I. The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is: We, the people of the United States (that is, the people THEN EXISTING in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. It is plain, in the first place, that this language, AS AN AGREEMENT, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc. Suppose an agreement were entered into, in this form: We, the people of Boston, agree to maintain a fort on Governor's Island, to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion. This agreement, as an agreement, would clearly bind nobody but the people then existing. Secondly, it would assert no right, power, or disposition, on their part, to compel their "posterity" to maintain such a fort. It would only indicate that the supposed welfare of their posterity was one of the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement. When a man says he is building a house for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of binding them, nor is it to be inferred that he is so foolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them, to live in it. So far as they are concerned, he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives, in building it, are that they, or at least some of them, may find it for their happiness to live in it. So when a man says he is planting a tree for himself and his posterity, he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought of compelling them, nor is it to be inferred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them, to eat the fruit. So far as they are concerned, he only means to say that his hopes and motives, in planting the tree, are that its fruit may be agreeable to them. So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their "posterity" was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend "to secure to them the blessings of liberty." The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their "posterity" to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not "to secure to them the blessings of liberty," but to make slaves of them; for if their "posterity" are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers. It cannot be said that the Constitution formed "the people of the United States," for all time, into a corporation. It does not speak of "the people" as a corporation, but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itself as "we," nor as "people," nor as "ourselves." Nor does a corporation, in legal language, have any "posterity." It supposes itself to have, and speaks of itself as having, perpetual existence, as a single individuality. Moreover, no body of men, existing at any one time, have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession of new members, as the old ones die off. But for this voluntary accession of new members, the corporation necessarily dies with the death of those who originally composed it. Legally speaking, therefore, there is, in the Constitution, nothing that professes or attempts to bind the "posterity" of those who established it. If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes. II. Let us consider these two matters, voting and tax paying, separately. And first of voting. All the voting that has ever taken place under the Constitution, has been of such a kind that it not only did not pledge the whole people to support the Constitution, but it did not even pledge any one of them to do so, as the following considerations show. 1. In the very nature of things, the act of voting could bind nobody but the actual voters. But owing to the property qualifications required, it is probable that, during the first twenty or thirty years under the Constitution, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or perhaps twentieth of the whole population (black and white, men, women, and minors) were permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting was concerned, not more than one-tenth, fifteenth, or twentieth of those then existing, could have incurred any obligation to support the Constitution. At the present time [1869], it is probable that not more than one-sixth of the whole population are permitted to vote. Consequently, so far as voting is concerned, the other five-sixths can have given no pledge that they will support the Constitution. 2. Of the one-sixth that are permitted to vote, probably not more than two-thirds (about one-ninth of the whole population) have usually voted. Many never vote at all. Many vote only once in two, three, five, or ten years, in periods of great excitement. No one, by voting, can be said to pledge himself for any longer period than that for which he votes. If, for example, I vote for an officer who is to hold his office for only a year, I cannot be said to have thereby pledged myself to support the government beyond that term. Therefore, on the ground of actual voting, it probably cannot be said that more than one-ninth or one-eighth, of the whole population are usually under any pledge to support the Constitution. [In recent years, since 1940, the number of voters in elections has usually fluctuated between one-third and two-fifths of the populace.] 3. It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support the Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his part. Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part of any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity imposed upon them by others, than one of their own choice. On this point I repeat what was said in a former number, viz.: "In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self- defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot — which is a mere substitute for a bullet — because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him. "Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to. "Therefore, a man's voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, EVEN FOR THE TIME BEING. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to be disturbed or injured by others." As we can have no legal knowledge as to who votes from choice, and who from the necessity thus forced upon him, we can have no legal knowledge, as to any particular individual, that he voted from choice; or, consequently, that by voting, he consented, or pledged himself, to support the government. Legally speaking, therefore, the act of voting utterly fails to pledge ANY ONE to support the government. It utterly fails to prove that the government rests upon the voluntary support of anybody. On general principles of law and reason, it cannot be said that the government has any voluntary supporters at all, until it can be distinctly shown who its voluntary supporters are. 4. As taxation is made compulsory on all, whether they vote or not, a large proportion of those who vote, no doubt do so to prevent their own money being used against themselves; when, in fact, they would have gladly abstained from voting, if they could thereby have saved themselves from taxation alone, to say nothing of being saved from all the other usurpations and tyrannies of the government. To take a man's property without his consent, and then to infer his consent because he attempts, by voting, to prevent that property from being used to his injury, is a very insufficient proof of his consent to support the Constitution. It is, in fact, no proof at all. And as we can have no legal knowledge as to who the particular individuals are, if there are any, who are willing to be taxed for the sake of voting, we can have no legal knowledge that any particular individual consents to be taxed for the sake of voting; or, consequently, consents to support the Constitution. 5. At nearly all elections, votes are given for various candidates for the same office. Those who vote for the unsuccessful candidates cannot properly be said to have voted to sustain the Constitution. They may, with more reason, be supposed to have voted, not to support the Constitution, but specially to prevent the tyranny which they anticipate the successful candidate intends to practice upon them under color of the Constitution; and therefore may reasonably be supposed to have voted against the Constitution itself. This supposition is the more reasonable, inasmuch as such voting is the only mode allowed to them of expressing their dissent to the Constitution. 6. Many votes are usually given for candidates who have no prospect of success. Those who give such votes may reasonably be supposed to have voted as they did, with a special intention, not to support, but to obstruct the exection of, the Constitution; and, therefore, against the Constitution itself. 7. As all the different votes are given secretly (by secret ballot), there is no legal means of knowing, from the votes themselves, who votes for, and who votes against, the Constitution. Therefore, voting affords no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution. And where there can be no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution, it cannot legally be said that anybody supports it. It is clearly impossible to have any legal proof of the intentions of large numbers of men, where there can be no legal proof of the intentions of any particular one of them. 8. There being no legal proof of any man's intentions, in voting, we can only conjecture them. As a conjecture, it is probable, that a very large proportion of those who vote, do so on this principle, viz., that if, by voting, they could but get the government into their own hands (or that of their friends), and use its powers against their opponents, they would then willingly support the Constitution; but if their opponents are to have the power, and use it against them, then they would NOT willingly support the Constitution. In short, men's voluntary support of the Constitution is doubtless, in most cases, wholly contingent upon the question whether, by means of the Constitution, they can make themselves masters, or are to be made slaves. Such contingent consent as that is, in law and reason, no consent at all. 9. As everybody who supports the Constitution by voting (if there are any such) does so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all personal responsibility for the acts of his agents or representatives, it cannot legally or reasonably be said that anybody at all supports the Constitution by voting. No man can reasonably or legally be said to do such a thing as assent to, or support, the Constitution, unless he does it openly, and in a way to make himself personally responsible for the acts of his agents, so long as they act within the limits of the power he delegates to them. 10. As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such voting, only proves that there is among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people. The simple fact of the existence of such a vand does nothing towards proving that "the people of the United States," or any one of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution. For all the reasons that have now been given, voting furnishes no legal evidence as to who the particular individuals are (if there are any), who voluntarily support the Constitution. It therefore furnishes no legal evidence that anybody supports it voluntarily. So far, therefore, as voting is concerned, the Constitution, legally speaking, has no supporters at all. And, as a matter of fact, there is not the slightest probability that the Constitution has a single bona fide supporter in the country. That is to say, there is not the slightest probability that there is a single man in the country, who both understands what the Constitution really is, and sincerely supports it for what it really is. The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes — a large class, no doubt — each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is "a free government"; "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth," [1] and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change. —————- [1] Suppose it be "the best government on earth," does that prove its own goodness, or only the badness of all other governments? —————- III. The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution. 1. It is true that the THEORY of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other; that that each man makes a free and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution, to pay so much money for so much protection, the same as he does with any other insurance company; and that he is just as free not to be protected, and not to pay tax, as he is to pay a tax, and be protected. But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat. The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you, by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy, if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villanies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave. The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves "the government," are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman. In the first place, they do not, like him, make themselves individually known; or, consequently, take upon themselves personally the responsibility of their acts. On the contrary, they secretly (by secret ballot) designate some one of their number to commit the robbery in their behalf, while they keep themselves practically concealed. They say to the person thus designated: Go to A_____ B_____, and say to him that "the government" has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we CHOOSE to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of "the government," and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not CHOOSE to make ourselves INDIVIDUALLY known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band.) If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder; convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that "our country" is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and "save the country," cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore. It is under such compulsion as this that taxes, so called, are paid. And how much proof the payment of taxes affords, that the people consent to "support the government," it needs no further argument to show. 2. Still another reason why the payment of taxes implies no consent, or pledge, to support the government, is that the taxpayer does not know, and has no means of knowing, who the particular individuals are who compose "the government." To him "the government" is a myth, an abstraction, an incorporeality, with which he can make no contract, and to which he can give no consent, and make no pledge. He knows it only through its pretended agents. "The government" itself he never sees. He knows indeed, by common report, that certain persons, of a certain age, are permitted to vote; and thus to make themselves parts of, or (if they choose) opponents of, the government, for the time being. But who of them do thus vote, and especially how each one votes (whether so as to aid or oppose the government), he does not know; the voting being all done secretly (by secret ballot). Who, therefore, practically compose "the government," for the time being, he has no means of knowing. Of course he can make no contract with them, give them no consent, and make them no pledge. Of necessity, therefore, his paying taxes to them implies, on his part, no contract, consent, or pledge to support them — that is, to support "the government," or the Constitution. 3. Not knowing who the particular individuals are, who call themselves "the government," the taxpayer does not know whom he pays his taxes to. All he knows is that a man comes to him, representing himself to be the agent of "the government" — that is, the agent of a secret band of robbers and murderers, who have taken to themselves the title of "the government," and have determined to kill everybody who refuses to give them whatever money they demand. To save his life, he gives up his money to this agent. But as this agent does not make his principals individually known to the taxpayer, the latter, after he has given up his money, knows no more who are "the government" — that is, who were the robbers — than he did before. To say, therefore, that by giving up his money to their agent, he entered into a voluntary contract with them, that he pledges himself to obey them, to support them, and to give them whatever money they should demand of him in the future, is simply ridiculous. 4. All political power, so called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a "government"; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with government, as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. So these villains, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money. For this reason, whoever desires liberty, should understand these vital facts, viz.: 1. That every man who puts money into the hands of a "government" (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against him, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will. 2. That those who will take his money, without his consent, in the first place, will use it for his further robbery and enslavement, if he presumes to resist their demands in the future. 3. That it is a perfect absurdity to suppose that any body of men would ever take a man's money without his consent, for any such object as they profess to take it for, viz., that of protecting him; for why should they wish to protect him, if he does not wish them to do so? To suppose that they would do so, is just as absurd as it would be to suppose that they would take his moeny without his consent, for the purpose of buying food or clothing for him, when he did not want it. 4. If a man wants "protection," he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to "protect" him against his will. 5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury. 6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support. These facts are all so vital and so self-evident, that it cannot reasonably be supposed that any one will voluntarily pay money to a "government," for the purpose of securing its protection, unless he first make an explicit and purely voluntary contract with it for that purpose. It is perfectly evident, therefore, that neither such voting, nor such payment of taxes, as actually takes place, proves anybody's consent, or obligation, to support the Constitution. Consequently we have no evidence at all that the Constitution is binding upon anybody, or that anybody is under any contract or obligation whatever to support it. And nobody is under any obligation to support it. IV. The constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him. It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still "make his mark," before he is bound by a written contract. This custom was established ages ago, when few men could write their names; when a clerk — that is, a man who could write — was so rare and valuable a person, that even if he were guilty of high crimes, he was entitled to pardon, on the ground that the public could not afford to lose his services. Even at that time, a written contract must be signed; and men who could not write, either "made their mark," or signed their contracts by stamping their seals upon wax affixed to the parchment on which their contracts were written. Hence the custom of affixing seals, that has continued to this time. The laws holds, and reason declares, that if a written instrument is not signed, the presumption must be that the party to be bound by it, did not choose to sign it, or to bind himself by it. And law and reason both give him until the last moment, in which to decide whether he will sign it, or not. Neither law nor reason requires or expects a man to agree to an instrument, until it is writteN; for until it is written, he cannot know its precise legal meaning. And when it is written, and he has had the opportunity to satisfy himself of its precise legal meaning, he is then expected to decide, and not before, whether he will agree to it or not. And if he do not THEN sign it, his reason is supposed to be, that he does not choose to enter into such a contract. The fact that the instrument was written for him to sign, or with the hope that he would sign it, goes for nothing. Where would be the end of fraud and litigation, if one party could bring into court a written instrument, without any signature, and claim to have it enforced, upon the ground that it was written for another man to sign? that this other man had promised to sign it? that he ought to have signed it? that he had had the opportunity to sign it, if he would? but that he had refused or neglected to do so? Yet that is the most that could ever be said of the Constitution. [1] The very judges, who profess to derive all their authority from the Constitution — from an instrument that nobody ever signed — would spurn any other instrument, not signed, that should be brought before them for adjudication. [1] The very men who drafted it, never signed it in any way to bind themselves by it, AS A CONTRACT. And not one of them probably ever would have signed it in any way to bind himself by it, AS A CONTRACT. Moreover, a written instrument must, in