrop of a weak modern China, health care and the curing of diseases were turned into grand state politics with far-reaching implications. This book, starting with the argument for diseases being metaphors, describes and interprets such incidents in China’s history as the Abolishment of Traditional Chinese Medicine, the Patriotic Hygiene Campaign and the Cooperative Medical Services. In an effort to reveal the internal logic of disease politics in the transformation of the state-people relationship, the book analyzes key aspects including the politicization and inclusion of diseases in state governance, the double disciplining of hygiene, legitimacy construction of the state, the remaking of the nationals, and the expansion of the “publicness” of the state. The book argues that disease politics in modern China has developed following the path from nationals to the people, and then to citizens, or from crisis politics and mobilization politics to life politics. In addition, a marked change has occurred in China’s state building: increasingly standard, rationalized and institutionalized means have been employed while the non-standard means, such as large-scale mobilization and ideological coercion, had been historically used in China."
That book was introduced to me in March, 2020 in the highly influential Council on Foreign Relations article instructing the west to follow China's authoritarian pandemic model:
Past Pandemics Exposed China’s Weaknesses
The Current One Highlights Its Strengths
Foreign Affairs, March 27, 2020
https://web.archive.org/web/20200328050913/https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2020-03-27/past-pandemics-exposed-chinas-weaknesses
That describes "Disease Politics" as a means to fundamentally transform a country of individual rights-based nationals into authoritarian collectivists in a global community. The book may as well be a blueprint for what is descending across the western world today, in the form of pandemic protocols experienced and WHO pandemic treaties planned. Me thinks Founder John Jay approves.
I can't say as though I follow the gender dialogue? The writer of the Supreme Court, hegemony piece is Anthony Walsh, preferred pronouns he/him:
https://collegepublishing.sagepub.com/authors/anthony-walsh-536139
But he is a lefty to be sure.
My rights are being violated? Maybe but only so much as I, or you, allow and obviously we make a hell of a lot of allowances. Building a program on rights is one thing, selling such is another kettle of fish.
I'm thinking the best approach is that it's the economy, stupid! Enlightened self interest. Bread on the table. Chicken in MY pot, two cars in MY garage.
The economy is upstream from culture and politics.
Laissez-faire capitalism; the economy, all hands off it except Adam Smith's invisible one. The market decides the value.
I'm so old I can remember buying ten White Castle hamburgers for a buck. The economy back then was far closer to laissez-faire, far less government regulation and control.
Maura's right, & applying such to The Freedom Scale, them there rights violations, too philosophical, a hard sell.
On the other hand, 10 cent burgers, most all would vote, work, fight for that!
The end of Bretton Woods may have made collapse of the dollar inevitable. https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Thus, doing what you suggest will require new currency. Hard currency.
But of course, as will all your suggestions. As will any rational suggestions.
The main point I was trying to make though is that while freedom is what's being offered selling such as burgers is an easier sell than selling it as rights.
Again the economy is always upstream.
Yeah. That was a big point in the book I mentioned, too!
But… someone has to do the philosophical work in order to know what the best course is, and what the correct principles are. And which burgers to sell.
Hum. I'm not faulting or disagreeing. I am saying phrasing the sale in economic terms will resonate with the largest audience.
"And which burgers to sell."
& no worries, in my laissez-faire world and in your anarcho-capitalism world the marketplace will decide which burgers sell. ;-)
Yup. I was talking about metaphorical burgers—which are the most delicious, in a way! 🤣🤣
Hurrah, brother! Hang in there, it's happening.
Frankly, given plethora logical fallacies, humans simply don’t think — much less behave — logically, reasonably, rationally. We like to believe or opine or feel or even self-deceptively “know” that we behave such, but the reality is that we are an exceptionally ILLOGICAL species.
Logic simply doesn’t explain HOW human cognition (aka memory, knowledge, perception) and meta-cognition (aka insight) work.
Want to understand HOW the human mind works in terms of reasoning? Try to fully understand MOTIVATED reasoning. Get some real insight into what motivates why you think one way instead of other ways.
I am motivated by the philosophical truths!! 🤣
I don’t put much stock in what we humans have come up with as “philosophical truths” in the specific context of “The wisdom of the wise will vanish, and the intelligence of the intelligent will be hidden.” This being said, I don’t expect anyone to cognitively (or meta-cognitively) behave as I do. I pity the man who is in any way similar to me. 😅
Check (if you wish) the syllogisms and reasoning in the chart at the end of this piece. https://christophercook.substack.com/p/exact-moment-i-became-anarchist Can you find any premises that are not true or any conclusions that do not follow from the premises? Sometimes, philosophical truths are there and true whether people agree with them or not.
