idw.community

5 9

Simple truth

Slapme2x 5 Feb 28
Share

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

Wise words from a great man.

2

Seems to be encouraging at least the theorizing of morality disconnected from religion, in the first part. The second seems more specific. Seems to be saying something like..but if you want a national unification of morality, you cannot disconnect it from “ religious principles”. I think there’s an important difference between religion as institutions; as opposed to religious principles, to which the institutions are attempting to uphold...theoretically. Just my initial thoughts.

I read the first part as cautionary and setting up the second. I think its a polite way to slap down the counter argument.

I don't mean to be offensive but I am skeptical of those who say,' on one hand the principles are good but the people who practice them are tainted.' It is unnecessary.

Principles stand by themselves and we will always have variation in the mix. That doesn't cause the principle to fail.

@Slapme2x

Not sure if we’re on the same page, we would probably have to difine a few terms. Given that, I would agree these religious principles aren’t contingent on the individuals who make up the body that accepts them. If these principles are deep enough and assuming they come from Christianity, they supersede religion as a whole.

The problem, which I believe is being raised here, comes once one tries too hastily to remove our morals from the things (religious principles) that come in the form of religion. As a Christian, he would assume the good is God and religion is an attempt to get closer to that Good. So you could potentially undermine the nature of Goodness by attempting to disjoin it from religion, which could lead to breaking off the foundation that defines good, that foundation being the principles and the principles being justified through God.

0

This fly in the face of countries like Finland that almost completely atheist yet have the highest morals and success associated with it.

Religion is great for idiots and the lazy who needs to be told what is wrong and right.

The long term goal has to be that people develop the ability to decide what is good and bad without someone else having to tell them “four legs good, two legs bad”.

  1. You sound like the person you describe with your comments on religion.
  2. Regarding Finland, you appear to be lying or merely misinformed. Here’s something from Wikipedia. Finland is a predominantly Christian nation where just under 69% of the 5.5 million overall population are members of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland (Protestant), 27.4% are unaffiliated, and 0.7% follow other religions like Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, folk religion etc.
  3. Your long term goal was tried in TRUE atheist nations like the USSR, East Germany, China, N. Korea and Cambodia where tens of millions of innocent citizens were murdered by their own atheistic leaders. Those murderous atheists decided starvation-good, gulag-good, killing fields-good, freedom bad and religion bad.

I'll just piggyback on Clammy's point. Did you not think to Goggle facts before you spouted about Finland? I mean, come on dude or dudette. Put a little effort in your angry responses and condescending self-righteousness.

@Slapme2x, @Clammypollack
Yes, your Google searches are the oracles of truth... just as much as your religious scriptures.
Do any of you know any Finns? Ever been to Finland?

The concept that people are grouped in historical sets which does not apply to their current faiths completely escapes you.

Half my family is Finnish and I have spent much time there.
There churches are all empty and they are considering converting them to massive CPU centres... for guess what.... Google!
Go and google that,
Morons.

@Clammypollack

  1. You just proved my point in point 2 you made.
  2. You just made my point, thanks.
  3. Ever heard of the crusades? Jihad? No one has ever killed in the name of atheism. They killed in the name of communism or in the name of some god.
    Again, proving my point.

@Hanno you certainly are an amusing child. Let me get this straight. Your opinion which is based upon your very limited experience is the final word on a subject! I now understand why you don’t believe in research. Good approach to have in life. It will keep you small minded, ignorant and bigoted. By the way, the govt. of Finland put out this stat on their website but we all know that your research is superior. It has been fun humiliating you.

@Clammypollack
Haha... ad hominem attacks always start when you loose an argument.
You have no response to anything I said so you try to insult me... yet anyone else who read this discussion is laughing at you.

@Hanno so, now you're against ad hominem attacks after you call someone a moron? And that after only one response that laid out facts.

I can understand how you could assume that you have the read on an entire nation after knowing someone who is from there and having visited. I lived in Germany for 9 years of my life. Germans say that I speak German without an American accent but please know that I would never try to assess the entire country from my limited time there.

I agree that an ad hominem attack is evidence that the argument is lost and you lost from the start.

By the way, the Google search is not the thing that reveals the answer but it is a source that can assist in revealing those who have done the research.

3

Have looked at this for a while to try to see another approach to it but in the end I have to agree. Without some code of values/principles, a consistent national morality could not arise and maintain itself.