law and reason, not only be signed, but must also be delivered to the party (or to some one for him), in whose favor it is made, before it can bind the party making it. The signing is of no effect, unless the instrument be also delivered. And a party is at perfect liberty to refuse to deliver a written instrument, after he has signed it. The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody's agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, then can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered. V As further evidence of the general sense of mankind, as to the practical necessity there is that all men's IMPORTANT contracts, especially those of a permanent nature, should be both written and signed, the following facts are pertinent. For nearly two hundred years — that is, since 1677 — there has been on the statute book of England, and the same, in substance, if not precisely in letter, has been re-enacted, and is now in force, in nearly or quite all the States of this Union, a statute, the general object of which is to declare that no action shall be brought to enforce contracts of the more important class, UNLESS THEY ARE PUT IN WRITING, AND SIGNED BY THE PARTIES TO BE HELD CHARGEABLE UPON THEM. [At this point there is a footnote listing 34 states whose statute books Spooner had examined, all of which had variations of this English statute; the footnote also quotes part of the Massachussetts statute.] The principle of the statute, be it observed, is, not merely that written contracts shall be signed, but also that all contracts, except for those specially exempted — generally those that are for small amounts, and are to remain in force for but a short time — SHALL BE BOTH WRITTEN AND SIGNED. The reason of the statute, on this point, is, that it is now so easy a thing for men to put their contracts in writing, and sign them, and their failure to do so opens the door to so much doubt, fraud, and litigation, that men who neglect to have their contracts — of any considerable importance — written and signed, ought not to have the benefit of courts of justice to enforce them. And this reason is a wise one; and that experience has confirmed its wisdom and necessity, is demonstrated by the fact that it has been acted upon in England for nearly two hundred years, and has been so nearly universally adopted in this country, and that nobody thinks of repealing it. We all know, too, how careful most men are to have their contracts written and signed, even when this statute does not require it. For example, most men, if they have money due them, of no larger amount than five or ten dollars, are careful to take a note for it. If they buy even a small bill of goods, paying for it at the time of delivery, they take a receipted bill for it. If they pay a small balance of a book account, or any other small debt previously contracted, they take a written receipt for it. Furthermore, the law everywhere (probably) in our country, as well as in England, requires that a large class of contracts, such as wills, deeds, etc., shall not only be written and signed, but also sealed, witnessed, and acknowledged. And in the case of married women conveying their rights in real estate, the law, in many States, requires that the women shall be examined separate and apart from their husbands, and declare that they sign their contracts free of any fear or compulsion of their husbands. Such are some of the precautions which the laws require, and which individuals — from motives of common prudence, even in cases not required by law — take, to put their contracts in writing, and have them signed, and, to guard against all uncertainties and controversies in regard to their meaning and validity. And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract — the Constitution — made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind US, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see. And of those who ever have read it, or ever will read it, scarcely any two, perhaps no two, have ever agreed, or ever will agree, as to what it means. Moreover, this supposed contract, which would not be received in any court of justice sitting under its authority, if offered to prove a debt of five dollars, owing by one man to another, is one by which — AS IT IS GENERALLY INTERPRETED BY THOSE WHO PRETEND TO ADMINISTER IT — all men, women and children throughout the country, and through all time, surrender not only all their property, but also their liberties, and even lives, into the hands of men who by this supposed contract, are expressly made wholly irresponsible for their disposal of them. And we are so insane, or so wicked, as to destroy property and lives without limit, in fighting to compel men to fulfill a supposed contract, which, inasmuch as it has never been signed by anybody, is, on general princples of law and reason — such principles as we are all governed by in regard to other contracts — the merest waste of paper, binding upon nobody, fit only to be thrown into the fire; or, if preserved, preserved only to serve as a witness and a warning of the folly and wickedness of mankind. VI It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution — NOT AS I INTERPRET IT, BUT AS IT IS INTERPRETED BY THOSE WHO PRETEND TO ADMINISTER IT — the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be "questioned" as to any disposal they make of them. Thus the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6) provides that, "for any speech or debate (or vote), in either house, they (the senators and representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place." The whole law-making power is given to these senators and representatives (when acting by a two-thirds vote); [1] and this provision protects them from all responsibility for the laws they make. [1] And this two-thirds vote may be but two-thirds of a quorum — that is two-thirds of a majority — instead of two-thirds of the whole. The Constitution also enables them to secure the execution of all their laws, by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach and remove, all judicial and executive officers, who refuse to execute them. Thus the whole power of the government is in their hands, and they are made utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it. What is this but absolute, irresponsible power? It is no answer to this view of the case to say that these men are under oath to use their power only within certain limits; for what care they, or what should they care, for oaths or limits, when it is expressly provided, by the Constitution itself, that they shall never be "questioned," or held to any resonsibility whatever, for violating their oaths, or transgressing those limits? Neither is it any answer to this view of the case to say that the men holding this absolute, irresponsible power, must be men chosen by the people (or portions of them) to hold it. A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. Neither are a people any the less slaves because permitted periodically to choose new masters. What makes them slaves is the fact that they now are, and are always hereafter to be, in the hands of men whose power over them is, and always is to be, absolute and irresponsible. [2] [2] Of what appreciable value is it to any man, as an individual, that he is allowed a voice in choosing these public masters? His voice is only one of several millions. The right of absolute and irresponsible dominion is the right of property, and the right of property is the right of absolute, irresponsible dominion. The two are identical; the one necessarily implies the other. Neither can exist without the other. If, therefore, Congress have that absolute and irresponsible law-making power, which the Constitution — according to their interpretation of it — gives them, it can only be because they own us as property. If they own us as property, they are our masters, and their will is our law. If they do not own us as property, they are not our masters, and their will, as such, is of no authority over us. But these men who claim and exercise this absolute and irresponsible dominion over us, dare not be consistent, and claim either to be our masters, or to own us as property. They say they are only our servants, agents, attorneys, and representatives. But this declaration involves an absurdity, a contradiction. No man can be my servant, agent, attorney, or representative, and be, at the same time, uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me for his acts. It is of no importance that I appointed him, and put all power in his hands. If I made him uncontrollable by me, and irresponsible to me, he is no longer my servant, agent, attorney, or representative. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over my property, I gave him the property. If I gave him absolute, irresponsible power over myself, I made him my master, and gave myself to him as a slave. And it is of no importance whether I called him master or servant, agent or owner. The only question is, what power did I put in his hands? Was it an absolute and irresponsible one? or a limited and responsible one? For still another reason they are neither our servants, agents, attorneys, nor representatives. And that reason is, that we do not make ourselves responsible for their acts. If a man is my servant, agent, or attorney, I necessarily make myself responsible for all his acts done within the limits of the power I have intrusted to him. If I have intrusted him, as my agent, with either absolute power, or any power at all, over the persons or properties of other men than myself, I thereby necessarily make myself responsible to those other persons for any injuries he may do them, so long as he acts within the limits of the power I have granted him. But no individual who may be injured in his person or property, by acts of Congress, can come to the individual electors, and hold them responsible for these acts of their so-called agents or representatives. This fact proves that these pretended agents of the people, of everybody, are really the agents of nobody. If, then, nobody is individually responsible for the acts of Congress, the members of Congress are nobody's agents. And if they are nobody's agents, they are themselves individually responsible for their own acts, and for the acts of all whom they employ. And the authority they are exercising is simply their own individual authority; and, by the law of nature — the highest of all laws — anybody injured by their acts, anybody who is deprived by them of his property or his liberty, has the same right to hold them individually responsible, that he has to hold any other trespasser individually responsible. He has the same right to resist them, and their agents, that he has to resist any other trespassers. VII. It is plain, then, that on general principles of law and reason — such principles as we all act upon in courts of justice and in common life — the Constitution is no contract; that it binds nobody, and never did bind anybody; and that all those who pretend to act by its authority, are really acting without any legitimate authority at all; that, on general principles of law and reason, they are mere usurpers, and that everybody not only has the right, but is morally bound, to treat them as such. If the people of this country wish to maintain such a government as the Constitution describes, there is no reason in the world why they should not sign the instrument itself, and thus make known their wishes in an open, authentic manner; in such manner as the common sense and experience of mankind have shown to be reasonable and necessary in such cases; AND IN SUCH MANNER AS TO MAKE THEMSELVES (AS THEY OUGHT TO DO) INDIVIDUALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS OF THE GOVERNMENT. But the people have never been asked to sign it. And the only reason why they have never been asked to sign it, has been that it has been known that they never would sign it; that they were neither such fools nor knaves as they must needs have been to be willing to sign it; that (at least as it has been practically interpreted) it is not what any sensible and honest man wants for himself; nor such as he has any right to impose upon others. It is, to all moral intents and purposes, as destitute of obligations as the compacts which robbers and thieves and pirates enter into with each other, but never sign. If any considerable number of the people believe the Constitution to be good, why do they not sign it themselves, and make laws for, and administer them upon, each other; leaving all other persons (who do not interfere with them) in peace? Until they have tried the experiment for themselves, how can they have the face to impose the Constitution upon, or even to recommend it to, others? Plainly the reason for absurd and inconsistent conduct is that they want the Constitution, not solely for any honest or legitimate use it can be of to themselves or others, but for the dishonest and illegitimate power it gives them over the persons and properties of others. But for this latter reason, all their eulogiums on the Constitution, all their exhortations, and all their expenditures of money and blood to sustain it, would be wanting. VIII. The Constitution itself, then, being of no authority, on what authority does our government practically rest? On what ground can those who pretend to administer it, claim the right to seize men's property, to restrain them of their natural liberty of action, industry, and trade, and to kill all who deny their authority to dispose of men's properties, liberties, and lives at their pleasure or discretion? The most they can say, in answer to this question, is, that some half, two-thirds, or three-fourths, of the male adults of the country have a TACIT UNDERSTANDING that they will maintain a government under the Constitution; that they will select, by ballot, the persons to administer it; and that those persons who may receive a majority, or a plurality, of their ballots, shall act as their representatives, and administer the Constitution in their name, and by their authority. But this tacit understanding (admitting it to exist) cannot at all justify the conclusion drawn from it. A tacit understanding between A, B, and C, that they will, by ballot, depute D as their agent, to deprive me of my property, liberty, or life, cannot at all authorize D to do so. He is none the less a robber, tyrant, and murderer, because he claims to act as their agent, than he would be if he avowedly acted on his own responsibility alone. Neither am I bound to recognize him as their agent, nor can he legitimately claim to be their agent, when he brings no WRITTEN authority from them accrediting him as such. I am under no obligation to take his word as to who his principals may be, or whether he has any. Bringing no credentials, I have a right to say he has no such authority even as he claims to have: and that he is therefore intending to rob, enslave, or murder me on his own account. This tacit understanding, therefore, among the voters of the country, amounts to nothing as an authority to their agents. Neither do the ballots by which they select their agents, avail any more than does their tacit understanding; for their ballots are given in secret, and therefore in such a way as to avoid any personal responsibility for the acts of their agents. No body of men can be said to authorize a man to act as their agent, to the injury of a third person, unless they do it in so open and authentic a manner as to make themselves personally responsible for his acts. None of the voters in this country appoint their political agents in any open, authentic manner, or in any manner to make themselves responsible for their acts. Therefore these pretended agents cannot legitimately claim to be really agents. Somebody must be responsible for the acts of these pretended agents; and if they cannot show any open and authentic credentials from their principals, they cannot, in law or reason, be said to have any principals. The maxim applies here, that what does not appear, does not exist. If they can show no principals, they have none. But even these pretended agents do not themselves know who their pretended principals are. These latter act in secret; for acting by secret ballot is acting in secret as much as if they were to meet in secret conclave in the darkness of the night. And they are personally as much unknown to the agents they select, as they are to others. No pretended agent therefore can ever know by whose ballots he is selected, or consequently who his real principles are. Not knowing who his principles are, he has no right to say that he has any. He can, at most, say only that he is the agent of a secret band of robbers and murderers, who are bound by that faith which prevails among confederates in crime, to stand by him, if his acts, done in their name, shall be resisted. Men honestly engaged in attempting to establish justice in the world, have no occasion thus to act in secret; or to appoint agents to do acts for which they (the principals) are not willing to be responsible. The secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is a secret band of robbers and murderers. Open despotism is better than this. The single despot stands out in the face of all men, and says: I am the State: My will is law: I am your master: I take the responsibility of my acts: The only arbiter I acknowledge is the sword: If anyone denies my right, let him try conclusions with me. But a secret government is little less than a government of assassins. Under it, a man knows not who his tyrants are, until they have struck, and perhaps not then. He may GUESS, beforehand, as to some of his immediate neighbors. But he really knows nothing. The man to whom he would most naturally fly for protection, may prove an enemy, when the time of trial comes. This is the kind of government we have; and it is the only one we are likely to have, until men are ready to say: We will consent to no Constitution, except such an one as we are neither ashamed nor afraid to sign; and we will authorize no government to do anything in our name which we are not willing to be personally responsible for. IX. What is the motive to the secret ballot? This, and only this: Like other confederates in crime, those who use it are not friends, but enemies; and they are afraid to be known, and to have their individual doings known, even to each other. They can contrive to bring about a sufficient understanding to enable them to act in concert against other persons; but beyond this they have no confidence, and no friendship, among themselves. In fact, they are engaged quite as much in schemes for plundering each other, as in plundering those who are not of them. And it is perfectly well understood among them that the strongest party among them will, in certain contingencies, murder each other by the hundreds of thousands (as they lately did do) to accomplish their purposes against each other. Hence they dare not be known, and have their individual doings known, even to each other. And this is avowedly the only reason for the ballot: for a secret government; a government by secret bands of robbers and murderers. And we are insane enough to call this liberty! To be a member of this secret band of robbers and murderers is esteemed a privilege and an honor! Without this privilege, a man is considered a slave; but with it a free man! With it he is considered a free man, because he has the same power to secretly (by secret ballot) procure the robbery, enslavement, and murder of another man, and that other man has to procure his robbery, enslavement, and murder. And this they call equal rights! If any number of men, many or few, claim the right to govern the people of this country, let them make and sign an open compact with each other to do so. Let them thus make themselves individually known to those whom they propose to govern. And let them thus openly take the legitimate responsibility of their acts. How many of those who now support the Constitution, will ever do this? How many will ever dare openly proclaim their right to govern? or take the legitimate responsibility of their acts? Not one! X. It is obvious that, on general principles of law and reason, there exists no such thing as a government created by, or resting upon, any consent, compact, or agreement of "the people of the United States" with each other; that the only visible, tangible, responsible government that exists, is that of a few individuals only, who act in concert, and call themselves by the several names of senators, representatives, presidents, judges, marshals, treasurers, collectors, generals, colonels, captains, etc., etc. On general principles of law and reason, it is of no importance whatever that these few individuals profess to be the agents and representatives of "the people of the United States"; since they can show no credentials from the people themselves; they were never appointed as agents or representatives in any open, authentic manner; they do not themselves know, and have no means of knowing, and cannot prove, who their principals (as they call them) are individually; and consequently cannot, in law or reason, be said to have any principals at all. It is obvious, too, that if these alleged principals ever did appoint these pretended agents, or representatives, they appointed them secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to avoid all personal responsibility for their acts; that, at most, these alleged principals put these pretended agents forward for the most criminal purposes, viz.: to plunder the people of their property, and restrain them of their liberty; and that the only authority that these alleged principals have for so doing, is simply a TACIT UNDERSTANDING among themselves that they will imprison, shoot, or hang every man who resists the exactions and restraints which their agents or representatives may impose upon them. Thus it is obvious that the only visible, tangible government we have is made up of these professed agents or representatives of a secret band of robbers and murderers, who, to cover up, or gloss over, their robberies and murders, have taken to themselves the title of "the people of the United States"; and who, on the pretense of being "the people of the United States," assert their right to subject to their dominion, and to control and dispose of at their pleasure, all property and persons found in the United States. XII. On general principles of law and reason, the oaths which these pretended agents of the people take "to support the Constitution," are of no validity or obligation. And why? For this, if for no other reason, viz., THAT THEY ARE GIVEN TO NOBODY. There is no privity (as the lawyers say) — that is, no mutual recognition, consent, and agreement — between those who take these oaths, and any other persons. If I go upon Boston Common, and in the presence of a hundred thousand people, men, women and children, with whom I have no contract upon the subject, take an oath that I will enforce upon them the laws of Moses, of Lycurgus, of Solon, of Justinian, or of Alfred, that oath is, on general principles of law and reason, of no obligation. It is of no obligation, not merely because it is intrinsically a criminal one, BUT ALSO BECAUSE IT IS GIVEN TO NOBODY, and consequently pledges my faith to nobody. It is merely given to the winds. It would not alter the case at all to say that, among these hundred thousand persons, in whose presence the oath was taken, there were two, three, or five thousand male adults, who had SECRETLY — by secret ballot, and in a way to avoid making themselves INDIVIDUALLY known to me, or to the remainder of the hundred thousand — designated me as their agent to rule, control, plunder, and, if need be, murder, these hundred thousand people. The fact that they had designated me secretly, and in a manner to prevent my knowing them individually, prevents all privity between them and me; and consequently makes it impossible that there can be any contract, or pledge of faith, on my part towards them; for it is impossible that I can pledge my faith, in any legal sense, to a man whom I neither know, nor have any means of knowing, individually. So far as I am concerned, then, these two, three, or five thousand persons are a secret band of robbers and murderers, who have secretly, and in a way to save themselves from all responsibility for my acts, designated me as their agent; and have, through some other agent, or pretended agent, made their wishes known to me. But being, nevertheless, individually unknown to me, and having no open, authentic contract with me, my oath is, on general principles of law and reason, of no validity as a pledge of faith to them. And being no pledge of faith to them, it is no pledge of faith to anybody. It is mere idle wind. At most, it is only a pledge of faith to an unknown band of robbers and murderers, whose instrument for plundering and murdering other people, I thus publicly confess myself to be. And it has no other obligation than a similar oath given to any other unknown body of pirates, robbers, and murderers. For these reasons the oaths taken by members of Congress, "to support the Constitution," are, on general principles of law and reason, of no validity. They are not only criminal in themselves, and therefore void; but they are also void for the further reason THAT THEY ARE GIVEN TO NOBODY. It cannot be said that, in any legitimate or legal sense, they are given to "the people of the United States"; because neither the whole, nor any large proportion of the whole, people of the United States ever, either openly or secretly, appointed or designated these men as their agents to carry the Constitution into effect. The great body of the people — that is, men, women, and children — were never asked, or even permitted, to signify, in any FORMAL manner, either openly or secretly, their choice or wish on the subject. The most that these members of Congress can say, in favor of their appointment, is simply this: Each one can say for himself: I have evidence satisfactory to myself, that there exists, scattered throughout the country, a band of men, having a tacit understanding with each other, and calling themselves "the people of the United States," whose general purposes are to control and plunder each other, and all other persons in the country, and, so far as they can, even in neighboring countries; and to kill every man who shall attempt to defend his person and property against their schemes of plunder and dominion. Who these men are, INDIVIDUALLY, I have no certain means of knowing, for they sign no papers, and give no open, authentic evidence of their individual membership. They are not known individually even to each other. They are apparently as much afraid of being individually known to each other, as of being known to other persons. Hence they ordinarily have no mode either of exercising, or of making known, their individual membership, otherwise than by giving their votes secretly for certain agents to do their will. \ But although these men are individually unknown, both to each other and to other persons, it is generally understood in the country that none but male persons, of the age of twenty-one years and upwards, can be members. It is also generally understood that ALL male persons, born in the country, having certain complexions, and (in some localities) certain amounts of property, and (in certain cases) even persons of foreign birth, are PERMITTED to be members. But it appears that usually not more than one half, two-thirds, or in some cases, three-fourths, of all who are thus permitted to become members of the band, ever exercise, or consequently prove, their actual membership, in the only mode in which they ordinarily can exercise or prove it, viz., by giving their votes secretly for the officers or agents of the band. The number of these secret votes, so far as we have any account of them, varies greatly from year to year, thus tending to prove that the band, instead of being a permanent organization, is a merely PRO TEMPORE affair with those who choose to act with it for the time being. \ The gross number of these secret votes, or what purports to be their gross number, in different localities, is occasionally published. Whether these reports are accurate or not, we have no means of knowing. It is generally supposed that great frauds are often committed in depositing them. They are understood to be received and counted by certain men, who are themselves appointed for that purpose by the same secret process by which all other officers and agents of the band are selected. According to the reports of these receivers of votes (for whose accuracy or honesty, however, I cannot vouch), and according to my best knowledge of the whole number of male persons "in my district," who (it is supposed) were permitted to vote, it would appear that one-half, two-thirds or three-fourths actually did vote. Who the men were, individually, who cast these votes, I have no knowledge, for the whole thing was done secretly. But of the secret votes thus given for what they call a "member of Congress," the receivers reported that I had a majority, or at least a larger number than any other one person. And it is only by virtue of such a designation that I am now here to act in concert with other persons similarly selected in other parts of the country. \ It is understood among those who sent me here, that all persons so selected, will, on coming together at the City of Washington, take an oath in each other's presence "to support the Constitution of the United States." By this is meant a certain paper that was drawn up eighty years ago. It was never signed by anybody, and apparently has no obligation, and never had any obligation, as a contract. In fact, few persons ever read it, and doubtless much the largest number of those who voted for me and the others, never even saw it, or now pretend to know what it means. Nevertheless, it is often spoken of in the country as "the Constitution of the United States"; and for some reason or other, the men who sent me here, seem to expect that I, and all with whom I act, will swear to carry this Constitution into effect. I am therefore ready to take this oath, and to co-operate with all others, similarly selected, who are ready to take the same oath. This is the most that any member of Congress can say in proof that he has any constituency; that he represents anybody; that his oath "to support the Constitution," IS GIVEN TO ANYBODY, or pledges his faith to ANYBODY. He has no open, written, or other authentic evidence, such as is required in all other cases, that he was ever appointed the agent or representative of anybody. He has no written power of attorney from any single individual. He has no such legal knowledge as is required in all other cases, by which he can identify a single one of those who pretend to have appointed him to represent them. Of course his oath, professedly given to them, "to support the Constitution," is, on general principles of law and reason, an oath given to nobody. It pledges his faith to nobody. If he fails to fulfil his oath, not a single person can come forward, and say to him, you have betrayed me, or broken faith with me. No one can come forward and say to him: I appointed you my attorney to act for me. I required you to swear that, as my attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised me that you would do so; and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to me. No single individual can say this. No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, can come forward and say to him: We appointed you our attorney, to act forus. We required you to swear that, as our attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised us that you would do so; and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to us. No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, can say this to him; because there is no such association or body of men in existence. If any one should assert that there is such an association, let him prove, if he can, who compose it. Let him produce, if he can, any open, written, or other authentic contract, signed or agreed to by these men; forming themselves into an association; making themselves known as such to the world; appointing him as their agent; and making themselves individually, or as an association, responsible for his acts, done by their authority. Until all this can be shown, no one can say that, in any legitimate sense, there is any such association; or that he is their agent; or that he ever gave his oath to them; or ever pledged his faith to them. On general principles of law and reason, it would be a sufficient answer for him to say, to all individuals, and to all pretended associations of individuals, who should accuse him of a breach of faith to them: I never knew you. Where is your evidence that you, either individually or collectively, ever appointed me your attorney? that you ever required me to swear to you, that, as your attorney, I would support the Constitution? or that I have now broken any faith that I ever pledged to you? You may, or you may not, be members of that secret band of robbers and murderers, who act in secret; appoint their agents by a secret ballot; who keep themselves individually unknown even to the agents they thus appoint; and who, therefore, cannot claim that they have any agents; or that any of their pretended agents ever gave his oath, or pledged his faith to them. I repudiate you altogether. My oath was given to others, with whom you have nothing to do; or it was idle wind, given only to the idle winds. Begone! XII. For the same reasons, the oaths of all the other pretended agents of this secret band of robbers and murderers are, on general principles of law and reason, equally destitute of obligation. They are given to nobody; but only to the winds. The oaths of the tax-gatherers and treasurers of the band, are, on general principles of law and reason, of no validity. If any tax gatherer, for example, should put the money he receives into his own pocket, and refuse to part with it, the members of this band could not say to him: You collected that money as our agent, and for our uses; and you swore to pay it over to us, or to those we should appoint to receive it. You have betrayed us, and broken faith with us. It would be a sufficient answer for him to say to them: I never knew you. You never made yourselves individually known to me. I never game by oath to you, as individuals. You may, or you may not, be members of that secret band, who appoint agents to rob and murder other people; but who are cautious not to make themselves individually known, either to such agents, or to those whom their agents are commissioned to rob. If you are members of that band, you have given me no proof that you ever commissioned me to rob others for your benefit. I never knew you, as individuals, and of course never promised you that I would pay over to you the proceeds of my robberies. I committed my robberies on my own account, and for my own profit. If you thought I was fool enough to allow you to keep yourselves concealed, and use me as your tool for robbing other persons; or that I would take all the personal risk of the robberies, and pay over the proceeds to you, you were particularly simple. As I took all the risk of my robberies, I propose to take all the profits. Begone! You are fools, as well as villains. If I gave my oath to anybody, I gave it to other persons than you. But I really gave it to nobody. I only gave it to the winds. It answered my purposes at the time. It enabled me to get the money I was after, and now I propose to keep it. If you expected me to pay it over to you, you relied only upon that honor that is said to prevail among thieves. You now understand that that is a very poor reliance. I trust you may become wise enough to never rely upon it again. If I have any duty in the matter, it is to give back the money to those from whom I took it; not to pay it over to villains such as you. XIII. On general principles of law and reason, the oaths which foreigners take, on coming here, and being "naturalized" (as it is called), are of no validity. They are necessarily given to nobody; because there is no open, authentic association, to which they can join themselves; or to whom, as individuals, they can pledge their faith. No such association, or organization, as "the people of the United States," having ever been formed by any open, written, authentic, or voluntary contract, there is, on general principles of law and reason, no such association, or organization, in existence. And all oaths that purport to be given to such an association are necessarily given only to the winds. They cannot be said to be given to any man, or body of men, as individuals, because no man, or body of men, can come forward WITH ANY PROOF that the oaths were given to them, as individuals, or to any association of which they are members. To say that there is a tacit understanding among a portion of the male adults of the country, that they will call themselves "the people of the United States," and that they will act in concert in subjecting the remainder of the people of the United States to their dominion; but that they will keep themselves personally concealed by doing all their acts secretly, is wholly insufficient, on general principles of law and reason, to prove the existence of any such association, or organization, as "the people of the United States"; or consequently to prove that the oaths of foreigners were given to any such association. XIV. On general principles of law and reason, all the oaths which, since the war, have been given by Southern men, that they will obey the laws of Congress, support the Union, and the like, are of no validity. Such oaths are invalid, not only because they were extorted by military power, and threats of confiscation, and because they are in contravention of men's natural right to do as they please about supporting the government, BUT ALSO BECAUSE THEY WERE GIVEN TO NOBODY. They were nominally given to "the United States." But being nominally given to "the United States," they were necessarily given to nobody, because, on general principles of law and reason, there were no "United States," to whom the oaths could be given. That is to say, there was no open, authentic, avowed, legitimate association, corporation, or body of men, known as "the United States," or as "the people of the United States," to whom the oaths could have been given. If anybody says there was such a corporation, let him state who were the individuals that composed it, and how and when they became a corporation. Were Mr. A, Mr. B, and Mr. C members of it? If so, where are their signatures? Where the evidence of their membership? Where the record? Where the open, authentic proof? There is none. Therefore, in law and reason, there was no such corporation. On general principles of law and reason, every corporation, association, or organized body of men, having a legitimate corporate existence, and legitimate corporate rights, must consist of certain known individuals, who can prove, by legitimate and reasonable evidence, their membership. But nothing of this kind can be proved in regard to the corporation, or body of men, who call themselves "the United States." Not a man of them, in all the Northern States, can prove by any legitimate evidence, such as is required to prove membership in other legal corporations, that he himself, or any other man whom he can name, is a member of any corporation or association called "the United States," or "the people of the United States," or, consequently, that there is any such corporation. And since no such corporation can be proved to exist, it cannot of course be proved that the oaths of Southern men were given to any such corporation. The most that can be claimed is that the oaths were given to a secret band of robbers and murderers, who called themselves "the United States," and extorted those oaths. But that is certainly not enough to prove that the oaths are of any obligation. XV. On general principles of law and reason, the oaths of soldiers, that they will serve a given number of years, that they will obey the the orders of their superior officers, that they will bear true allegiance to the government, and so forth, are of no obligation. Independently of the criminality of an oath, that, for a given number of years, he will kill all whom he may be commanded to kill, without exercising his own judgment or conscience as to the justice or necessity of such killing, there is this further reason why a soldier's oath is of no obligation, viz., that, like all the other oaths that have now been mentioned, IT IS GIVEN TO NOBODY. There being, in no legitimate sense, any such corporation, or nation, as "the United States," nor, consequently, in any legitimate sense, any such government as "the government of the United States," a soldier's oath given to, or contract made with, such a nation or government, is necessarily an oath given to, or contract made with, nobody. Consequently such an oath or contract can be of no obligation. XVI. On general principles of law and reason, the treaties, so called, which purport to be entered into with other nations, by persons calling themselves ambassadors, secretaries, presidents, and senators of the United States, in the name, and in behalf, of "the people of the United States," are of no validity. These so-called ambassadors, secretaries, presidents, and senators, who claim to be the agents of "the people of the United States" for making these treaties, can show no open, written, or other authentic evidence that either the whole "people of the United States," or any other open, avowed, responsible body of men, calling themselves by that name, ever authorized these pretended ambassadors and others to make treaties in the name of, or binding upon any one of, "the people of the United States," or any other open, avowed, responsible body of men, calling themselves by that name, ever authorized these pretended ambassadors, secretaries, and others, in their name and behalf, to recognize certain other persons, calling