(Also note that God would not make a universe based on rules, and grant us the ability to reason, and yet somehow make the rules unintelligible through reason. That would be arbitrary and cruel, and God is not cruel.)
Maybe the rules of logic are like the laws of physics and natural law. Humans discover them, but they don’t have their origin in human reasoning.
Frankly, I have no idea what God has in store for humanity, given the history of pathocracy. I have no idea why God has given the psychopaths so much power or why God has allowed the psychopaths (along with the malevolent deceivers in league with the father of lies) to become so powerful. Maybe 🤔 God wants to show everyone (1) how evil humans can become and (2) the consequences or effects of humans allowing the psychopaths unfettered control over human affairs.
I want to believe that God has a logical motive behind creating evil, as per Isaiah 45:7. The word “evil” is the same Hebrew word used when describing the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of the good and the evil. Maybe God uses evil doers to punish even worse evil doers.
Anyway — and sorry — this is supposed to be about philosophy (particularly about political philosophy) and not about theology or existentialism or ontology.
"Frankly, I have no idea what God has in store for humanity, given the history of pathocracy. I have no idea why God has given the psychopaths so much power or why God has allowed the psychopaths"
—Personally, I think the answer is simple. God granted us freedom because it is absolutely essential. To make us real. To make love real. To make everything real. It's not real if we're not free. It's not real if we are compelled (to love, do good, etc.)
So, in this free universe of free people, bad things are going to happen, and people are going to do bad things. It is up to US to make it right. Not to sit waiting for God to do something about it, or to divine His will. We already know what the right thing to do is. God wove that into the universe, and that knowledge into us. Now we just have to do it.
God has warned US (i.e. humanity collectively) about the secret combinations of the devil. The consequences of WE ignoring this warning are evident in terms of what the world is becoming, i.e. totalitarian and pathocratic. The vast majority of people are not psychopaths. Yet the vast majority of people are TOLERANT — How liberal of US! — of psychopaths having taken over religious, political, financial and academic establishments. This “tolerance” is touted as good. Woe unto them who call evil “good”. This is precisely why I believe that liberals are spiritually sick-unto-death and cancerous. Will the conservatives prevail, in the realms of religion and politics and economics and academia?? I suppose this all depends on if one is motivated by optimism or pragmatism or cynicism or nihilism.
Personally, I’m not at all optimistic about the commoners — obviously including people who are entirely motivated by and grounded in common sense and common knowledge — overcoming the global pathocratic system. Frankly, I don’t know how it can be. How many slave revolts have there been historically? How many have succeeded? I’d say that the attempt by the English colonies in North America to completely throw off the power of the English Crown and the power of the City of London was a complete and dismal failure, seeing what the USA has become. Maybe I’m missing some very, Very, VERY big pieces of the puzzle in my worldview.
"Maybe the rules of logic are like the laws of physics and natural law. Humans discover them, but they don’t have their origin in human reasoning."
—Yes, I think so. Logic and morality are part of the fabric of creation.
Bastiat figured it out and spelled it out in "The Law" released in 1850. Your readers may find this interesting as to where we are today. https://www.courageouslion.us/p/the-law-2024
I enjoyed The Lw very much. A copy is within arm's reach of me here at my desk!
Right On Christopher! Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were the True drivers of Freedom. TJ also tried hard to free the slaves in his initial drafts of the Declaration of Independence but was forced to take it out or the southern states would not accept it.
Y'know, come to think of it, I do not know much about Franklin……
Key Driver of the AWI: A few of the main things are he brought into America Thomas Paine, brought in the French to supply America and eventually with their army and navy which was key.
Yep, I knew that stuff. But where was he ideologically? More towards Hamilton, J. Adams, et al or towards Jefferson, Henry, et al?
Anti-Federalist though he played the middle a bit to hold things together. Very close to TJ.
I did not know he was an anti-federalist. That is great. I am still learning about them. Like most of us, I am better educated about the federalists, since they won!
Unfortunately. And they write Musicals and Songs about them (Hamilton) which gets Big Play by the Media. Imagine this for the man who was a driving force for the Rothschilds Central Bank.
In this Substack it sounds as if you are comparing the Government to God. That you are Darwin explaining that we are moral animals evolved from savage animals. We naturally have a moral code of law and order within us. We don't need a ruling God, king or Government for that moral code to exist.
The atheistic religion of Woke put the individual identity above the collective truth. Christians argue it was the death of God that left a void that the individual self filled. I believe it is trial and error. A mutation, if you will.
What will the death of Government bring? I doubt it will be the anarchy that everyone expects, but it will change life as we know it.