Very interesting comment. Why do you feel that you must first try to disprove the idea? I'm not trying to trap you, I am interested in your process.

@Slapme2x Really, I was just trying to understand it in our sociological context. Looked at animal groups and their collective internal and external relationships, then compared them to our human experiences. And while morality would have to be more clearly defined, without some reasoned, common agreement humans would do whatever they wanted without bounds.

@skaarda very good. I have found Jordan Peterson's discussion on the topic of morality and God to be very interesting. I don't agree with some of his foundational premises but think his conclusions point in the right direction. Sort of like, I don't know why a gun works but I'm really good at hitting a target.

0

What does that mean?

This dude was a psychopath, so...

Please explain...

@Clammypollack

See also:

Generalissimo Washington: How He Crushed the Spirit of Liberty
by Murray Rothbard, 1979

Example:
"In June of 1775, George Washington was appointed Major General and elected by Congress to be commander in chief of the American revolutionary forces. Although he took up his tasks energetically, Washington accomplished nothing militarily for the remainder of the year and more, nor did he try. His only campaign in 1775 was internal rather than external; it was directed against the American army as he found it, and was designed to extirpate the spirit of liberty pervading this unusually individualistic and democratic army of militiamen. In short, Washington set out to transform a people's army, uniquely suited for a libertarian revolution, into another orthodox and despotically ruled statist force after the familiar European model.
His primary aim was to crush the individualistic and democratic spirit of the American forces. For one thing, the officers of the militia were elected by their own men, and the discipline of repeated elections kept the officers from forming an aristocratic ruling caste typical of European armies of the period. The officers often drew little more pay than their men, and there were no hierarchical distinctions of rank imposed between officers and men. As a consequence, officers could not enforce their wills coercively on the soldiery. This New England equality horrified Washington's conservative and highly aristocratic soul.
To introduce a hierarchy of ruling caste, Washington insisted on distinctive decorations of dress in accordance with minute gradations of rank. As one observer phrased it: "New lords, new laws. … The strictest government is taking place, and great distinction is made between officers and soldier. Everyone is made to know his place and keep it." Despite the great expense involved, he also tried to stamp out individuality in the army by forcing uniforms upon them; but the scarcity of cloth made this plan unfeasible.
At least as important as distinctions in decoration was the introduction of extensive inequality in pay. Led by Washington and the other aristocratic southern delegates, and over the objections of Massachusetts, the Congress insisted on fixing a pay scale for generals and other officers considerably higher than that of the rank and file.
In addition to imposing a web of hierarchy on the Continental Army, Washington crushed liberty within by replacing individual responsibility by iron despotism and coercion. Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused."

See also:

DR. EDUARDO M. RIVERA
PROFESSOR OF Law & GOVERNMENT
George Washington Jailer And Tax Collector

Example:
"Washington broke the government, so he could become the chief tax collector for the Congress of the United States and, also, so he could jail anyone who refused to consent to be taxed. Broken American government has been falling apart steadily since George Washington first broke it. As I explain in this report, fixing the government is as easy as getting the President Elect to take an oath "to support this Constitution." That part of the oath of Office of President of the United States to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States," explains that the "United States" means the territory and other property belonging to the United States of America."

The works done by Rothbard and Molyneux are relatively superficial, but their efforts include references to sources. Rivera, on the other hand, deals with specific legal questions rather than any documented evidence of mental abnormality. Most people will be told that the man couldn't tell a lie and that would be sufficent to raise the dictator to exhaulted esteem.

As to the quote, I would like to know what anyone else thinks that the quote means. I think it can mean just about anything someone might want it to mean; to suit any occasion.

@Josf-Kelley

Well, you convinced me he wasn’t impeccable and had been glorified above what a man should be. But if you’re point is that he was some kind of wolf in sheep’s clothing, with a bloodthirsty passion for power and wealth, I call BS. Was he a rough guy, sure, something common for most human history. Not that that excuses everything he did, but to conclude he’s a psychopath who envisioned a Britain-like tyranny for the colonies is absurd. As far as the video goes, it has some good information. It’s funny tho, it has an obvious bias to over vilify him, like those from the time had a bias to over glorify him. I can tell the speaker is a hard lefty too..

@Josf-Kelley Rivera is a professor of law at an internet law school. Impressive! Add to that a leftist Austrian and I am convinced.