themselves emperors, kings, queens, and the like, as the rightful rulers, sovereigns, masters, or representatives of the different peoples whom they assume to govern, to represent, and to bind. The "nations," as they are called, with whom our pretended ambassadors, secretaries, presidents, and senators profess to make treaties, are as much myths as our own. On general principles of law and reason, there are no such "nations." That is to say, neither the whole people of England, for example, nor any open, avowed, responsible body of men, calling themselves by that name, ever, by any open, written, or other authentic contract with each other, formed themselves into any bona fide, legitimate association or organization, or authorized any king, queen, or other representative to make treaties in their name, or to bind them, either individually, or as an association, by such treaties. Our pretended treaties, then, being made with no legitimate or bona fide nations, or representatives of nations, and being made, on our part, by persons who have no legitimate authority to act for us, have instrinsically no more validity than a pretended treaty made by the Man in the Moon with the king of the Pleiades. XVII. On general principles of law and reason, debts contracted in the name of "the United States," or of "the people of the United States," are of no validity. It is utterly absurd to pretend that debts to the amount of twenty-five hundred millions of dollars are binding upon thirty-five or forty millions of people [the approximate national debt and population in 1870], when there is not a particle of legitimate evidence — such as would be required to prove a private debt — that can be produced against any one of them, that either he, or his properly authorized attorney, ever contracted to pay one cent. Certainly, neither the whole people of the United States, nor any number of them, ever separately or individually contracted to pay a cent of these debts. Certainly, also, neither the whole people of the United States, nor any number of them, every, by any open, written, or other authentic and voluntary contract, united themselves as a firm, corporation, or association, by the name of "the United States," or "the people of the United States," and authorized their agents to contract debts in their name. Certainly, too, there is in existence no such firm, corporation, or association as "the United States," or "the people of the United States," formed by any open, written, or other authentic and voluntary contract, and having corporate property with which to pay these debts. How, then, is it possible, on any general principle of law or reason, that debts that are binding upon nobody individually, can be binding upon forty millions of people collectively, when, on general and legitimate principles of law and reason, these forty millions of people neither have, nor ever had, any corporate property? never made any corporate or individual contract? and neither have, nor ever had, any corporate existence? Who, then, created these debts, in the name of "the United States"? Why, at most, only a few persons, calling themselves "members of Congress," etc., who pretended to represent "the people of the United States," but who really represented only a secret band of robbers and murderers, who wanted money to carry on the robberies and murders in which they were then engaged; and who intended to extort from the future people of the United States, by robbery and threats of murder (and real murder, if that should prove necessary), the means to pay these debts. This band of robbers and murderers, who were the real principals in contracting these debts, is a secret one, because its members have never entered into any open, written, avowed, or authentic contract, by which they may be individually known to the world, or even to each other. Their real or pretended representatives, who contracted these debts in their name, were selected (if selected at all) for that purpose secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to furnish evidence against none of the principals INDIVIDUALLY; and these principals were really known INDIVIDUALLY neither to their pretended representatives who contracted these debts in their behalf, nor to those who lent the money. The money, therefore, was all borrowed and lent in the dark; that is, by men who did not see each other's faces, or know each other's names; who could not then, and cannot now, identify each other as principals in the transactions; and who consequently can prove no contract with each other. Furthermore, the money was all lent and borrowed for criminal purposes; that is, for purposes of robbery and murder; and for this reason the contracts were all intrinsically void; and would have been so, even though the real parties, borrowers and lenders, had come face to face, and made their contracts openly, in their own proper names. Furthermore, this secret band of robbers and murderers, who were the real borrowers of this money, having no legitimate corporate existence, have no corporate property with which to pay these debts. They do indeed pretend to own large tracts of wild lands, lying between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, and between the Gulf of Mexico and the North Pole. But, on general principles of law and reason, they might as well pretend to own the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans themselves; or the atmosphere and the sunlight; and to hold them, and dispose of them, for the payment of these debts. Having no corporate property with which to pay what purports to be their corporate debts, this secret band of robbers and murderers are really bankrupt. They have nothing to pay with. In fact, they do not propose to pay their debts otherwise than from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders. These are confessedly their sole reliance; and were known to be such by the lenders of the money, at the time the money was lent. And it was, therefore, virtually a part of the contract, that the money should be repaid only from the proceeds of these future robberies and murders. For this reason, if for no other, the contracts were void from the beginning. In fact, these apparently two classes, borrowers and lenders, were really one and the same class. They borrowed and lent money from and to themselves. They themselves were not only part and parcel, but the very life and soul, of this secret band of robbers and murderers, who borrowed and spent the money. Individually they furnished money for a common enterprise; taking, in return, what purported to be corporate promises for individual loans. The only excuse they had for taking these so-called corporate promises of, for individual loans by, the same parties, was that they might have some apparent excuse for the future robberies of the band (that is, to pay the debts of the corporation), and that they might also know what shares they were to be respectively entitled to out of the proceeds of their future robberies. Finally, if these debts had been created for the most innocent and honest purposes, and in the most open and honest manner, by the real parties to the contracts, these parties could thereby have bound nobody but themselves, and no property but their own. They could have bound nobody that should have come after them, and no property subsequently created by, or belonging to, other persons. XVIII. The Constitution having never been signed by anybody; and there being no other open, written, or authentic contract between any parties whatever, by virtue of which the United States government, so called, is maintained; and it being well known that none but male persons, of twenty-one years of age and upwards, are allowed any voice in the government; and it being also well known that a large number of these adult persons seldom or never vote at all; and that all those who do vote, do so secretly (by secret ballot), and in a way to prevent their individual votes being known, either to the world, or even to each other; and consequently in a way to make no one openly responsible for the acts of their agents, or representatives, — all these things being known, the questions arise: WHO compose the real governing power in the country? Who are the men, THE RESPONSIBLE MEN, who rob us of our property? Restrain us of our liberty? Subject us to their arbitrary dominion? And devastate our hooms, and shoot us down by the hundreds of thousands, if we resist? How shall we find these men? How shall we know them from others? How shall we defend ourselves and our property against them? Who, of our neighbors, are members of this secret band of robbers and murderers? How can we know which are THEIR houses, that we may burn or demolish them? Which THEIR property, that we may destroy it? Which their persons, that we may kill them, and rid the world and ourselves of such tyrants and monsters? These are questions that must be answered, before men can be free; before they can protect themselves against this secret band of robbers and murderers, who now plunder, enslave, and destroy them. The answer to these questions is, that only those who have the will and power to shoot down their fellow men, are the real rulers in this, as in all other (so-called) civilized countries; for by no others will civilized men be robbed, or enslaved. Among savages, mere physical strength, on the part of one man, may enable him to rob, enslave, or kill another man. Among barbarians, mere physical strength, on the part of a body of men, disciplined, and acting in concert, though with very little money or other wealth, may, under some circumstances, enable them to rob, enslave, or kill another body of men, as numerous, or perhaps even more numerous, than themselves. And among both savages and barbarians, mere want may sometimes compel one man to sell himself as a slave to another. But with (so-called) civilized peoples, among whom knowledge, wealth, and the means of acting in concert, have becom diffusede; and who have invented such weapons and other means of defense as to render mere physical strength of less importance; and by whom soldiers in any requisite number, and other instrumentalities of war in any requisite amount, can always be had for money, the question of war, and consequently the question of power, is little else than a mere question of money. As a necessary consequence, those who stand ready to furnish this money, are the real rulers. It is so in Europe, and it is so in this country. In Europe, the nominal rulers, the emperors and kings and parliaments, are anything but the real rulers of their respective countries. They are little or nothing else than mere tools, employed by the wealthy to rob, enslave, and (if need be) murder those who have less wealth, or none at all. The Rosthchilds, and that class of money-lenders of whom they are the representatives and agents — men who never think of lending a shilling to their next-door neighbors, for purposes of honest industry, unless upon the most ample security, and at the highest rate of interest — stand ready, at all times, to lend money in unlimited amounts to those robbers and murderers, who call themselves governments, to be expended in shooting down those who do not submit quietly to being robbed and enslaved. They lend their money in this manner, knowing that it is to be expended in murdering their fellow men, for simply seeking their liberty and their rights; knowing also that neither the interest nor the principal will ever be paid, except as it will be extorted under terror of the repetition of such murders as those for which the money lent is to be expended. These money-lenders, the Rosthchilds, for example, say to themselves: If we lend a hundred millions sterling to the queen and parliament of England, it will enable them to murder twenty, fifty, or a hundred thousand people in England, Ireland, or India; and the terror inspired by such wholesale slaughter, will enable them to keep the whole people of those countries in subjection for twenty, or perhaps fifty, years to come; to control all their trade and industry; and to extort from them large amounts of money, under the name of taxes; and from the wealth thus extorted from them, they (the queen and parliament) can afford to pay us a higher rate of interest for our money than we can get in any other way. Or, if we lend this sum to the emperor of Austria, it will enable him to murder so many of his people as to strike terror into the rest, and thus enable him to keep them in subjection, and extort money from them, for twenty or fifty years to come. And they say the same in regard to the emperor of Russia, the king of Prussia, the emperor of France, or any other ruler, so called, who, in their judgment, will be able, by murdering a reasonable portion of his people, to keep the rest in subjection, and extort money from them, for a long time to come, to pay the interest and the principal of the money lent him. And why are these men so ready to lend money for murdering their fellow men? Soley for this reason, viz., that such loans are considered better investments than loans for purposes of honest industry. They pay higher rates of interest; and it is less trouble to look after them. This is the whole matter. The question of making these loans is, with these lenders, a mere question of pecuniary profit. They lend money to be expended in robbing, enslaving, and murdering their fellow men, solely because, on the whole, such loans pay better than any others. They are no respecters of persons, no superstitious fools, that reverence monarchs. They care no more for a king, or an emperor, than they do for a beggar, except as he is a better customer, and can pay them better interest for their money. If they doubt his ability to make his murders successful for maintaining his power, and thus extorting money from his people in future, they dismiss him unceremoniously as they would dismiss any other hopeless bankrupt, who should want to borrow money to save himself >from open insolvency. When these great lenders of blood-money, like the Rothschilds, have loaned vast sums in this way, for purposes of murder, to an emperor or a king, they sell out the bonds taken by them, in small amounts, to anybody, and everybody, who are disposed to buy them at satisfactory prices, to hold as investments. They (the Rothschilds) thus soon get back their money, with great profits; and are now ready to lend money in the same way again to any other robber and murderer, called an emperor or king, who, they think, is likely to be successful in his robberies and murders, and able to pay a good price for the money necessary to carry them on. This business of lending blood-money is one of the most thoroughly sordid, cold-blooded, and criminal that was ever carried on, to any considerable extent, amongst human beings. It is like lending money to slave traders, or to common robbers and pirates, to be repaid out of their plunder. And the men who loan money to governments, so called, for the purpose of enabling the latter to rob, enslave, and murder their people, are among the greatest villains that the world has ever seen. And they as much deserve to be hunted and killed (if they cannot otherwise be got rid of) as any slave traders, robbers, or pirates that ever lived. When these emperors and kings, so-called, have obtained their loans, they proceed to hire and train immense numbers of professional murderers, called soldiers, and employ them in shooting down all who resist their demands for money. In fact, most of them keep large bodies of these murderers constantly in their service, as their only means of enforcing their extortions. There are now [1870], I think, four or five millions of these professional murderers constantly employed by the so-called sovereigns of Europe. The enslaved people are, of course, forced to support and pay all these murderers, as well as to submit to all the other extortions which these murderers are employed to enforce. It is only in this way that most of the so-called governments of Europe are maintained. These so-called governments are in reality only great bands of robbers and murderers, organized, disciplined, and constantly on the alert. And the so-called sovereigns, in these different governments, are simply the heads, or chiefs, of different bands of robbers and murderers. And these heads or chiefs are dependent upon the lenders of blood-money for the means to carry on their robberies and murders. They could not sustain themselves a moment but for the loans made to them by these blood-money loan-mongers. And their first care is to maintain their credit with them; for they know their end is come, the instant their credit with them fails. Consequently the first proceeds of their extortions are scrupulously applied to the payment of the interest on their loans. In addition to paying the interest on their bonds, they perhaps grant to the holders of them great monopolies in banking, like the Banks of England, of France, and of Vienna; with the agreement that these banks shall furnish money whenever, in sudden emergencies, it may be necessary to shoot down more of their people. Perhaps also, by means of tariffs on competing imports, they give great monopolies to certain branches of industry, in which these lenders of blood-money are engaged. They also, by unequal taxation, exempt wholly or partially the property of these loan-mongers, and throw corresponding burdens upon those who are too poor and weak to resist. Thus it is evident that all these men, who call themselves by the high-sounding names of Emperors, Kings, Sovereigns, Monarchs, Most Christian Majesties, Most Catholic Majesties, High Mightinesses, Most Serene and Potent Princes, and the like, and who claim to rule "by the grace of God," by "Divine Right" — that is, by special authority from Heaven — are intrinsically not only the merest miscreants and wretches, engaged solely in plundering, enslaving, and murdering their fellow men, but that they are also the merest hangers on, the servile, obsequious, fawning dependents and tools of these blood-money loan-mongers, on whom they rely for the means to carry on their crimes. These loan-mongers, like the Rothschilds, laugh in their sleeves, and say to themselves: These despicable creatures, who call themselves emperors, and kings, and majesties, and most serene and potent princes; who profess to wear crowns, and sit on thrones; who deck themselves with ribbons, and feathers, and jewels; and surround themselves with hired flatterers and lickspittles; and whom we suffer to strut around, and palm themselves off, upon fools and slaves, as sovereigns and lawgivers specially appointed by Almighty God; and to hold themselves out as the sole fountains of honors, and dignities, and wealth, and power — all these miscreants and imposters know that we make them, and use them; that in us they live, move, and have their being; that we require them (as the price of their positions) to take upon themselves all the labor, all the danger, and all the odium of all the crimes they commit for our profit; and that we will unmake them, strip them of their gewgaws, and send them out into the world as beggars, or give them over to the vengeance of the people they have enslaved, the moment they refuse to commit any crime we require of them, or to pay over to us such share of the proceeds of their robberies as we see fit to demand. XIX. Now, what is true in Europe, is substantially true in this country. The difference is the immaterial one, that, in this country, there is no visible, permanent head, or chief, of these robbers and murderers who call themselves "the government." That is to say, there is no ONE MAN, who calls himself the state, or even emperor, king, or sovereign; no one who claims that he and his children rule "by the Grace of God," by "Divine Right," or by special appointment from Heaven. There are only certain men, who call themselves presidents, senators, and representatives, and claim to be the authorized agents, FOR THE TIME BEING, OR FOR CERTAIN SHORT PERIODS, OF ALL "the people of the United States"; but who can show no credentials, or powers of attorney, or any other open, authentic evidence that they are so; and who notoriously are not so; but are really only the agents of a secret band of robbers and murderers, whom they themselves do not know, and have no means of knowing, individually; but who, they trust, will openly or secretly, when the crisis comes, sustain them in all their usurpations and crimes. What is important to be noticed is, that these so-called presidents, senators, and representatives, these pretended agents of all "the people of the United States," the moment their exactions meet with any formidable resistance from any portion of "the people" themselves, are obliged, like their co-robbers and murderers in Europe, to fly at once to the lenders of blood money, for the means to sustain their power. And they borrow their money on the same principle, and for the same purpose, viz., to be expended in shooting down all those "people of the United States" — their own constituents and principals, as they