The founding fathers are just apart of the evolution of the moral animal. So, is the monarchy and God. I guess we are at the cusp of the next evolutionary state of the moral animal development.
On the cusp, yes! I believe so!
How is the State (aka the Leviathan) attempting to usurp God’s authority — presuming that such a thing as “God’s authority” exists? This, in my opinion, is an excellent explanation. https://winteroak.org.uk/2023/07/25/the-mortal-gods-drops-its-mask/
Authority is just made up limits, boundaries and rules, by the moral animal. These things can bring security and protection via a collective order from the people or it can be smothering. It can hold back growth and away to survive change.
My dad told me in a dream, "Sometimes it is okay to break the rules. Just make sure you break them to make something better and not just because you don't like the rule."
I wonder that you are describing natural authority as capable of bringing about “security and protection”, but such authority is only imaginary “limits, boundaries and rules” invented by moral animals, while there might also be supernatural authority, which transcends human morality and is sublime, i.e. beyond ordinary human understanding. “The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life in order to take it up again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father.”
Maybe when it comes to ideas such as “authority”, there are secular, worldly explanations as well as spiritual, otherworldly explanations? I don’t know much about what real power is.
I agree with you 100% that authority is will. You have the will to lay down your life and pick it up again for whatever you believe in. The evolution of morality is not about doing what we are told but having our own will, self authority, self discipline, self awareness, self governance and taking responsibility for our own actions to create order out of choas. I don't believe God has authority, will or is moral. To me God is a North Star and guiding lighting. God is not about creating order out of chaos. That is a human desire. Anything that is supreme, is a North Star, a guiding light and a sun that we reach for and helps us grow. God guides us aĺ through the chaos not makes order out of it. That is what religion is all about. Religion, Monarchy and politics is just apart of the moral animal evolution, which is about creating order iut of the unknownand chaotic. Anything that is supernatural is imaginary, however, a lot of imagination becomes reality. Reality is a canvas for imagination.
I love that you comment on feelings and thinking. Both are vital and worth balancing.
The individual and the community is another polarity that we must dance with.
It reminds me of the word hero you used in the last section. The hero's journey is generally a masculine journey, regardless of gender. Not everyone fights the dragons or saves the damsel in distress.
Those of us who do not fight the dragons and face the hero's journey choose connection, relationship, and community. We have a different journey full of unique obstacles. It is a path that involves finding and establishing our Self in relationship, how to be alone, and how to be together with healthy interactions. The feminine way (regardless of gender). Everyone carries both masculine and feminine energy. We must learn to dance with both.
I share this because often we only see one side of the story. Our world is full of stories and movies that portray a hero on their journey to save the day. We often forget those who hold things together, bring in the orphans with open arms, or gather together in times of need.
I'm not suggesting I disagree with anything you have said. I am just expanding the conversation in case this is valuable. It will take all of us to focus on our own path, whatever that is.
"I love that you comment on feelings and thinking. Both are vital and worth balancing."
—I took a personality test recently that had me something like 52 percent thinking and 48 percent feeling. That's probably not far off. On a day to day basis, I am a thinker, but the thought sits atop of an ocean of emotional motivations.
Yes, this is a good expansion. We need both energies. And we need the true diversity of individuals (rather than the left's group-based 'diversity').
I agree that it is important to know how to be alone. Some people hear that you went to dinner by yourself and think it's weird and impossible. But if you're comfortable with yourself, it's perfectly fine. My wife went to Disney by herself a few years ago (long story as to why). She had a blast, and didn't start missing us until a couple of days in.
I am also of the view, however, that people generally need people. More people today are alone than ever, and it is not healthy. I know that our movement attracts individualists, and people are are more self-reliant, and that is great. But all the evidence shows that outcomes are better with human contact. So they key is to be an actuated individual and then share yourself with other such people. I know specific circumstances vary, but I think family and community are best if possible.
Yes, yes, yes!!
That is part of what I am doing with the distributed nation concept.
We don't want control. We don't want rulers or centralized anything. But we do want **something** more than nothing.
We want more than just atomized individual freedom-lovers on their own islands—believing roughly the same thing, but rarely talking and never working together. We want some sort of community without any sort of collectivism.
I have been working to thread that needle. As you read forward, you will see a lot more on how I propose we do that.
"We do not solely want to feel or suspect that our principles might be true. We need to know."
That's a very important point: going by feel is basically what gets the Leftists bogged down every time.
"There is good reason to believe that order can be maintained without empowering a government that violates individual rights every day, as a part of its normal operations."