@JoeySparks

No amount of evidence can or should change a determined mind. But for those having a need for the facts that matter in the case the evidence is overwhelming, conclusive, consistent, and so far as I have yet to find not refuted.

As to the claim that the speaker is a "hard lefty," it occurs to me to add that opinion to the previous one, an opinion based as far as I can tell on assumption.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."

Additional information can be found in:

  1. Shays's Rebellion: The American Revolution's Final Battle. By Leonard L. Richards.

  2. The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution
    by Thomas P. Slaughter

  3. The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War
    by Fred Anderson

Then there is this:

"But if you’re point is that he was some kind of wolf in sheep’s clothing, with a bloodthirsty passion for power and wealth, I call BS."

Again, no amount of information can ever stand up against a call of BS!

@Josf-Kelley

I hope I'm not as closed minded as you seem to think I am, but don’t forget you’re trying to prove Washington is a psychopath. You gave other people’s examples of how he came in as like King George himself and committed atrocities like trying to give structure and unify a bunch of rebel groups. If you have problems on how he went about that, great, we probably can share some common ground. But to say his over all purpose and intent could be undermined by this information you call evidence and therefore he can be equated to the same tyrannical tendencies they were fighting, again i say is absurd.

My biggest problem I have with this all is the fact that the devil is in the details. This information is only “evidence” with a heavy spin into the narrative that is trying to be proved. Here’s an example that took me all but 10 min to find, for I claim to be no scholar of Washington.

“He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused."

This struck me odd and possibly evidence toward your claim. So did he specifically “urge” to raise lashings to a maximum of 500? I found where that comes from and it’s a letter he wrote to congress. A letter to where he was “urging” to receive some kind of grading system in regards to discipline. [m.digitaljournal.com]

The over all tune of the letter doesn’t seem to fit the Washington you’re trying to convince me of. I recommend you see for yourself so I won’t go into the details of why I would say that for the sake of time. I will point out the one simple quote proving that he at least didn’t urge for 500 max like I was lead to believe.

“The number of lashes may either be indefinite, left to the discretion of the Court to fix, or limited to a larger number; in this case, I would recommend five hundred.”

So what I consider to be BS is this academic level of spinning intended to push an agenda that ultimately (seen at every level of American education, which is dominated by the left) turns into something I hear come out of my peers mouth constantly. That “ the founders of our republic were actually just cruel, racist, greedy, white men. That’s what America was founded on”. This is the result of classic post-modern form of indoctrination.

@JoeySparks

"I hope I'm not as closed minded as you seem to think I am, but don’t forget you’re trying to prove Washington is a psychopath."

If you consider it to be worthy of the effort, then you can expend that effort, no matter what goal you pick. If you think that I am obligated to perform to your narrowly defined boundaries as determined exclusively by you, then you may find my willingness to obey those expectations to be less than expected.

Data:
"Severe and brutal punishments were imposed upon those soldiers whose sense of altruism failed to override their instinct for self-preservation. Furloughs were curtailed and girlfriends of soldiers were expelled from camp; above all, lengthy floggings were introduced for all practices that Washington considered esthetically or morally offensive. He even had the temerity to urge Congress to raise the maximum number of strikes of the lash from 39 to the enormous number of 500; fortunately, Congress refused."

It isn't my concern to find an agreeable term or terminology for people who behave torturously and murderously toward people supposedly on the same side in a defensive conflict against torturous and murderous aggressors.

I use the word psychopath because it works for me when I point to such people who act like psychopaths.

"But to say his over all purpose and intent could be undermined by this information you call evidence and therefore he can be equated to the same tyrannical tendencies they were fighting, again i say is absurd."

And again there is no power on earth that can contend with a repeat claim that something "is absurd"!

If Georgie treats "his own" soldiers the way described above, how does Georgie treat the enemy?

Congress said no Georgie, we don't do things that way. Congress at that time was Federal, not National. Georgie wanted a National State Type deal, not a Federal one.

You can claim that that too is absurd, and why would I care?

"A letter to where he was “urging” to receive some kind of grading system in regards to discipline."

The message in the letter is clear:

"The number of lashes may either be indefinite, left to the discretion of the Court to fix, or limited to a larger number; in this case, I would recommend five hundred." Georgie

I want to do as I please: arbitrary.

I suppose that it is possible to read just about anything into just about anything.