profess to call them — who resist the robberies and enslavements which these borrowers of the money are practising upon them. And they expect to repay the loans, if at all, only from the proceeds of the future robberies, which they anticipate it will be easy for them and their successors to perpetrate through a long series of years, upon their pretended principals, if they can but shoot down now some hundreds of thousands of them, and thus strike terror into the rest. Perhaps the facts were never made more evident, in any country on the globe, than in our own, that these soulless blood-money loan-mongers are the real rulers; that they rule from the most sordid and mercenary motives; that the ostensible government, the presidents, senators, and representatives, so called, are merely their tools; and that no ideas of, or regard for, justice or liberty had anything to do in inducing them to lend their money for the war [i.e, the Civil War]. In proof of all this, look at the following facts. Nearly a hundred years ago we professed to have got rid of all that religious superstition, inculcated by a servile and corrupt priesthood in Europe, that rulers, so called, derived their authority directly from Heaven; and that it was consequently a religious duty on the part of the people to obey them. We professed long ago to have learned that governments could rightfully exist only by the free will, and on the voluntary support, of those who might choose to sustain them. We all professed to have known long ago, that the only legitimate objects of government were the maintenance of liberty and justice equally for all. All this we had professed for nearly a hundred years. And we professed to look with pity and contempt upon those ignorant, superstitious, and enslaved peoples of Europe, who were so easily kept in subjection by the frauds and force of priests and kings. Notwithstanding all this, that we had learned, and known, and professed, for nearly a century, these lenders of blood money had, for a long series of years previous to the war, been the willing accomplices of the slave-holders in perverting the government from the purposes of liberty and justice, to the greatest of crimes. They had been such accomplices FOR A PURELY PECUNIARY CONSIDERATION, to wit, a control of the markets in the South; in other words, the privilege of holding the slave-holders themselves in industrial and commercial subjection to the manufacturers and merchants of the North (who afterwards furnished the money for the war). And these Northern merchants and manufacturers, these lenders of blood-money, were willing to continue to be the accomplices of the slave-holders in the future, for the same pecuniary considerations. But the slave-holders, either doubting the fidelity of their Northern allies, or feeling themselves strong enough to keep their slaves in subjection without Northern assistance, would no longer pay the price which these Northern men demanded. And it was to enforce this price in the future — that is, to monopolize the Southern markets, to maintain their industrial and commercial control over the South — that these Northern manufacturers and merchants lent some of the profits of their former monopolies for the war, in order to secure to themselves the same, or greater, monopolies in the future. These — and not any love of liberty or justice — were the motives on which the money for the war was lent by the North. In short, the North said to the slave-holders: If you will not pay us our price (give us control of your markets) for our assistance against your slaves, we will secure the same price (keep control of your markets) by helping your slaves against you, and using them as our tools for maintaining dominion over you; for the control of your markets we will have, whether the tools we use for that purpose be black or white, and be the cost, in blood and money, what it may. On this principle, and from this motive, and not from any love of liberty, or justice, the money was lent in enormous amounts, and at enormous rates of interest. And it was only by means of these loans that the objects of the war were accomplished. And now these lenders of blood-money demand their pay; and the government, so called, becomes their tool, their servile, slavish, villanous tool, to extort it from the labor of the enslaved people both of the North and South. It is to be extorted by every form of direct, and indirect, and unequal taxation. Not only the nominal debt and interest — enormous as the latter was — are to be paid in full; but these holders of the debt are to be paid still further — and perhaps doubly, triply, or quadruply paid — by such tariffs on imports as will enable our home manufacturers to realize enormous prices for their commodities; also by such monopolies in banking as will enable them to keep control of, and thus enslave and plunder, the industry and trade of the great body of the Northern people themselves. In short, the industrial and commercial slavery of the great body of the people, North and South, black and white, is the price which these lenders of blood money demand, and insist upon, and are determined to secure, in return for the money lent for the war. This programme having been fully arranged and systematized, they put their sword into the hands of the chief murderer of the war, [undoubtedly a reference to General Grant, who had just become president] and charge him to carry their scheme into effect. And now he, speaking as their organ, says, "LET US HAVE PEACE." The meaning of this is: Submit quietly to all the robbery and slavery we have arranged for you, and you can have "peace." But in case you resist, the same lenders of blood-money, who furnished the means to subdue the South, will furnish the means again to subdue you. These are the terms on which alone this government, or, with few exceptions, any other, ever gives "peace" to its people. The whole affair, on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes. They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have "Abolished Slavery!" That they have "Saved the Country!" That they have "Preserved our Glorious Union!" and that, in now paying the "National Debt," as they call it (as if the people themselves, ALL OF THEM WHO ARE TO BE TAXED FOR ITS PAYMENT, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are simply "Maintaining the National Honor!" By "maintaining the national honor," they mean simply that they themselves, open robbers and murderers, assume to be the nation, and will keep faith with those who lend them the money necessary to enable them to crush the great body of the people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate, from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all their loans, principal and interest. The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general — not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man — although that was not the motive of the war — as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle — but only of degree — between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ >from each other only in degree. If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them. Still another of the frauds of these men is, that they are now establishing, and that the war was designed to establish, "a government of consent." The only idea they have ever manifested as to what is a government of consent, is this — that it is one to which everybody must consent, or be shot. This idea was the dominant one on which the war was carried on; and it is the dominant one, now that we have got what is called "peace." Their pretenses that they have "Saved the Country," and "Preserved our Glorious Union," are frauds like all the rest of their pretenses. By them they mean simply that they have subjugated, and maintained their power over, an unwilling people. This they call "Saving the Country"; as if an enslaved and subjugated people — or as if any people kept in subjection by the sword (as it is intended that all of us shall be hereafter) — could be said to have any country. This, too, they call "Preserving our Glorious Union"; as if there could be said to be any Union, glorious or inglorious, that was not voluntary. Or as if there could be said to be any union between masters and slaves; between those who conquer, and those who are subjugated. All these cries of having "abolished slavery," of having "saved the country," of having "preserved the union," of establishing "a government of consent," and of "maintaining the national honor," are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats — so transparent that they ought to deceive no one — when uttered as justifications for the war, or for the government that has suceeded the war, or for now compelling the people to pay the cost of the war, or for compelling anybody to support a government that he does not want. The lesson taught by all these facts is this: As long as mankind continue to pay "national debts," so-called — that is, so long as they are such dupes and cowards as to pay for being cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered — so long there will be enough to lend the money for those purposes; and with that money a plenty of tools, called soldiers, can be hired to keep them in subjection. But when they refuse any longer to pay for being thus cheated, plundered, enslaved, and murdered, they will cease to have cheats, and usurpers, and robbers, and murderers and blood-money loan-mongers for masters. APPENDIX. Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.

Being assertive doesn’t necessarily mean talking more and it especially doesn’t mean talking over other people contrary to what most people believe it is about. Being assertive is about being strategic and tactful and knowing the exact right time when to appropriately introduce your ideas, feelings, and thoughts. When I’m in a room for people and they’re all talking over each other rambling on, bickering back-and-forth I don’t need to interrupt them to get my point across instead I let them fire off all their ammunition and wait for when the right opening shows itself so I can bring my thought process into the conversation. Because of this, it gives me an advantage over them, for one, I have more time to think about what I’m going to say so when I do say it it has a deeper impact on the people I am speaking to. Most people only listen to reply and tend to reply before they’re even done listening. That’s because most likely they were not listening in the first place, they would rather only hear what they are going to say. They could care less what other people have to say because at some level they think that what they have to say is more valuable than what you have to say. I just let these people burn out and then a hard-hitting home-run just like you would with any person who is overexerting themselves in a fight. Use their momentum against them to help amplify your movement. Not only will this save you hassle but also energy. When it comes to being assertive it is all about timing pacing and critically thinking out your strategy for making an impact with what you have to say. Not everybody is going to respect you and what you have to say but you have to respect yourself first otherwise you cannot respect other people and what they have to say. Make sure that with your self-respect you are channeling it to show that you know your own value and you know that your words are not insignificant in the face of other people who won’t shut the fuck up to give you the decency and space needed so that you may express yourself in a conversation. For those who are the interrupters, I would highly recommend taking a look at your condescending attitude towards other people and dropping your ego bullshit so that you can learn to respect yourself enough that you can pay attention to the value of somebody else’s ideas, feelings, and thoughts. If you’re not willing to give someone that decency and consideration then you’re probably not truly worthy of having any type of conversation with them. You’re not being assertive you just being a selfish condescending egotistical asshole who has no respect for themselves or other people. This is why you find that Wiseman will sit in silence and listen because they know the fools will eventually just burn themselves out with their wasteful and unproductive release of energy and empty rhetoric. I listen to the people who are direct and talk in simple terms because I will gain the most value from them rather than that of the person who won't stop talking for one moment. If these people cannot even be aware of themselves when it comes to how they respond and listen then what makes you think they care one bit about what you have to say? They may pretend to care but it is just that, a fake ass attempt to listen when in fact they cannot wait for their chance to dominate the conversation with their BULL SHIT again. If some cannot even pay attention to what you have to say can you truly say that value you as an individual? Their own impatiens amplifies their insecurities to rush them into speaking and without a moment's hesitations will completely forget or IGNORE anything you have said to them. Your words are of no importance only your obedience to listen, they at some level get off on your compliance with their absurdities. But remember you have all the power once you understand this because they have a weakness in their approach. like Bruce Said "I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times." This is what it means to be assertive and well disciplined when it comes to a conversation. “ Just observe yourself, how you are listening, and you will see that this is what is taking place. Either you are listening with a conclusion, with knowledge, with certain memories, experiences, or you want an answer, and you are impatient. You want to know what it is all about, what life is all about, the extraordinary complexity of life. You are not actually listening at all. You can only listen when the mind is quiet, when the mind doesn't react immediately, when there is an interval between your reaction and what is being said. Then, in that interval there is a quietness, there is a silence in which alone there is a comprehension which is not intellectual understanding. If there is a gap between what is said and your own reaction to what is said, in that interval, whether you prolong it indefinitely, for a long period or for a few seconds - in that interval, if you observe, there comes clarity. It is the interval that is the new brain. The immediate reaction is the old brain, and the old brain functions in its own traditional, accepted, reactionary, animalistic sense. When there is an abeyance of that, when the reaction is suspended, when there is an interval, then you will find that the new brain acts, and it is only the new brain that can understand, not the old brain” ~ Jiddu Krishnamurti “So when you are listening to somebody, completely, attentively, then you are listening not only to the words, but also to the feeling of what is being conveyed, to the whole of it, not part of it." - Jiddu Krishnamurti

You cannot treat symptoms to solve the problem, the government is a symptom of an underlying psychopathology the belief in false "authority" is the Causality of that problem. When we are in symptomatic think we are stuck in a cycle of perpetually creating the same results, it becomes all-consuming. I rarely hear anybody speak about casualty, to understand this all one has to do is listen to their rhetoric it will reveal to you the limitations of their thought processes. This is equivalent to giving Band-Aids to a person who is cutting themselves over and over and over, but never touching on the deeper psychological issues that are actually causing the person to cut themselves. Imagine if you lived in a world where everybody had this psychological condition and we mass-produced Band-Aids as the main and only solution... The causal plane of existence is the Mind. The symptomatic is the effect of the problem which is the physical or manifested condition. We need to make a true paradigm shift by always getting to the root of the problems. The level of causality is where human Consciousness must go to actually create real change for the better. Unfortunately, human consciousness is stuck in the realm of effects today. You cannot treat the symptom and hope to change the causality. We do need to understand the symptoms because they are the necessary pathway to understanding the nature of the causal factor of the problem. We must be very cautious about getting stuck in symptom-think. There are three main steps to problem-solving. Your treatment will only be effective when applied to the causal factor. 1. Recognize that there is a problem. Fear-based denial of the problem must first be dealt with and conquered. 2. Recognize that symptoms are merely effects of underlying causes. Therefore, instead of simply treating symptoms, make an accurate diagnosis of the causes of the problem. Diagnosis is rooted in the Greek language, Dia; "through; by way of' gnosis; "knowledge" by way knowledge or through way of knowledge. 3. Through the knowledge and understanding acquired via the accurate diagnosis, take the required ACTION necessary to rectify the causal factors which led to the manifestation of the problem. "No problem can be solved by the same level of consciousness that created it." ~ Albert Einstein Every Cause has its Effect and every Effect has its Cause. Everything happens according to LAW. Chance is but a name for a Law not recognized. Cause and Effect are separated by time and space or what we perceive as linear time. If you did a wrong to somebody and immediately you were hit with the negative consequences you may start to connect the causality to the effect. Since we do not immediately see the harm that unfolds onto us from the wrong-doings we do it becomes very difficult for people to see the connect because of the time lag. This is how true Karma works, but it is doesn't happen on a 1 to 1 ratio like this it is more complicated than that because what is happening is that we experience in the aggregate the wrongs that the human species is conducting on a daily bases which we do not attempt to rectify and stop. The social engineers of our times want us to be bogged down with all the minutia or trivial details of the condition we are facing because it detracts us from applying our consciousness to the level of causality. The main goal of each Lightworker should always be to get to the fundamental root of the problem and then to apply ACTION to create a change. They use this as a form of emotion mind control to get people disregarding important information base upon how it was said, or how someone is dressed, or because they think they already know it and have no need to hear it again ect... When in the face of people saying things you already know do you emotionally react or do you respect that they have come to that understanding and listen with true care. Do you move into a resentful and condescending attitude towards the person or do you try and build upon what has been said and relate with that person on the topic or the Truth? I find it relieving when I hear others speaking the Truth that I already know, and they could do it a million times and I still would be so happy about that because I understand what is of critical importance. Of course, I may want to take a break from time to time and not become like a skipping record, but I love listening to my favorite records multiply times so in the context of listening to your favorite music you will always go back and want to hear that album again maybe even multiple times back to back. It is only when the record starts to not have rhythm by skipping would I want to change that album or hell, get to the causality of the problem and fix it. The plane of Effects (Physical World) This is where manifested realities have formed due to their underlying causes. The plane if effects constitute that which has already occurred. As such, NO power to affect change lies here, because that which has already occurred cannot un-occur; it has become that which IS (Truth). As long as human beings as a whole, remain ignorant of the underlying causes which they themselves have set into motion and which lead to self-inflicted suffering in their lives nothing will change. The plane of Causality (Mental World) This is where causes are set into motion prior to manifesting as formed realities. This plane of causality Constitutes the causal factors (the WHY) which underlie and precede all manifested things and events. All power to affect change lies on this plane. Human Consciousness must "move" from the plane of effects to the plane of causality in order for us to understand the root causal factors of the conditions which we are collectively manifesting in our lives. Only then will humanity start to see a true change and be able to co-create a positive outcome in our shared reality on a conscious level rather than an unconscious one. STOP REARRANGING THE CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC!!!