The thing is, we've gotten to a point where through some sleight of hand and universal obligatory schooling (I have a bee in my bonnet about that, fair warning) there has been a redefinition of just about every term involved: freedom, power, government, democracy etc. In fact, from the point of view of the present system it is regular people with their goddam individual rights that just keep standing in the way of law and order.
(I skipped the start of this because I want to read the book, sounds fascinating.)
" In fact, from the point of view of the present system it is regular people with their goddam individual rights that just keep standing in the way of law and order."
—This has been a part of the leftist project since almost the beginning. They've been saying, for 150 years, words to the effect of "The era of the individual is over; the era of the collective is here." Sometimes in almost as many words.
Today's global elitism seems to be a continuation of the core leftist project by other means.
Right, though I’ve been thinking lately that it starts in the Enlightenment and the push for Universal Suffrage that resulted from that. “Let’s give them all votes… oh wait they are not voting right. Let’s rig the system!”
Interesting thought.
My take is that the Enlightenment/classical-liberal revolution was a legit phenomenon, but then, like everything else, statists co-opted and used it.
It probably was both: the people who wrote the manifestos didn’t exactly hang out with the plebes, did they? So it seems like they had this beautiful idea in the cloistral seclusion of their writing rooms or lovely drawing room discussions, and they lobbied for Universal Everything, and then the pesky plebes started showing up and voting wrong and all the rest of it.
Yeah, for sure the intellectuals of history tended to be from a different caste as the masses. And no doubt that colored their views somewhat.
That said, in defense of some of them, at least…
There was simply no way for the plebes to demonstrate any intellectual thoughts they might have, because they lacked access and were just trying to survive. Thus, we are only likely to learn about the work of non-plebe intellectuals.
But also, some of them really did risk their lives to defy the state. Locke wrote under a pseudonym. Algernon Sidney was beheaded (as was Cicero 1600 years earlier). So some of them were risking their lives to champion the ideas of natural law.
(On the other hand, you had lunatic snotbag intellectuals like Rousseau, who totally fit the bill of what you described.)
"universal obligatory schooling (I have a bee in my bonnet about that, fair warning)"
—It may bring some small comfort to know that in 1970, there were a couple of thousand homeschooled kids, and now there are about five million.
Okay. I have problems with this. National security for one. Smaller more diffuse units each voluntarily gathering together hiring private companies to oversee their security. Does every single smaller unit also support a well-equipped military?
Also, assuming as I do, that justice is the highest good, who will adjudicate the laws, that I assume will be voted on by the citizenry?
Before we continue, did you get a chance to read the short post I linked to your other comment?
My rights are indeed natural rights. These natural rights were endowed upon me by my creator. But, Christopher, what is to keep others from taking from impinging upon my rights? Law. And if we are to a nation of laws, there must be an enforcement mechanism. Perhaps I am mistaken, but where is mechanism for the enforcing the agreed upon laws to protect my natural or God-given rights? Help me here.
May we start with this as a partial answer, and then go from there?
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/four-definitions-word-anarchy
“Social contract” is such an unfitting name for this implied agreement. A contract is a, voluntarily signed, binding agreement between two or more parties clearly delineating who does what when. None of that is given in this figment.
Realizing that is so powerful, especially for Americans. We have been steeped in the Anglophone/Enlightenment classical-liberal tradition—told that all of that is the foundation of freedom. That we cannot doubt the Founders or Locke because they gave us that freedom. And they did do a lot. But they were not perfect. We must upgrade!
If we place the attention on ourselves, then our first question should be "how do we make ourselves NOT-Victims?"
We have to begin there and see where we are creating victimhood. If we express the energy of a victim, then we are sure to draw a willing perpetrator.
It's not very satisfying to not blame someone else for our troubles, but if we do not recognize our own energy that we project, we will never understand what we are creating.
I agree. The only question I have is the degree to which I think this is true. Could a person fully manifest non-victimhood and yet still get victimized? I fear so…
This book, Christopher - is something that gives generational hope to America-Again. Once completed I suggest we subscribers purchase copies and vigorously promote it to the generation who are feeling hopeless enough not to fight for their country and their future in & of America. Instead of surrendering to the new world order & crime syndicate, Inc. Keeping that rubbish where it belongs; across the pond. And saying with pride to the rest of the imperial *ilk* nations. :::: "Nice try but not in this one or any other century‼️"
1. Amendments to our [Pledge of Promise]: America, for which it stands, one nation, [With] God (this time), indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all [Americans].
Being an example instead of the rule.
A. I'd recommend, if you can consider, including something from the newly amended Constitution regarding immigration policies that aren't too welcoming for folks who might still "game the system", as it's been, for far too long.
