36 Comments
founding

Great videos on Cheran Mexico Independence! I had read about it at the time but thought they would soon be crushed. God Bless Them!

Expand full comment
author

Yeah, it's amazing they have made it this far. If everyone did this…………

Expand full comment

Whether there are human rights or not, what is the purpose of existence? To serve some idiotic masters calling themselves a government? Not in the least. However it is achieved, the goal is to live in relative peace and freedom apart from the yoke of an abusive and tyrannical clown show...and few governments in history have been anything but.

There is no one to say that smaller groups of like minded individuals and entities cannot break apart and form their own communities. Humans are extremely resourceful when they want to be and when was the last time government proved to be resourceful?

Expand full comment
author

Yah. All we have to do is start making it happen!

Expand full comment

Herr Cook

“Government the parasitic blob”

We get to choose (vote) for the next to suck the life force from us.

Definitely a race to the bottom

The dumbing down of modern Western societies has made this rush to totalitarian regimes without the cognitive ability to recognize it.

Less is better!

Tusen Takk

Jon

Expand full comment
author

But but but how could you oppose "democracy"?

🤣 🙄 🤮

Expand full comment

I'm going to be a contrarian in your comment section today. 😉

Just like there is no such thing as 'collective health', a mind-spell applied during Covid to coerce people to forfeit their individual bodily autonomy, there is no such thing as "human rights".

It's another red herring in the game of legalese vs law.

In my research, I've learned that the concept/term of "Human rights" is a device used by the legal society to obscure the fact of an individual man or woman's right to property. And it's used to collectivize groups of angry people into useless protest and rallies. Another distraction to occupy the herd.

Expand full comment
author

IOW, they are using the term differently than I am, right? I am using it as shorthand for "the natural rights of the individual human person." They are using it in the way you describe. Is that roughly correct?

(Also, I know some people have a problem with the word "person," since that too has been coopted and abused by our masters. But I cannot cede every word of the language to them. Some of those words must be reclaimed from them.)

Expand full comment

Shorthand- I get that. 😉

Yes- the word 'person' is referring to your strawman. It's not that it's been co-opted as much as the true definition has been obscured. We use words all the time without knowing their true meaning and/or origin.

This is why it's important to grow our awareness of what certain words mean in certain contexts, like a courtroom. If you try to reclaim the word "person" on the legal society's turf/ playing field, you'll be forfeiting your rights as a man.

I'm just doing my part to share what I've learned and spread some awareness around this topic. I don't expect to ever end up in a court or tied up with the system but others who read you might. 🤍

Expand full comment
author

I get that, but I am not sure that what you have learned on the subject of the word "person" is dispositive. Like, why do I need to care that they have stolen the word and made it mean something in their system? Why can I not say that it means what most philosophers have meant it to mean: a sovereign individual human.

Expand full comment

You are free to do and say whatever you want. 🙂

Personally, I find the law/legalese racket to be a fascinating pursuit. And I've found my discoveries around language related to it to be enlightening. That's all.

Expand full comment
author

I totally get you. I think, if I may be so bold, we are coming at it from opposite sides of the question.

I look at the word "person" as having a positive meaning. It is a statement that this human being is not some beast of burden, but a sovereign being. So I feel the urge to defend the use of the word, or take it back from them. Is see it, as Calvin says directly below, as only having a nefarious meaning in their system.

You (again, if I may be so bold) have learned about some of the ways they twist and use language, and so you hear "person" and it has negative connotations. A little alarm bell goes off and says, "Yeah, but that word has a nefarious meaning in their system. Be careful."

Is that fair to say?

So if so, then it comes down to whether we want to avoid the word in order to avoid the trouble they might make, or reclaim the word because f__k them.

And honestly, I don't know the right answer for sure. I am highly inclined to the F__K THEM approach, but I also do not know much about all the stuff that you have learned.

Expand full comment

I LOVE IT!!!

FUCK THEM. 🔥

Yes that's fair to say! You've done what you do so brilliantly which is why it's clear to me that you're here fully functioning on your soul's purpose, Mr. Christopher Cook.

Expand full comment

Those words only have a nefarious meaning in their system. The key point being to re-establish natural law on the earth so that their bs becomes obsolete with communities of self determined individuals where it's impossible for the collective to impose tyranny on the individual; because everyone will understand that in the absence of choice there is only tyranny.

Expand full comment

I agree! Sounds great!

So how do men and women become self-determined?

For me personally, it's largely been about recognizing there is a racket to begin with that entraps us with language and identity; and then educating myself about how it operates by creating distinctions between what is 'legal' vs what is 'natural law'.

I wasn't born knowing these things. I've had to study and unlearn a LOT.

The path is as individual as we each are.

Expand full comment

I'm glad you asked. This is how https://www.universal-community-trust.org/uct-treaty-full/

Expand full comment

Nice! Thanks for sharing, Calvin.