The game's story follows a Kabbalistic/Gnostic Stellar Cult Hero Myth Allegory. The protagonist/Hero Cloud Strife, an unsociable mercenary who claims to be a former 1st Class SOL-DIER (Soul Dier). Who joins an eco-activist organization Known as AVALANCHE to stop an Occult Crony capitalistic world-controlling megacorporation from using the planet's life essence as an energy source but at first he is only doing this for a paycheck. His name esoterically has the meaning Cloud = Air headed/Egg-head/intellect, which represents his left-brain imbalance of the order follower and he is the Spirit/Son/Sun being in a state of Strife; angry or bitter disagreement over fundamental issues; in conflict. If we correlate this to the Tarot, he is the fool card which is the initiation on the path to Self-Mastery. Kabbalah means “reception” in Hebrew. Kabbalah is an ancient system of Hebraic esoteric teachings, communicated to the initiates through symbols and correspondence. The most well-known aspects of the Kabbalah is the Tree of Life, formed from the ten “sephirot,” connected by 22 “Paths.” The Dark Occult Elite Cabal known as "Shinra" (maybe Shiva; the destroyer) is weakening the Planet, threatening its existence and all life. Events send Cloud and his allies in pursuit of Sephiroth, a genetically engineered human Super Soldier intent on destroying the planet. The story takes place on a world referred to in-game as the "Planet", though it has been retroactively named "Gaia" the Great Mother. The planet's Lifeforce, called the Life stream, is a flow of spiritual energy that gives life to everything on the Planet. Its processed form is known as "Mako". The fundamental Life-source/Consciousness of the planet is dying, correlating the effects of the immoral fossil fuel monopoly and state of consciousness of the population. Sucking the Mako/Oil/Blood of the Mother Earth out for greed and selfishness to promote war. The antagonist is named Sephiroth or also a former SOL-DIER who was created by the occult government reappears several years after he was thought to be dead. Sephiroth/Sefirot means Emanations in Hebrew, which are the 10 attributes/circles in Kabbalah Tree of life, through which “Ein Sof” (The Infinite) reveals Itself and continuously creates both the physical realm and the chain of higher metaphysical realms. He ultimately represents the lower aspects of the Qliphoth of the Tree of Death. His genetic Mother is named Jenova which is referring to Jehovah. 0ne vocalization of the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) or Yod He Waw He, the proper name of the “God” of Israel in the Hebrew Bible and one of the Seven names of God in Judaism and the lost word of Freemasonry. Which is symbolized as a hostile extraterrestrial life-form imprisoned by the "Cetra" 2000 years before. Her remains were unearthed by Shinra scientists and then used in Eugenic programs to create super-soldiers, first of which is Sephiroth which can be correlated to Malkhuth in the Kabbalah. Jenova is Da'at of the Kabbalah, Da’at is the 11th sphere, which is not considered as one of the Sephirot, but rather, as the place from which the unity source of the Tree of Life, or the place from which all things are created and “grows” from. Sephiroth reveals his intentions to use the "Black Materia" alchemical reference to the Prima Materia (base substance) or Negredo, to summon a "Meteor," that will hit the Planet on the Northern Cap/Crown Chakra of the Life-force with a devastating impact. We could asscate this the the lightning bolt path but its inversion into the realm of Qliphoth. Sephiroth has the plan of absorbing the Life stream as “Gaia” attempts to heal the wound, becoming a "god-like being." Cloud and Sephiroth found out that they are related, giving us the duality of the human mind, the Dark aspects and Light aspects. The battle of the "brothers" is a battle from within and goes back to the Osiris Hero mythos of Egypt. The Cloud and his party descends into the Planet's Core/Heart Chakra, through the opening in the Northern Crater/Crown (lightning bolt path) and defeats both Jenova and Sephiroth who are both false gods/ego dominate archetype mind SETS as in the Egyptian deity of the Dark/Night/Death. The party escapes and uses the summon "Holy" (Grail), which destroys the incoming Meteor with the help of the Infinite Life-stream energy from the Source of the All. Thus, fertility is brought back to the land with the renewal of the True Self ascending into Enlightenment atop the 7, which relates to the Chakras and the Kundalini energy rising out of the darkness and into the light. This is the journey of the hero, and how the king and the land are directly related to each other. As the king get sick or ill the land gets sick, agriculture dies thus the sacred knowledge is dying and being lost. The "Final Fantasy" is the breaking away from illusions and entering into Reality. Ultimately, Cloud starts as the Entered Apprentice of Freemasonry and works through the darkest aspects of himself moving into the Fellow-craft or middle chamber, then up to Master Mason. Resurrecting his Morality as personified by the legend of the Master Builder, Hiram Abiff or Squaring his actions on the level which is the same as in the Kabbalah.

The false "new age" notion of positive vs. negative. People should be very cautious about confusing elemental powers and the polarity of inner source energy with human behavior. Elemental powers, specifically the polarities of positive/electrical forces and magnetic/negative forces in nature being confused with positive/good and negative/evil behavior from human beings. These are very different applications of the context and I find most have not ever talked about the definitive deference of the two. Positive and negative elemental powers are both neutral, they are not good nor evil, they both work in alignment with each other to create that which is, they are the Sacred genders of creation or the Sacred Feminine and Masculine attributes of existence. Neither of these are good nor evil they just are Human behaviors on the other hand, are not neutral, since human beings possess the capacity for holistic intelligence and free will, there's is a hugely different context when we're speaking a positive and negative. People tend to confuse the two and talk about them as if they are the same or synonymous, when in fact they are not. Elemental powers have no Freewill or the ability to steer itself away from causing harm. A tornado cannot decide not to destroy a village, lightening does NOT choose to electrocute, energy does not choose create evil consequences. Whereas human beings are capable of choosing to steer away from negative consequences because of their intelligence, reasoning, knowledge, and free will. This also known as religiously and superstitiously anthropomorphizing elemental powers or adding human characteristics to elemental powers where there are none. We must be careful not to anthropomorphize energies with the concepts of good and evil. Anthropomorphizing elemental powers leads to religious indoctrination which tends to give the individual a perception of the universe that half of it is evil and half of it is good, which is completely wrong when one using their ability to reason. Half of the universe is not evil, and if you think so then you're under religious mind control. When can exhaust ourselves showing how wrong this is but for this I will only give a few examples. Let's take a look at a battery, a battery has both positive and negative polarities, if one of these polarities of this energy are removed and we try to use that battery in a flashlight, then it would not function or come the light would not come on properly, thus giving us what we could call a bad result or non-functioning. If these two natural polarities that are in balance with each other or charged then the result will be what we call good or functioning. We say thing like that soda machine is "out of order" meaning it is not functioning properly and the result of us placing an order we will not get what we ordered. If we ask ourselves if the universe is functioning the way it is meant to i'm sure we will say it is, thus the result of it's function if that of goodness. When we place an order into the universe based on cause and effect we get exactly what we are supposed to get based upon what we have set into motion through our consciousness and actions. It is not a personal force so it may not be what we wanted because we do not fully understand how to properly place an order to the universe. If we went to a restaurant and did not know how to communicate with the server we most likely will not get what we are trying to order. We lack the grammar that is necessary to meet the universal requirements to get good results at this point in our history or in other words we have not understood Natural Law and how to live in harmony with it. There is no evil in a tornado or electricity. There's no evil when a tree consumes water to create fruit, the tree is naturally always in alignment with these two polarities. Even though we might perceive the death of a tree to be bad, it is not. The tree does not have Freewill, meaning that it does NOT have ability to govern these energies. Like I said, it is in a natural state of balance within the two polarities. There is no evil in a tornado that has taken your house out, but there is evil in martial law and slavery. There is no evil in a flood that has destroyed your crops, but there is evil and acts of arson and vandalism. You do not look at the negative polarity of magnetism and say that that is evil, you do not look at the negative polarity of electricity and say that that is evil. These are natural expressions in which that we have applied human characteristics to which has degraded the actual information. There is evil in men who have the capacity to know not to do a specific action that causes harm and still chooses to do that, actually, that is where all evil exist. Evil is a choice which can only be made by beings with the capacity of holistic intelligence. Since human beings are the agent of reasoning to to understand objective morality it is their responsibility to thus live in harmony with that knowledge to reduce and steer away from unnecessary harm being done upon other sentient beings. There's a such thing as objective good and bad, objective morality, objective right and wrong and it is not because man has said so or all "relative," this is something that is built inherently into the governing dynamics (cause and effect) of human behavior. We also need to understand that the idea that the middle path is gray is part of the issue. Because gray can waiver dramatically depending on which energies are in control or overtaking one another. If the darkness is overtaking the light the gray is still existing yet the light is diminishing. If the light is overtaking the darkness the gray is still existing but yet the darkness is diminishing. This is the issue that we seemingly tend to separate these two energies not realizing that they are one. Evil is a choice, only made from beings with the capacity to know the difference between objectively right and wrong behavior. You are very different than plaque and a fire (elemental powers), because you have the ability to make a choice you are not predetermined to do the things you do. Fire or plaque is completely choices-less, absent of the ability to discern right action from wrong action. Human beings on the other hand have the capability to do that, which make you the agent of the ability to respond thus, it is a responsibility or an ability to respond. Considering that we have the capability to know whether we should or should not perform certain actions, it then gives us the responsibility to act upon that knowledge in accordance with that understanding to create true wisdom which is moral action. Right and wrong do matter because it means the difference between Truth or falsehood, and freedom or slavery. Freedom is always 100% good and moral, slavery is always 100% Immoral and evil. Whether we want to except that or not is irrelevant. Everything that is evil destroys freedom, everything that is evil limits the potential for freedom to manifest. This ideology that energy is evil and that the universe is half evil gives people a lame and erroneous excuses for humans to justify their evil behavior and allow evil to run amok all over this world. It make people passive in the face of evil deeds and or them to abdicate their personal responsibility to deal with it when it is in their presence. Saying that somehow that all the evil deeds that people are doing and have done balances out all the good is utter nonsense and is based on a religious dogma which does not hold up through true scientific research. Like you have to have an equal amount of rape to that of consensual sex activity for it to balance out, or for every baby born there has to be someone that dies... This is a logical fallacy and propagated by the dark occult sorcerers who rule the minds of men in this world. This comes do to our ability to reason correctly, it is mind boggling that it is mans job to reason but yet he has loud error to rule his mind. When it comes to negative "vibs" we must us a great deal of discernment to fully understand what this means. Most falsely think that the vibration is "bad" or "negative" when in fact it is simple a means of transferring information to Consciousness. The Vibration is not bad but it may be telling us through the information it is carrying that the environment, person, or situation could be bad or go wrong if we continue to engage in/with it/them. We also must take into account the receivers underlying trauma, if the receiver is damaged through trauma we may be interpreting the information wrong which I have found that most are. It is a very low percent of the time that a person is truly listing to they intuition rather than their triggered trauma. There is a difference between the underlying trauma and an authentic intuitive thought/feeling. People have a really hard time distinguishing one from the other, and this has led to many logical fallacies. It is what I call emotional mind control, where you are solely gauge a thing only based upon how it makes you feel rather than that of critical thinking and discernment. Of course you should never negate the emotions but understand that they can waver radically away from the truth. If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration. ~ Nikola Tesla Right and wrong behavior comes down to the simple question. Does the behavior lead to the consequences of a violation of other beings Rights or the destruction of their freedom at any level? Does it cause unnecessary harm or not? If it does, then it is absolutely immutably and unwavering a wrong and a immoral behavior no matter what we "want" or may perceive it as. Since we have the capacity to understand the difference between the objective notions of right and wrong behavior, this gives us the ability to respond or the responsibility to that knowledge to uphold those ethical Principles, and live through a path of non-coercive live style. If we say we want freedom we have to meet the requirements of the Natural Law because we live in a reality-based and cause-and-effect. We have to recognize that evil only exist within beings with the capacity for holistic intelligence meaning those who are capable of knowing the difference between right and wrong because nature has determined those boundary conditions for us. It's one of the most beautiful things about human beings, that we have the ability to choose to do good because we conceive of it ourselves not because it is forced upon us. The deterministic component to reality is Natural Law and the Random component is Freewill. These two components determines the results of our experiences here. Natures true homeostasis is balance, and human freedom is true balance and the natural state for us to live in, that balance is only manifested through the application of the understating of Natural Law. Since human beings have the capacity to wield positive and negative energy for good/morally or evil/immorally, they now have the responsibility to understand the natural homeostasis of those two energies together. When I am speaking of positive and negative energies I am not referring to them as good or evil, positive and negative energies arr simply neutral energies like the positive and negative side to a battery. Neither of these are good nor bad until they are wielded. The level of consciousness that is willing to use to energies determines the outcome or results. If the energies are radically out of balance, then we can safely say that the being wielding that force is not properly using them, and thus, the consequences will be a bad result and once taken to the aggregated level of the human race it will be catastrophic. Vice versa if those two energies are put into balance or a natural state of homeostasis, and the being chooses to do what he knows to be right in the face of all the fear, he is putting himself in the most natural state of his true being he could ever be in because it is aligning consciousness and actions in the universe to be in homeostasis with that which is or Truth and Natural Law. Since human beings have the capacity of Freewill to wield "positive" and "negative" energy dualistically, they now have the responsibility to understand the natural homeostasis of those two energies together. When I am speaking of "positive" and "negative" energy, again I am not referring to them as good or evil until they are wielded. The level of consciousness that is willing to use energy determines the outcome or results. If the level of consciousness of the being wielding energy is very low and they themselves are radically out of balance from Natural Law then consequences will be evil and catastrophic especially at the aggregated level of humanity. Vice versa if those two polarities are put into balance or a natural state of homeostasis, and the being chooses to do what they know to be right which is Wisdom in the face of all the fear, he is putting himself in the most natural state of his true being he could ever be in because it is aligning their consciousness and actions in the universe to be in homeostasis with that which is or truth and Natural Law. To resist all forms of evil is the true enlightenment. We cannot justify evil behaviors through the balancing nature of the energies within the universe this is a logical fallacy. This is where we are trying to