B. 2nd amendment AND anti- censorship fortifications.
C. Getting these mini communist/immigrant countries out of our lives; the so-called "towns" allowed under the obviously flawed and massive loopholes within the current verbage within international real estate policies.
D. Implement cybersocioeconomics to eliminate the international fiat currency monopolies once and for all.
E. Finally, shredding international trade agreements with hostile nations, countries, and states. Void deeds and confiscate land or property there-on purchased by the same hostiles.
Especially the properties purchased that are situated way to close to our strategic military defense systems. 🤔
My gratitude goes out to your dillegent heart and love of country. And for what it's worth, the rest of America.
Greatfully,
ORION
Thank you for your kind words and thoughts, Orion. Forgive my memory, but did you ever read this when I first released it (or since)?
https://christophercook.substack.com/p/human-constitution
Not entirely because it's "in the works" was what I understood, so I decided to kinda wait for the completed edition. You've probably covered a lot of what I included as a suggestion, correct?
Assuming great minds think alike. ; )
Thanks for the link!
The version that is posted there is what I submitted for the contest. I am sure I will update it somewhat in future, but that is at least a polished version.
I cannot help drawing comparisons to the current situation in America.
Can you elaborate a bit more?
“my rights are being violated”
I’ve described it differently, and said people just want to be left alone, but it’s really the same sentiment.
The problem is most people live in a state of cognitive dissonance where they think they should be left alone to do what they want to do, but also think it’s somehow their duty to use the government to harass their fellow citizens.
We are all righteously indignant when someone starts using the political process to mess with things we care about, but perfectly willing to inflict the same thing on complete strangers and rebrand it as civic virtue.
We need to decide
Do we want to f*** with our neighbors or be left alone.
At this point it should be obvious to everyone that the 2 are mutually exclusive.
Well and rightly said in all regards.
But you know, I personally do think that the philosophical arguments work. I mean, there was a point before I understood. Then I was exposed to the arguments, and I understood. Why can't that work for others?
I think philosophical arguments can work , but I think it’s obvious that isn’t enough in aggregate. If that was all it took we would have won already as the philosophical argument went viral hopping from person to person.
People at their core will place what they perceive as practicality above ethical arguments. Let’s say for arguments sake that I had the ability to see the future, and our ideas led to an utter hellscape. I can’t say I’d pick the hellscape over just bad.
You don’t have to go full utilitarian and prove freedom and personal sovereignty has better outcomes across the board, but I think it’s wrong to think you will win on philosophical ideas alone. People still want to be comfortable that everything will still be OK, and the dramatic departure from the current system is going to raise anxiety levels.
Thomas Jefferson was quite aware of and accepted the moral arguments against slavery yet seemed to chose the expedients of the existing system. I think ideological arguments are a start, but they aren’t the end with very many people.
Yes, agreed.
" I can’t say I’d pick the hellscape over just bad."
—Same.
"I think it’s wrong to think you will win on philosophical ideas alone."
—I don't. But they have to be in there somewhere. Somewhere, the points have to be demonstrated.
Even if it's just for me—I need to be able to say that I am SURE I am doing the right thing, espousing the right ideas.
I know there has to be more too, but it is an essential component. I think others *should* want it there too, but I get that some people are swayed more by other things.
Completely agree a philosophical underpinning is necessary for me. In terms of mass persuasion I think it’s necessary, but not sufficient. It has to be less scary than the status quo which means things have to get worse or we need to get better at assuaging those concerns.
"necessary, but not sufficient"
—Yes, right on.
And yes, we need to get better. Working on it!
I think you are doing great. I’ve had another philosophical argument I proposed which suggests we should culturally apply a beyond a reasonable doubt standard to legislating. If you acknowledge that all laws deprive somebody of life liberty and property you have to acknowledge that we aren’t providing the same level of proof before punishing average people that we apply when punishing criminal defendants.
I don’t know if that’s persuasive or not, but I think a reframing of legislation as punishment that needs a high bar is accurate, and maybe pushes people towards a more skeptical view of state power.
So much of government is this "tacit" agreement crap whereby if you fail to disagree, you are automatically assumed to agree with their tyranny. Of course, like most of big tech and big pharma, they never give you the option to disagree.
This is why I have joined In Power where they attempt to use Lex Mercatoria laws implementing NOLs or a Notice of Liability which can subject these perps to daily fines if they try to force an issue without proving it is safe to do so. Anyway, it sounds interesting to me to find out how this works.
Didn't the Freemen try exactly that back in the 90s, in Roundup and then finally in Jordan, MT? And didn't the government Waco all of them?