"So what I consider to be BS is this academic level of spinning intended to push an agenda that ultimately (seen at every level of American education, which is dominated by the left) turns into something I hear come out of my peers mouth constantly. That “ the founders of our republic were actually just cruel, racist, greedy, white men. That’s what America was founded on”. This is the result of classic post-modern form of indoctrination."

Those who were founding, framing, and defending republics (13) and a federation of republics did so, and those republics so federated lasted until 1789 at which point the voluntary characteristics of both republics and federations were removed and in place was placed arbitrary government power in the hands of an American Aristocracy: A Nation-State.

If you think that anything at all can be called a republic or a federation, or democracy for that matter, and so long as the name is used then the thing (or the process) becomes what the label says it is, then you can go on with that thought as you please. Why would I care?

A republic is The Public thing, of, by, and for the public as a whole, and expressly not for a faction, a party, a division of the whole whereby that Special Interest group enforces their arbitrary will upon whoever isn't a member of their exclusive group.

A federation is a voluntary agreement that binds members to the boundaries of the agreement, and failure to stay within those boundaries nullifies the agreement.

When Shays's Rebellion was lost by the revolutionary forces they were able to run like slaves out of Massachusetts into a nearby State that was still operating as a Republic, they found sanctuary as free people in liberty in a republic after losing what was essentially the last battle of the Revolutionary War.

When the federation was usurped with an arbitrary Nation-State in 1789 Washington conscripted an aggressive army for profit to enforce the payment of a National Tax on whiskey (same cause for Shays's Rebellion) which is enforced so as to create the demand for a National Central Banking Fraud Scam. That proves, if words mean anything, that the federation was gone, as were the republics, for all intents and purposes, republican governments federated for mutual defense was dead men walking from then on.

@Josf-Kelley:

The power I use to say your claim is absurd is the same power to which you use to condemn their means of punishment.

Do you not recognize the Articles of Confederation as a failed attempt to unify the colonies? I’m not sure a National govnt, the way they did it, was the best way, but do you think there was a better way?

@JoeySparks

How about identifying the claims you make more precisely?

If you do so, such as the "failed attempt" claim, then you can claim precisely what the Slave Traders and Slave Carriers claimed as the reason why "IT" was a failed attempt.

You can also make the same claims as the Central Banking Frauds, when they claimed that "IT" was a failed attempt.

You can make one up, or discover one yourself.

It was framed, formed, and was employed as a federation because the largest criminal army then enforcing absolute, arbitrary, despotic, tyrannical RULE invaded some of the newly formed Republics.

"IT" did not fail to "unify the Republics" sufficiently well enough to drive off that Aggressive Army for Profit. So there is that refutation of your ambiguous claim.

I found a fault found by the 6th President of The United States of America involving a specific failure of those in charge of the Federation as it was while it was one.

"IT" (like the gun) didn't fail, but certainly those using it can be held accountable for what they did with "IT" when they used it. They used "IT" to drive off the criminal British invaders.

What did they fail to do with it?

"It is not merely the number of impeachments, that are to be expected to make public officers honest and attentive in their business. A general opinion must pervade the community, that the house, the body to impeach them for misconduct, is disinterested, and ever watchful for the public good; and that the judges who shall try impeachments, will not feel a shadow of biass. Under such circumstances, men will not dare transgress, who, not deterred by such accusers and judges, would repeatedly misbehave. We have already suffered many and extensive evils, owing to the defects of the confederation, in not providing against the misconduct of public officers. When we expect the law to be punctually executed, not one man in ten thousand will disobey it: it is the probable chance of escaping punishment that induces men to transgress. It is one important mean to make the government just and honest, rigidly and constantly to hold, before the eyes of those who execute it, punishment, and dismission from office, for misconduct. These are principles no candid man, who has just ideas of the essential features of a free government, will controvert. They are, to be sure, at this period, called visionary, speculative and anti-governmental—but in the true stile of courtiers, selfish politicians, and flatterers of despotism—discerning republican men of both parties see their value. They are said to be of no value, by empty boasting advocates for the constitution, who, by their weakness and conduct, in fact, injure its cause much more than most of its opponents. From their high sounding promises, men are led to expect a defence of it, and to have their doubts removed. When a number of long pieces appear, they, instead of the defence, &c. they expected, see nothing but a parade of names—volumes written without ever coming to the point—cases quoted between which and ours there is not the least similitude—and partial extracts made from histories and governments, merely to serve a purpose. Some of them, like the true admirers of royal and senatorial robes, would fain prove, that nations who have thought like freemen and philosophers about government, and endeavoured to be free, have often been the most miserable: if a single riot, in the course of five hundred years happened in a free country, if a salary, or the interest of a public or private debt was not paid at the moment, they seem to lay more stress upon these truffles (for truffles they are in a free and happy country) than upon the oppressions of despotic government for ages together. (As to the lengthy writer in New-York you mention, I have attentively examined his pieces; he appears to be a candid good-hearted man, to have a good stile, and some plausible ideas; but when we carefully examine his pieces, to see where the strength of them lies; when the mind endeavours to fix on those material parts, which ought to be the essence of all voluminous productions, we do not find them: the writer appears constantly to move on a smooth surface, the part of his work, like the parts of a cob-house, are all equally strong and all equally weak, and all like those works of the boys, without an object; his pieces appear to have but little relation to the great question, whether the constitution is fitted to the condition and character of this people or not.)"
LETTER XIII.
JANUARY 14, 1788.
Richard Henry Lee, President of the federal government November 30, 1784 to June 3, 1785

