Seen in a larger context, this is how corrupt empires end. They lose the trust and confidence of the population, then outlying provinces (states) begin ignoring or countermanding the empire's official edicts. Eventually the provinces stop paying tribute (taxes) to the empire. Then empire representatives begin finding themselves unwelcome in the provinces, even to the point of fearing for their very lives.
That was the trajectory of Rome and many other empires that followed. But if the fall of empire is followed by a renewal of our Republic, can this be a bad thing?
if the fall of empire is followed by a renewal of our Republic, can this be a bad thing?
What if "the Republic" was the fraud to start with?
The Declaration of Independence
The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty;
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The original John Locke papers from which these statements were derived stated that Life, Liberty and Property were the inalienable Rights of all people. Your Property is yours in any reasonable society. People can't just come along and take it from you. In Communism, your property is is not yours. Ostensibly anyone can come and take your property at any time, because its not yours, its... the States. Who is the State? Its the people at the top of the food chain. Ownership of property in Communism belongs to those who run the show.
Why was property left out of the DoI? That is a very good question. Regardless, it states that all men have equal rights. We can assume that "men" meant "people," since it is not uncommon to use "men" to mean all humans, but it doesn't say that explicitly, and that has meaning in the government we got.
The Constitution
The Constitution is a set of Laws. It is the article that incorporates (brings into being from nothing, i.e. makes "corporeal" as recognized by the Law) the governmental corporation (legal fiction/legal entity) that we call the United States Government. The Constitution is the government, the government is the Constitution as far as Law is concerned. The DoI plays no part in the government AKA the Republic, as you call it. It is The Law, founded on the Constitution that make up what you call "the Republic." It's also the Common Laws and some other laws (Maritime e.g.) we inherited from The Crown (Britain's government, run by Rothschild with ostensibly some input from the House of Windsor) and The Holy Roman Empire, but that's another level of the problem which I won't elaborate now.
The United States Government
The Government then, does not in any way need to respect the statements of "all men are created equal," or Individual Life, Liberty, Property, or the Pursuit of Happiness.
And indeed it does not. From the get go the only people who could vote were wealthy male land owners. Not only could everyone else not vote, but slaves weren't even counted as human beings (see the 3/5ths Compromise). Women didn't count at all. We ignore these things and say "it was a product of those times," or, "in context it makes sense." Ok, maybe, but it is completely at odds with "all men are created equal," full stop. We then further justify "how well the system works" by how these DoI incongruences were taken care of. The 3/5ths compromise was taken care of by the 14th amendment. But the 14th amendment made all people slaves to a tyrannical government, and was the foundation for tons of legal fuckery, including Roe v. Wade.
There are numerous statements in the Constitution that make clear that not all people are equal, by intention, from the start. For another example, the entire fifth amendment is a violation of the DoI's statements of Individual Sovereignty, but the easiest example to show (shortest explanation) is at the end:
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The people who run the government AKA the State has more right to your property than you do. You do not own your property if it can be taken at any time by any Ruler who wants it. What form of government does that sound like to you? This is one of numerous examples of violations of Individual Sovereignty and/or open doors to fuckery that were included in the actual Republic we got.
The DoI was the flowery packaging. The Constitution was what was inside. The packaging lied. Do you think there might have been Bankster fuckery there? Everyone who created it was a Freemason. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written in the 19th century, states explicity that they created the Democratic governments to lead away from the Monarchies and inevitably into their New One World Government.
The Republic
Why do we believe that "The Republic" is some great thing when it explicitly never respected Individual Sovereignty? The DoI is not the Constitution. We are fed the lie that they are the same thing. Only the Law matters in a government. Statements of intent are irrelevant when it comes down to it.
I suggest that "The Republic" needs to be made a whole lot smaller. There was a reason the Greeks had "City-State" democracies. I'm not saying they had it all worked out. It was still a form of "majority rule" AKA Mob Rule, but it is a place to look for inspiration.
What needs to be fundamental in any form of government is a clear statement that it is a Treaty, that all signatories to the Treaty are Sovereign, that all signatories are People (if the signatories are "States," that only makes the States the Sovereigns, We the People remain subjects to the State), and that the Treaty can be reasonably exited at any time.
These are essential for a system of laws (Treaty) to live up to the flowery words in the DoI. The Republic was never anything even close to that. I suggest it wasn't for a reason. Lauding it completely misses what would inevitably happen if we were to "go back to the beginning," which is lead to the subjugation of all Individuals under the Rule of the current PTB, exactly as originally intended.