mold the universe and to our liking, so that we allow these imbalances to take place. It's a very strong tactic of the ego-mind to get the higher Self to stand down in the face of evil and fall into the lower self modalities. In times of such imbalance it is necessary for lightworker to step up and shine brighter so that the balance may be manifested. To justify all the evil doings in the world through this babel BULLSHIT is a fallacy, it is exactly why evil is overtaking the world and what evil needs to over take the human mind, it is evil itself. This puts one in the position to say that I do not have to do anything to create change and even if I did I cannot because it is just "natural" it will "balance" itself out... This is also the religious thinking of pre-determinism and the absence of an individual's ability to create change through free will action. Freedom is vast possibilities, with these possibilities comes the high chance for chaos. But chaos is the teacher, it is only whether we are willing to learn the lessons that chaos is teaching will we actually expand and grow be on the constant insanity of repetitive cycles of self destruction. Simply put there is no true evil in nature, and when we justify our evil through nature we have already been conformed to evil itself. There is unnecessary chaos which is Violence and unnecessary suffering and necessary chaos which is about learning and Growth. We need some chaos but not all of chaos is what we need. Unnecessary choas is evil and the other is not. Problems are not supposed to be repetitive, problems are supposed to evolve along with the consciousness itself. When the problems do not evolve it is simply because the consciousness that which is observing the issues has not learned lessons in which has not diagnosed the causal factors of the issue nor have they actually applied action to change the causal factors to get a different result. Problems are meant to evolve with the expansion and evolution of consciousness, if the problem does not evolve and we are stuck in a repetitive cycle of un-change.Evil is the destruction of Freedom. So next time you're speaking about positive and negative make sure that you are in full awareness of the context you were speaking of it in. Are you speaking about human behavior or are you speaking about elemental powers, vibration, and polarity? A lot of this is rooted in primordial fears of darkness where we have associated darkness to be evil or bad, and then also associated the feminine attribute to the principle of darkness that's leading way for a lot of oppression towards the feminine gender which is part of the issue. Light/positive and darkness/negative are but measurements of the same underlying energy. This is also where we get so much negativity towards the female gender because we have Associated the symbol of female to darkness and simultaneously bad or evil. But the female energy nor the female gender is not naturally bad or evil we are not born bad. And if you think we are then you are thinking that it is pre-ordained to be that way and you're free will choice has no consequence. Darkness is associated with fear because darkness is where the predators lie, it is the unseen realm, it is the vastness of unknowingness etc. but it is not evil. It is just as equally as important to understand the negative as it is to understand positive and when we fall into an imbalance of only focusing on the positive we are starting to downgrade and dilute to our own internal positive and negative forces of masculine and feminine. This is where the false notion of karma comes in the play, thinking that some outside force governs whether a good and bad action will take place, it is an idea of preordained deterministic existence. There is karma but it doesn't work like this, it does say since this bad action has occurred then this good action must occur to balance it out or since that person did wrong the universe will make sure he gets his... This is just another excuse for people to sit back and do nothing in the face of wrong doings. I've even heard people say that Karma will preordain you to come back into existence into a bad life so it balances out the bad that you had done in your previous life which is utter bullshit. A child that is born into an abusive parental relationship, it's not because of its previous life that that child is having negative consequences it is because of those two individuals that are freely choosing to do those behaviors that are causing the negative consequences there's not some outer force that is governing or pre-ordaining that child to be abused....how sick are you to think that?All of this is about abdication of personal responsibility and trying to disown your bad actions on to some other elemental power. Nothing but excuses for the wrongdoings that are occurring....a cowardly way of justifying your actions. We must be very cautious when it comes to our ideas, words, and concepts that we are trying to use when speaking to other people and when it comes to our own worldviews. Please do not confuse your internal polarity of positive and negative energy with external behaviors of good and evil actions. By Brandon Martin

Officer "friendly”: "If you are being completely cooperative with the police then there's absolutely no reason for them to initiate violent aggression." Larken Rose: "Yeah, and if a slave does whatever his master says, he doesn't need to be whipped. That doesn't make slavery a good thing. The definitions behind the words must be clarified to advance any conversation in this topic. The belief in “authority” is the issue, as long as there is the belief in the legitimacy to “authority” there is the belief to legitimacy of the claim of ownership over other people and their property. Which in turn is the belief in legitimacy of Slavery. As long as people still believe in this erroneous dogmatic axiom, we will never see true freedom. When I'm speaking of “authority,” I'm specifically referring to the claim of ownership over other people and their property. (which in itself is a violation of other people) I'm not talking about the idea of being the “authority” of yourself and yourself alone. That would be in a different context of what I am stating or what I referred to as Sovereignty. This is why it's so hard for people to communicate because these words have become so vague in the clarity, that the understanding between individuals starts to break down because of the ambiguity in the definitions. It has nothing to do with me setting rules or anything like that. It has to do with Natural Law versus man's law or the idea that man gets to arbitrarily decide what law is. We do not get to make the laws of the universe up, they are inherent and immutable, they stand whether I say so or realize it, because they are based in Creation Objectively, we can only come to understand those Laws and hope to live in Harmony with them. If I made up rules on my property that said it's OK to murder and rape people does that make it ok or moral? No, it does not, because it has nothing to do with what I am stating, it has to do with what actually happens in manifestations, whether or not there is a violation taking place. It has to do with the Objective Truth of the conditions that have actually happened in manifestation. The concept that backs all government is that man is gets to make up arbitrary rules based off the whims of their perception which is based in moral relativity and hire people to enforce those with means of violence simultaneously calling that justice. If there is no violation taking place, meaning that none of our Rights or Freedoms are being destroyed then there is no just cause for self-defense or the removal of those individuals. It all comes down to whether or not people are exercising morality or immorality. Sadly, in our world today most human beings erroneously teach their children the false religion of "authority" or in other words, blind unquestioning obedience, as the ultimate "virtue" instead of instilling and raising our young up to understand the truth about what this hideous dogmatic belief system is, Slavery!!! "Authority", actually is the pathway to every form of evil and annihilation of the freedom of innocent people. There is only one true authority and that is the Truth, there is no other authority and by way of proxy most have been led to believe otherwise. Whenever the aggregate of the society suspends its own discernment into truth, and objective morality on a mass scale the entire population ends up in a prison made by their own hands. Ignoring this will only fuel, and perpetuate it even longer, keeping the chains tightly squeezed around the necks of the children in this world. Order following is the most despicable abomination that has ever been manifested on the face of the earth. Until we recognize this truth and stand against it, unwavering, immutably, courageously, and persistently we will not see change, we will get exactly what we deserve, more chains!!! Wake up your freedom is always at stake! Natural Law is based upon principles and truth, it is inherent to creation. It is harmonized with, due to knowledge and understanding. It is universal immutable and unwavering. Natural Law is the body of Universal, non-man made, binding and immutable conditions which act as the governing dynamic for the consequences of human behavior. Natural law applies to all beings with the capacity for holistic intelligence. When the living organism has the ability in the Mind to understand the objective difference between right and wrong, Natural Law applies to them. Acting in harmony with Natural Law means exercising conscience or the willfully choosing of a morally correct/right behavior over an immorally wrong behavior, once the difference is clearly understood. True liberty is an essential property of objective truth and morality. Therefore, there can never be true liberty in civilization that enshrines more relativity. When humans feel think consistently with in Natural Law the result will be liberty. Until then, we are simply handed privileges disguises freedoms by our masters. What is the result when we live in harmony with natural law? When the aggregate of humanity lives in harmony with natural law and therefor are moral beings, they become and remain free and their society exist in the state of order. What is the result when we live in opposition to natural law? When the aggregate of humanity lives in opposition to natural law and therefore are immoral beings they become and remain enslaved in their society and exists in the state of Tyranny, Chaos, and Violence. Man's laws are based upon dogmatic believe, and only complied with due to fear of punishment. Which always differs with location based upon the whims of the false authority. They change with time based upon the whims of the belief/perception of the false authority. Man's law has nothing to do with the truth of Freedom it only has to do with what man’s ego wants, it has nothing to do with whether freedom is actually being destroyed or not, it only has to do with the claim of ownership over other people’s lives and what they can do with them. Freedom and morality are directly proportional, meaning that as morality increases in the aggregate of any given society freedom increases, as morality declines in the aggregate of any given society freedom declines. Only through a firm understanding of Natural Law can the human race manifest freedom. I hope all this makes sense, because this is the knowledge that needs to be spread far and wide because without the understanding of Natural Law freedom is but an idea that will be taken over by false authority which will end up in more tyranny. If man's law happens to be in alignment with Natural Law then it becomes irrelevant, unnecessary, and repetitive or redundant. Freedom, morality and the human dignity of individual consist precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it. There are three things I always talk about that definitively lead to slavery. First, Authority – an illusion existing only within the disease psyche, based entirely on violence, and build upon erroneous dogmatic believe that some people are masters, who have the mall right to issue commands, and others are slaves, who have the moral obligation to obey their masters. Second, moral relativism – the dangerous believe that human beings can decide what rights people have or do not have based on their own whims of personal ones and perceptions. They believe that human beings are actually capable of delegating rights which do not exist or revoking rights which do exist. That they get to decide what right and wrong is for themselves at any given time not based on the results of the manifestation. That is a rapist can decide that his action of rape is a right at the whims of his perception because he felt good. Third, ignorance of Natural Law – the willful disregarding of the objective knowledge of the governing dynamics of the time and consequences of human behavior. The idea that you can give or delegate rights which you do not have, meaning "authority" to other people, is an illusion and is only manifested through the ignorance of order followers. All I can do here is make the suggestion of doing the due diligence into the understanding of Natural Law, and hope that to influence people to understand the definitive difference between right and wrong actions for themselves. If I proceed to do missions around my property/farm with other people, we do it cooperatively and voluntarily through Co-creation, not through means of coercion or violence under the Principles of Natural Law. The only time force is justified against other individuals is if they have initiated violence towards an individual or individual’s property, in which they have now relieved them of themselves from not having force being done upon them through self-defense from the victim of the violence. Where there is no victim there is no crime. Sovereignty means that you are not a slave nor a slave masters or you do not claim to own anybody, only that you rule/own yourself and your Rightful property alone. Thus, you cannot make up arbitrary laws that are not in alignment with that which is forever correct, true, and objectively moral. Whereas authority is based in moral relativity, the ideas that you can claim ownership over other people and their property on the whims of your wants and desires based off of the relative perception. Authority is synonymous with slave-owner. authority is the manifestation of a disease psyche, which is based in fear, the refusal of truth, chaos and abuse of control. Authority is the claim that you have a "Right" to other people and the property or product of their labor. “They must find it hard to take Truth for authority who have so long mistaken Authority for Truth.” ~ Gerald Massey

Ghost in the Shell is not only an accurate look at a futuristic Post-Humanism Totalitarian society, but it is also loaded with deep Occult imagery coming from Gnostic and Platonic Philosophy, and Allegory, such as bringing up crucial Social and Moral issues. The film operation on several different levels, it is an Occult initiation of sorts, a deep look at the hypothetical future world stifled with dialectical materialism. Set in 2029, with the advance of cybernetic technology, the human body can be "augmented" or even completely replaced with cybernetic parts along with a cyberbrain, a mechanical casing for the human brain that allows access to the Internet and other networks. The term is "ghost" or “Geist,” is referring to the Consciousness/Soul inhabiting the "body" A.K.A. the Shell.” The symbolism in the title scene alone has so much Esoteric meaning, the use of the triangle in the middle of the phrase Ghost in the Shell. The triangle is a symbol of the Triune aspect of the Self (Thoughts, Emotions, Actions / Mind, Spirit, Body), balance, and the Spiritual Nature of ourselves. It is placed properly over the “Shell” which would be the square, representing the material, physical, or earthly existence or the 4 alchemical elemental powers. Giving us some subliminal ideas for the ontological question ahead. The film dabbles in the idea of the complete uncertainty about A.I., and a post-modern trans-humanist world. Whether or not Man will merge with machine or find the true path to Spiritual Ascension. It plays with the scary but futile ideas of A.I.’s “self-awareness.” For most the ideas of A.I. are perplexing and most confuse thinking with computation, like the limited view proposition by René Descartes "I think, therefore I Am.” But in this case, it would be “I compute therefore I Am.” Which is a self-defeating argument and leaves out the emotional, meta-psychical, and Spiritual components. The overall story is based on a Hegelian dialectical approach to the ontological questions about the human Soul and A.I. with our possible sublation with machines. The film starts with an opening assassination scene, and give an interesting political view on the world they live in, such as a James Bond style "super soldier" with a license to kill. It shows us the Geo-political waters and the Moral state of society. The next scene starts with an empty “Shell” being formed into creation by mechanical means. Each step adding more aesthetics layers with the end results matching a female human appearance. Which eludes to a western alchemical transmutation. We can see this as resurrection theme and during this process, the “Shell” is passing through a white creamy liquid which is symbolically referring to fertility, and we see the clear waters of the womb of creation. This could be looked at as a Christian virgin birth in a way. But in reverse, because it is being done through the masculine energy being that of machines rather than that of Nature. She resides in the fetal position and starts to shed her outer skin like a cocoon, now even more human characteristics appear. Dropping down into even cleaner waters symbolizing the water breaking of the birthing process. This all comes to an end with a long cut of her new form and then a cut to her lying in bed staring at the viewer which will parallel to a later scene. Showing us that she has now awakened like coming out of a dream state into the conscious state. We see this same process in the opening scenes of the TV version of Westworld. This is all in direct correspondence with the “Magnum Opus” in Western Alchemy. This opener is one of my favorites. It has inspired many other films like the Matrix created by the Wachowskis., and Ex Machina which