Those who annihilated the federation, replacing it with a Nation-State, which was a treasonous crime, did so because they managed to fool, or threaten, or entice enough people to join the crime spree.

@Josf-Kelley

I didn’t mean to claim the AOC was a failure myself but only to bring up the fact it is thought of as one, at least that’s how I remember. I know of no serious objections to the AOC except that the republics where having increasingly conflicting relations (maybe that’s what is referred to as “truffles” by Richard Lee?) and that the founders were trying to avoid another Europe-like continent happening in America. I’m treading in waters I don’t feel confident in and I’ll admit you’re making good points. I’m just hesitant because all of this seems to have some serious implications. I think I see where you’re coming from, though.

I’m unaware of the the slave traders opposition to the AOC, maybe to have an universal legalization of slavery? The central bank’s opposition seems obvious, hence the federal reserve. That’s something I think we agree on. Are you saying these traders and bankers were the ones pulling the strings? Were the founders a part of or compliant with these type of people? Do you question Hamilton’s motives in all of this? These are honest questions. I just find it difficult to go along because this all is unconventional to how we understand history, from my general perspective. I would hope historians over the past few hundred years would pick this up...or I could be more ignorant than I expected.

@JoeySparks

"I’m just hesitant because all of this seems to have some serious implications."

The place I go with this is to the mirror. It is not arguable that the source of all human law is between the ears of humans, which is merely a phrase, such as "hearts and minds."

The Aristocratic Class of people in America were demonstrably on one side, and on the other side were what we now call patriots, but back then they were called Rebels, Revolutionaries, Insurgents, Terrorists, Liberals, Rabble, and a term less known in modern times: Levelers.

Once I find the law power in the mirror I license myself, authorize myself, and issue myself a warrant to discover the facts that matter in the most serious lawful cases in America ever, and then I seek the lawful steps toward a peaceful solution according to those discoveries I find along the way toward that goal.

The means to that end are handed down from ancient times, as I have found along the way, and those means are collectively called the common law, which was called Legem Terrae in Ancient times, such as the times when the Roman Empire annexed England and the written language in England was Latin, imported by the Criminal Invading Empire Building Romans. Legem Terrae means The Law of the Land.

The currency (language) used to credit (empower) The Law of the Land (common law) includes such things as "innocent until proven guilty," "punishment fits the crime," "unanimous agreement is required for a judicious verdict," etc.

The People as a whole represented in juries selected by lot (randomly) constitute the law of the land, the supreme judicial body, consenting to or not consenting to any higher claims of authority. That is the jargon, the currency, the language of law as told by the patriots.

The Aristocrats made up an exclusive language to credit their privileged court system, on the other hand, the hand behind their backs.

"I’m just hesitant because all of this seems to have some serious implications."

The implications include such moments of clarity as understanding that forms of work done by patriots include the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and decisions from courts of law (common law Public Trial by Jury cases). Dictates dictated by dictators seeking, stealing, and enforcing dictatorial power from The Public (the people as a whole) document other, opposing, messages, such as many of those messages found in that 1787 document that claims to be a Constitution.

If the common law is the highest court in the land, then the people as a whole maintain their power to consent to or not consent to whatever any government claims to be authoritatively legal. If, on the other hand, the handpicked members of the Aristocracy dictated what is or is not law, then The People as a whole will be subjected to whatever pleases whoever is in power at Aristocracy Central.