Seen in a larger context, this is how corrupt empires end. They lose the trust and confidence of the population, then outlying provinces (states) begin ignoring or countermanding the empire's official edicts. Eventually the provinces stop paying tribute (taxes) to the empire. Then empire representatives begin finding themselves unwelcome in the provinces, even to the point of fearing for their very lives.
That was the trajectory of Rome and many other empires that followed. But if the fall of empire is followed by a renewal of our Republic, can this be a bad thing?
What if "the Republic" was the fraud to start with?
The Declaration of Independence
The DoI made implicit statements of Individual Sovereignty;
The original John Locke papers from which these statements were derived stated that Life, Liberty and Property were the inalienable Rights of all people. Your Property is yours in any reasonable society. People can't just come along and take it from you. In Communism, your property is is not yours. Ostensibly anyone can come and take your property at any time, because its not yours, its... the States. Who is the State? Its the people at the top of the food chain. Ownership of property in Communism belongs to those who run the show.
Why was property left out of the DoI? That is a very good question. Regardless, it states that all men have equal rights. We can assume that "men" meant "people," since it is not uncommon to use "men" to mean all humans, but it doesn't say that explicitly, and that has meaning in the government we got.
The Constitution
The Constitution is a set of Laws. It is the article that incorporates (brings into being from nothing, i.e. makes "corporeal" as recognized by the Law) the governmental corporation (legal fiction/legal entity) that we call the United States Government. The Constitution is the government, the government is the Constitution as far as Law is concerned. The DoI plays no part in the government AKA the Republic, as you call it. It is The Law, founded on the Constitution that make up what you call "the Republic." It's also the Common Laws and some other laws (Maritime e.g.) we inherited from The Crown (Britain's government, run by Rothschild with ostensibly some input from the House of Windsor) and The Holy Roman Empire, but that's another level of the problem which I won't elaborate now.
The United States Government
The Government then, does not in any way need to respect the statements of "all men are created equal," or Individual Life, Liberty, Property, or the Pursuit of Happiness.
And indeed it does not. From the get go the only people who could vote were wealthy male land owners. Not only could everyone else not vote, but slaves weren't even counted as human beings (see the 3/5ths Compromise). Women didn't count at all. We ignore these things and say "it was a product of those times," or, "in context it makes sense." Ok, maybe, but it is completely at odds with "all men are created equal," full stop. We then further justify "how well the system works" by how these DoI incongruences were taken care of. The 3/5ths compromise was taken care of by the 14th amendment. But the 14th amendment made all people slaves to a tyrannical government, and was the foundation for tons of legal fuckery, including Roe v. Wade.
There are numerous statements in the Constitution that make clear that not all people are equal, by intention, from the start. For another example, the entire fifth amendment is a violation of the DoI's statements of Individual Sovereignty, but the easiest example to show (shortest explanation) is at the end:
The people who run the government AKA the State has more right to your property than you do. You do not own your property if it can be taken at any time by any Ruler who wants it. What form of government does that sound like to you? This is one of numerous examples of violations of Individual Sovereignty and/or open doors to fuckery that were included in the actual Republic we got.
The DoI was the flowery packaging. The Constitution was what was inside. The packaging lied. Do you think there might have been Bankster fuckery there? Everyone who created it was a Freemason. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, written in the 19th century, states explicity that they created the Democratic governments to lead away from the Monarchies and inevitably into their New One World Government.
The Republic
Why do we believe that "The Republic" is some great thing when it explicitly never respected Individual Sovereignty? The DoI is not the Constitution. We are fed the lie that they are the same thing. Only the Law matters in a government. Statements of intent are irrelevant when it comes down to it.
I suggest that "The Republic" needs to be made a whole lot smaller. There was a reason the Greeks had "City-State" democracies. I'm not saying they had it all worked out. It was still a form of "majority rule" AKA Mob Rule, but it is a place to look for inspiration.
What needs to be fundamental in any form of government is a clear statement that it is a Treaty, that all signatories to the Treaty are Sovereign, that all signatories are People (if the signatories are "States," that only makes the States the Sovereigns, We the People remain subjects to the State), and that the Treaty can be reasonably exited at any time.
These are essential for a system of laws (Treaty) to live up to the flowery words in the DoI. The Republic was never anything even close to that. I suggest it wasn't for a reason. Lauding it completely misses what would inevitably happen if we were to "go back to the beginning," which is lead to the subjugation of all Individuals under the Rule of the current PTB, exactly as originally intended.
Der ewige Juden