It's enlivening to see so many awesome PEOPLE 😉 creating sovereign nations/communities. What an exciting time to be alive!

Expand full comment

Definition of “person” is definitely tricky! My favorite philosopher J Royce In The Philosophy of Loyalty, puts the process of individual becoming a person like this

:

Human life taken merely as it flows, viewed merely as it passes by in time and is gone, is indeed a lost river of experience that plunges down the mountains of youth and sinks in the deserts of age. Its significance comes solely through its relations to the air and the ocean and the great deeps of universal experience. For by such poor figures I may, in passing, symbolize that really rational relation of our personal experience to universal conscious experience. (PL, 1995, 179-80)”

But without the high-falutin 19th century prose, a string individual is made and defined by a strong community. Likewise strong communities are made up of strong individuals. States can therefore by definition, not be strong communities because they rely on force and not true individuals-

Expand full comment
author

I like what Royce said and what you said!

There's also Berdayev's "personalism," which admittedly I do not know well, but which, as I understand it is even deeper than "individualism"—focusing on the infinite well of uniqueness and value that is every single person.

Lot of ways to define things!

Expand full comment
founding

Great article and your bottom line is just Perfect Christopher:

"The bottom line, for our purposes, is simple. If human rights are to be respected, then people must be free to choose their preferred mode of life, and they must be free to self-govern in that pursuit. So long as participation is voluntary and exit is not prevented, no one—neither man nor beast nor a bunch of men calling themselves “government”—should have anything to say about it."

I agree with you on the "Tribal" Canadian Truckers and American Bikers (but this can go the wrong way too).

Expand full comment
author

"I agree with you on the "Tribal" Canadian Truckers and American Bikers (but this can go the wrong way too)."

—Yeah, anything can go the wrong way, But as long as they are not initiating force, fraud, theft, etc., I don't much care what they get up to.

Expand full comment
founding

I fully agree!

Expand full comment

Yesterday the Peruvian Congress broke the constitutional balance and gave the police the ability to start the investigation of crimes. Any future riot will be label as terrorist and we won't be able to do anything to stop them...

And now I just found out about Cheran! First time I hear about it. What an inspiring story. We are basically living their same problem, just at national scale... Unless we defend ourselves from extortioners (street gangs), politicians (that are making laws on their favor, alongside the criminals) and polices forces (that are part of extortioner bands) we have been screwed by the system...

It's time for something completely new. I'm counting on you man, keep writting as fast as you can!!

Expand full comment
author

I am sorry to hear about all of that. Everything is a racket, powered either by government violence or street violence, with normal decent humans always the victims.

I do not have a magic bullet. But I think it is possible to begin a project together (across national boundaries, too) that has the potential to make a powerful difference over time.

Expand full comment

Let's do it. I'm already teaming up with a constitutional lawyer to develop a paper on AI-Democracy. I plan to pitch the software design to Balaji Srinivasan's team at The Network School so they can help us with the develpment of the protocol. Do you think if I get the Peruvian Nation to oppose the Peruvian Goverment on an international court could we shift the balance of power and knock off the President and Congress? (Congress mostly, since there is this legal loop-hole on the idea of "representatives"). An institutional seccesion to remove the Congress and call for a new elecction ourselves.

I would love to have you book "Distributed Nations" already on Kindle or something. Ain't there a specific launch date? Are you still writting it? hahaha, that would be crazy!

Expand full comment
author

"I plan to pitch the software design to Balaji Srinivasan's team at The Network School so they can help us with the develpment of the protocol."

—Cool!

"Do you think if I get the Peruvian Nation to oppose the Peruvian Goverment on an international court could we shift the balance of power and knock off the President and Congress?"

—Oh goodness—that would be great. In the early going, stuff like this will be tough. But it's going to happen more and more, as people figure out that they do not need government. And early deciders like you will blaze that trail.

"I would love to have you book "Distributed Nations" already on Kindle or something. Ain't there a specific launch date? Are you still writting it? hahaha, that would be crazy!

—Call me crazy. I have notes but nothing formal is written. I write each installment just a couple of days before you see it. Sometimes I write it on the same day!

I wanted to plan it better, write it all first, polish it, etc., but I decided it is more important to just get it out there and get rolling. So we have to accept that it won't be perfect.

But I am going as quick as I can!

Expand full comment

If the way gets muddy you get bogged down but if you’re carrying a heavy freight you bog down quicker and worse. I think it’s an excellent metaphor 👍🏼

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Oct 11
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

That's some good metaphor mixin' right there.

Expand full comment
Comment deleted
Oct 11
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
author

Ha! I am trying to think of mixed metaphor with which to respond, but I was up late last night, so I'll just say thanks!!

Expand full comment