I don't know what you will implicate here, but your implications, your interpretations, of the messages are yours, they are found between your ears, or in your heart, not mine. I go to jury duty when the opportunity arises. I even ran for Congress in my district in 1996, having actually managed to get my name on the ballot. I was running on the ticket that it was wrong to burn 80 odd people alive in a church in Waco, Texas. I've learned more from my efforts to discover the facts that matter since that was my path chosen by me, autonomously, on my own authority, which again is the source of authority.

"maybe that’s what is referred to as “truffles” by Richard Lee?"

I think that I have found in the volumes of letters from Richard Henry Lee a very prophetic message that gets right to the point and I will add that here for anyone who cares to read that message from that President of The United States of America while it was still a Federation of Independent (autonomous) States.

"A federal, or rather a national city, ten miles square, containing a hundred square miles, is about four times as large as London; and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings, congress may possess a number of places or towns in each state. It is true, congress cannot have them unless the state legislatures cede them; but when once ceded, they never can be recovered. And though the general temper of the legislatures may be averse to such cessions, yet many opportunities and advantages may be taken of particular times and circumstances of complying assemblies, and of particular parties, to obtain them. It is not improbable, that some considerable towns or places, in some intemperate moments, or influenced by anti-republican principles, will petition to be ceded for the purposes mentioned in the provision. There are men, and even towns, in the best republics, which are often fond of withdrawing from the government of them, whenever occasion shall present. The case is still stronger. If the provision in question holds out allurements to attempt to withdraw, the people of a state must ever be subject to state as well as federal taxes; but the federal city and places will be subject only to the latter, and to them by no fixed proportion. Nor of the taxes raised in them, can the separate states demand any account of congress. These doors opened for withdrawing from the state governments entirely, may, on other accounts, be very alluring and pleasing to those anti-republican men who prefer a place under the wings of courts.

"If a federal town be necessary for the residence of congress and the public officers, it ought to be a small one, and the government of it fixed on republican and common law principles, carefully enumerated and established by the constitution. it is true, the states, when they shall cede places, may stipulate that the laws and government of congress in them shall always be formed on such principles. But it is easy to discern, that the stipulations of a state, or of the inhabitants of the place ceded, can be of but little avail against the power and gradual encroachments of the union. The principles ought to be established by the federal constitution, to which all states are parties; but in no event can there be any need of so large a city and places for forts, etc. , totally exempted from the laws and jurisdictions of the state governments.

"If I understand the constitution, the laws of congress, constitutionally made, will have complete and supreme jurisdiction to all federal purposes, on every inch of ground in the United States, and exclusive jurisdiction on the high seas, and this by the highest authority, the consent of the people. Suppose ten acres at West Point shall be used as a fort of the union, or a sea port town as a dockyard: the laws of the union, in those places, respecting the navy, forces of the union, and all federal objects, must prevail, be noticed by all judges and officers, and executed accordingly. And I can discern no one reason for excluding from these places, the operation of state laws, as to mere state purpose for instance, for the collection of state taxes in them; recovering debts; deciding questions of property arising within them on state laws; punishing, by state laws, theft, trespasses, and offenses committed in them by mere citizens against the state law.

"The city, and all the places in which the union shall have this exclusive jurisdiction, will be immediately under one entire government, that of the federal head, and be no part of any state, and consequently no part of the United States. The inhabitants of the federal city and places, will be as much exempt from the laws and control of the state governments, as the people of Canada or Nova Scotia will be. Neither the laws of the states respecting taxes, the militia, crimes of property, will extend to them; nor is there a single stipulation in the constitution, that the inhabitants of this city, and these places, shall be governed by laws founded on principles of freedom. All questions, civil and criminal, arising on the laws of these places, which must be the laws of congress, must be decided in the federal courts; and also, all questions that may, by such judicial fictions as these courts may consider reasonable, be supposed to arise within this city, or any of these places, may be brought into these courts. By a very common legal fiction, any personal contract may be supposed to have been made in any place. A contract made in Georgia may be supposed to have been made in the federal city; the courts will admit the fiction. . . . " Richard Henry Lee, 6th President of the United States of America in Congress Assembled, writing in opposition to the National (1789) Constitutional (criminal) usurpation by "legal fiction."
Federal Farmer XVIII
Richard Henry Lee, January 25, 1788

Note that this man also exposes the fraud, the bait-and-switch, involving the changing (official) meaning of Federation, from the original meaning of Voluntary Association for Mutual Defense, to the current meaning which is a synonym for despotic government, or Profitable Monopoly where the body of people (The Public) is seen as hereditary property: slaves.

"I’m unaware of the the slave traders opposition to the AOC, maybe to have an universal legalization of slavery?"

Volumes could be perused by you on this very matter. The Federation Principle works as a Free Market of Government options, slaves run from those Government Providers (States) that turn despotic, so those who produce anything worth stealing flee and that market provider goes broke. The Monopolists prefer no place to run, no place to hide. The group working to Subsidize Slavery at a National Level were pointed out by Thomas Jefferons when they edited his original draft of that famous Declaration of Independence.

In the Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I. p. 10
"The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe felt a little tender under those censures; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others."

"Are you saying these traders and bankers were the ones pulling the strings?"

Above is a truffle compared to the extensive evidence proving the case against the Death Merchants knowable as the criminals running the African Slave Trade, which included "consumers of the product" as well as those who did the kidnapping, selling, shipping, reselling with markup, etc.

As to Central Banking Fraud:

"But Hamilton wanted to go farther than debt assumption. He believed a funded national debt would assist in establishing public credit. By funding national debt, Hamilton envisioned the Congress setting aside a portion of tax revenues to pay each year's interest without an annual appropriation. Redemption of the principal would be left to the government's discretion. At the time Hamilton gave his Report on Public Credit, the national debt was $80 million. Though such a large figure shocked many Republicans who saw debt as a menace to be avoided, Hamilton perceived debt's benefits. "In countries in which the national debt is properly funded, and the object of established confidence," explained Hamilton, "it assumes most of the purposes of money." Federal stock would be issued in exchange for state and national debt certificates, with interest on the stock running about 4.5 percent. To Republicans the debt proposals were heresy. The farmers and planters of the South, who were predominantly Republican, owed enormous sums to British creditors and thus had firsthand knowledge of the misery wrought by debt. Debt, as Hamilton himself noted, must be paid or credit is ruined. High levels of taxation, Republicans prognosticated, would be necessary just to pay the interest on the perpetual debt. Believing that this tax burden would fall on the yeoman farmers and eventually rise to European levels, Republicans opposed Hamilton's debt program.

"To help pay the interest on the debt, Hamilton convinced the Congress to pass an excise on whiskey. In Federalist N. 12, Hamilton noted that because "[t]he genius of the people will ill brook the inquisitive and peremptory spirit of excise law," such taxes would be little used by the national government. In power, the Secretary of the Treasury soon changed his mind and the tax on the production of whiskey rankled Americans living on the frontier. Cash was scarce in the West and the Frontiersmen used whiskey as an item of barter."
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and their Legacy
by William Watkins

What had been learned in Shays's Rebellion (a problem to central bankers) was fixed as proven when Washington invaded the former Independent State of Pennsylvania in 1794, to enforce a National Tax on Whiskey, payable in gold. Gold was gone because of Gresham's Law (bad money drives out good) a known result of Central Bank Counterfeit Money manipulation in the Territory of Central Banking Frauds.

"Were the founders a part of or compliant with these type of people? Do you question Hamilton’s motives in all of this? These are honest questions."

No doubt. But which founders are you speaking about? How many organizations of any kind are populated exclusively by honest people seeking the same moral goals? The founders now called The Federalist Party were Nationalists hiding behind a false federalist flag: a case of treasonous fraud shown to be one by those against the annihilation of the federation, to be replaced by a despotic Nation-State. Guess what those other founders were called? Guess what the founders who were for federation were called? If you were for federation during the founding, and you were against nationalization (then called consolidation), guess what The Press labeled you?

"I just find it difficult to go along because this all is unconventional to how we understand history, from my general perspective. I would hope historians over the past few hundred years would pick this up...or I could be more ignorant than I expected."

I'm no historian, but I have looked at this and I continue to find volumes of evidence all of which points to the same conviction, none of which does not point to the same conviction, and I've been at it for at least 20 years. If people don't want to find something they will.

@Josf-Kelley

I appreciate the time and effort you put into presenting these thoughts. You have given me an abundance of issues to consider and investigate. I have only an increasing amount of questions at this point but I believe you’ve gone above and beyond to assist.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:80409
IDW.community does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.