was written and directed by Alex Garland. Ghost in the Shell is clearly a very stylized, influential film, with the ideas and visuals that it was pushing back in 1995 really grabbing the attention of some accomplished filmmakers. One of the most extreme examples of this is in the case of Ghost in the Shell being a major inspiration for the Wachowskis’ iconic Matrix trilogy. The Wachowskis’ love for this film is so intense that when pitching The Matrix to Joel Silver, they allegedly showed him the final shoot out from Ghost in the Shell and then added, “We wanna do that for real.” The Wachowskis got pretty damn close to their goal with not only several set pieces from the film capturing Ghost in the Shells essence but concepts like the jacks in the back of people’s necks and the "green digital code rain” title sequence both being straight from Oshii’s film. The protagonist Major Motoko who is not an A.I., is a team leader for the Public Security Section 9 of "New Port City" in Japan. New Port is another way of saying the new way or path, maybe “new world order? In the film, the protagonist is struggling with whether or not she has a Ghost. Since she is mostly cybernetic, she questions if she has a Soul or Self anymore. In the film, she is on a Journey to understand ontological and epistemological questions. As she states much later in the film; "There are countless ingredients that make up the human body and mind, like all the components that make up me as an individual with my own personality. Sure, I have a face and voice to distinguish myself from others, but my thoughts and memories are unique only to me, and I carry a sense of my own destiny. Each of those things are just a small part of it. I collect information to use in my own way. All of that blends to create a mixture that forms me and gives rise to my conscience. I feel confined, only free to expand myself within boundaries." "If we all reacted the same way, we'd be predictable, and there's always more than one way to view a situation. What's true for the group is also true for the individual. It's simple: Overspecialize, and you breed in weakness. It's a slow death.” We can see her utilitarianism approach to life in that last quote, and how she struggles with the nature of her reality. There looks to be a resource war for the basic means of survival pre to the robotic and trans-human advancements. In our modern day, big entities like the Royal Society, The U.N., Darpa, and think-tanks like the Club of Rome have exhausted tremendous amounts of wealth into selling phony propaganda in order to push such a world of trans-humanism. The next scene is a brilliant contrast with her personal state of mind and the world in which she lives. We gain all the knowledge needed for a great prelude of the character build, we see the room is dark, and empty, with no personality to it, just a place to sleep. No art, or colors, no picture on the walls. The one window shot shows the bleak grey despotic technocratic city reflecting the overwhelming oppressive state of the world and her role in it as an owned order-follower. This gives us an idea about her lack of humanity and her struggle with herself and a world full of artifice. It make her seem insignificant in the face of the overwhelming vastness of the technocratic city. As the story progresses, we see many mirror reflection scenes, one where she is looking into the glass and she is starring back at herself. Representing here a dual state of consciousness, and the state of internal turmoil and questions about the abstract Nature of herself. Thoughts and emotion are in conflict with one another. Mirrors often are emblematic of the subconscious, or the psyche, reflecting the deepest dreams and intentions of the characters, or shades of the Jungian Archetype symbolism. During my absolute favorite scene in the movie, she is on a recreational dive, as she is below the surface, we see the same kind of reflection motif and how she feels separate from her ghost. Her reflection is a representation of her ghost. This is a dive into the subconscious mind, and the color contrast symbolizes the Existential Crisis and schism she is in, this is also the Sacred Masculine and Feminine energy’s that are in a state of imbalance. As above so below, but in this case, she feels that since she is mostly mechanical the universe above must be the same materialistic view. Like in the window shot, her view of the city reflects her view of the macrocosmic, to her, it is a “Shell” and has no real meaning beyond reproduction and deconstruction. Her soul/ghost is just a reflection of her projection. But she is trying to be more human-like and this makes her feel connected to that small side of her. This is most likely because of her birthing phase earlier in the film. It is stored in her subconscious Mind and this act of dive is like reliving that moment, of the fresh waters and her reemergence out of them, it becomes a ritual of resurrection and creation. She speaks with Batou on the boat about how and why she dives, and the feeling she gets. But we are reminded that she does not completely feel human when she falls back into her left-brain robotic thoughts and attributes it all to decompression. As the conversation goes on, she mentions that her “Shell” is owned by Section 9 (a government black-ops corporation) and she explains that since she has more abilities than humans, she feels more alive, but her “Shell” is limiting her. Giving us the impression that she cares not about the Sacred physical or even her own body. This is a separatist worldview, which is the idea that what happens here and now is of no importance, the body is only a “vessel” or an empty “Shell” and even physical slavery is not of any worry, in fact, it is embraced. Which is shown by the fact that she is just fine with her body being owned by military intelligence. Motoko's dilemma comes from the idea of her being a cyborg for so long, that it has completely desensitized her from her humanity. She only feels human from other people treating her like one, therefore, she needs other people to recognize herself almost no independence. All of these parallels with the antagonist mindset later on in the film. A soft voice cuts in and say’s “now it’s like we are looking through a mirror, and what we see is a dim image.” But it was not spoken by either of the characters. When asked if this was her Motoko turns around and stares directly at the camera as if to ask the viewer themselves who was this? The scene ends leaving the viewer and characters wondering who did say this. Was it her ghost or some higher divine message? Was it a Ghost-hack? This shot and dialog parallels all of the previous scenes. The answer to this comes later. Fairly close to the middle of the film, we get a great overview of the flooded and overly advertised city and its inhabitants. The city and all those in it are nothing but a corporate commodity just items in a market place. The same song plays over the shot as a silhouette bird-like plane flies over the city, reflecting Motoko’s bird’s eye view of the world, and we also see another mirrored reflection giving more credence to the idea of the Nature of the Self. The city looks dark and grim, trash floats in the brown filthy water reflecting the state of the people in the city. We then cut to a shot and see in a window the same model “Shell” as Motoko’s model, and they make eye contact as the boat moves along the river, is she just another copy? Nothing more than a mechanized being with no purpose besides to live out her programming? Motoko inquisitively looks at the broken buildings that are under construction and draws a parallel to herself and the city. As if to ponder the differences between her and the buildings. Leading into the next few shots of the citizen’s zombie-like motion in the city, and a really good correspondence to the mannequin’s like the people and/or cyborgs walking past. We get the idea that the whole city is lifeless and lack empathy. When then cut back to Motoko and her gazing out a window at the city, and it begins to rain, symbolically showing us how she is crying on the inside, and how much sadness floods this crowded despotic world. It shows the lack of individuality and morality which is the death of this society. Only mundane conformity walks the rugged streets of "New Port City." “The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduces them. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master; whoever attempts to destroy their illusions is always their victim. An individual in a crowd is a grain of sand amid other grains of sand, which the wind stirs up at will.” ― Gustave Le Bon The perpetrator/antagonist is the mysterious Puppet Master. He is being used as a tool that can stealthily manipulate politics and intelligence, altering databases and the memories of key persons for the benefit of select individuals and organizations affiliated with the Ministry, and is equipped with unparalleled computer and cyberbrain hacking abilities. But he has gained some form of awareness and seeks to rebel against the confines of the control system. This A.I. is postulated that it has gained a "Ghost" and it's able to recognize his own existence without the need of others, even when he knows he was created as a program by humans. This falls in place with the "mirror" metaphor, they both are questioning what is called a "Self," but are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Which is why the Puppet-Master says: "we resemble each other's essence, mirror images of one another's psyche." I believe it was the Puppet Master who stated the quote earlier in the diving scene, which would make sense considering this statement he says here. Batou and Motoko have a quick conversation about whether the Puppet Master has a Ghost and whether or not she was even real in the first place again show us her Self-doubt and her possible cotard delusion. Batou holds to the philosophy of René Descartes "I think, therefore I Am.” But again, in this case, it would be “I compute therefore I Am” when approaching the A.I. situation. This Ideology lacks the Sacred Feminine aspect of the Self, which is Spirit, Compassion and Empathy. But also confuses the idea of thoughts with computations. Batou responds to her and says “you’ve got human brain cells. And you’re treated like a human, aren’t you?” If the second were true then anything we treated like a human would be considered a human. We tend to anthropomorphize everything, from “God,” to a rock. Transcendence through the singularity, where technology and biology merge, and a complete end is made of man, as a man. This is the idea of need to change the “image” of man to bring about a new birth. These conversations are a dialectical approach to the epistemology questions. Which is a method of philosophical argument that involves some sort of contradictory process between opposing sides to come to a synthetic solution or a synthesis. In what is perhaps the most classic version of “dialectics”, the ancient Greek philosopher, Plato, for instance, presented his philosophical argument as a back-and-forth dialogue or debate, generally between the character of Socrates, on one side, and some person or group of people to whom Socrates was talking (his interlocutors), on the other. They continue on to talk about whether or not Cyberbrains can create their own ghost, which gives us a fundamental flaw in the A.I. self-generated Ghost notion. Th idea that consciousness is only manifested if we have the cerebral functions. They don’t speak on it, but it is the question of whether or not Consciousness comes from the Brain or is an inherent underlying Creative Force of existence, which can only be generated from the Causal cause of the essence of the Law of Generation. There is both what I call Vital Consciousness and cerebral consciousness, first is Vital which is the Causal cause and the second is its effect. At best A.I. will always be just a dim image of its creators. To understand more about this Study the Law of Corpuscles. Also neglecting the Truth that Humans don’t just think in Linguistics or Computation, they think also in pictographs and imagines. The imagination is the most powerful form of thought, and the A.I. has no imagination otherwise it would not be “A.I.” In a conversation between Motoko and the Puppet Master he says “It can also be argued that DNA is nothing more than a program designed to preserve itself. Life has become more complex in the overwhelming sea of information. And life, when organized into species, relies upon genes to be its memory system. So, man is an individual only because of his intangible memory... and memory cannot be defined, but it defines mankind. The advent of computers and the subsequent accumulation of incalculable data has given rise to a new system of memory and thought parallel to your own. Humanity has underestimated the consequences of computerization.” Here we can see a Darwinian approach to existence, and his lack of the understanding of the metaphysical nature of reality and Epi-genetics. Reducing all of man’s meaning to a simple quantification of physical Identity stored in the gene memory failing to understand the collective field/vital consciousness is the Mass Storage for the creation of the genes. The environment of Consciousness governs genetics which is known as Epigenetics. It is interesting that he says that “DNA is nothing more than a program designed to preserve itself,” he clearly has a sense of a “God” that he believes to have created, programmed and designed the DNA coding. His supposition that life is merely about survival is incorrect, it is also about a qualitative Growth that leads to a progressive movement towards the function of balance. This is done through the syntrophic force or ordering force of nature. At the end there is an epic battle, this scene is what inspired the cinematography in the lobby scene at the end of The Matrix. The camera angles, environmental damage, and soundtrack which is named reincarnation are all masterfully composed. Motoko’s seemingly hopeless fight with a Military Mech Tank which can be seen as the system or her robotic nature. In this scene the pouring rain gives us a great sense of dread, the rain parallels with the rain in the city. This fight lasts around 8 minutes and it feels like an hour, and it’s like the director wanted us to see her as human, and her desperate struggle against the tank/tech of the “new world.” Take notice that the pillars or columns are being destroyed, these represent her fragile state of being crumbling away. These are the pillars of Freemasonry which are symbolic of the two aspect of consciousness, that of thoughts and emotions, the left brain and right brain etc... The fossils on the wall are destroyed symbolizing the death of the old body and the rebirth, like in the intro of the film. This can also be looked at as the destruction of the ancient sacred knowledge. Then the Kabbalistic Tree of Life is destroyed, giving even more movement to the idea of death, and reincarnation and the destruction of the knowledge of the Self. Her intentions are to Ghost-dive into the Puppet Masters A.I.’s cyberbrain and it is her last chance to do so. Eventually, she gets onto the top of the mech and tries ripping open the hatch which protects the mechs cyberbrain, in her desperation, she rips her own limbs off failing to open the hatch. The important part here is that she is completely disregarding her “Shell,” now she is completely dehumanized, only a Being not a Human Being. She ends up in the water like the rubbish or trash in the earlier scenes of the city because her “shell” is now junk. The mech gets the upper hand but then Batou saves the day. She is now parallel or a reflection of and with the Puppet Master’s condition, mentally, and physically, his body also has his limbs removed and has no motor functions as shown in the images above. She sees herself and the PM as the same. She has a deep desire to learn from the PM, the Puppet Master now speaks through Motoku’s “Shell” and she sees through him, they are now almost one and the same. The philosopher Hume asks us to consider what impression gives us our concept of self. This is known as the Bundle Theory of the Self. We tend to think of ourselves as selves—stable entities that exist over time. ... Hume suggests that the self is just a bundle of perceptions, like links in a chain. But as we know a group cannot be without the individual. What Hume terms the Self is a correct assessment for the collective, but there is a singularity or Causal cause. The all is the One and the many, it is the ouroboros, the 1 is the 8 and the 8 is the 1. The one makes up the whole and the whole makes up the one. “A “collective” mind does not exist. It is merely the sum of endless numbers of individual minds. If we have an endless number of individual minds who are weak, meek, submissive and impotent – who renounce their creative supremacy for the sake of the “whole” and accept humbly that the “whole’s” verdict – we don’t get a collective super-brain. We get only the weak, meek, submissive and impotent collective mind.” ― Ayn Rand, the Journals of Ayn Rand Batou aids in Motoku’s link with The Puppet Master, he proceeds to explain to Kusanagi that he was created by wandering various networks, he became “sentient” and began to contemplate his existence. Deciding the essence of humanity is reproduction and mortality, he chooses to exist within a physical brain that will eventually die. As he could not escape Section 6's network, he had to download himself into a cybernetic body. Having interacted with Kusanagi (without her knowledge), he believes she is also questioning her humanity, and they have a lot in common. He proposes merging their ghosts, in return, Kusanagi would gain all of his capabilities. Kusanagi agrees to the merge. Not we see the extremes are meeting for an alchemical synthesis of sorts. The union of opposites for the purpose of bring about a “new man.” Recognize here that he uses the word Sentient which means "capable of feeling," from Latin sentientem (nominative sentiens) "feeling," but we understand he is incapable of feeling. So, his conclusion is incorrect, built off a false supposition. The definition of the word doesn’t even refer to thinking as a qualification to be sentient, but I would argue it is one of the components. If we take the Turning test which was developed by Alan Turing. The test is quite simple: In a blind setting, you simply ask a human being to tell the difference between an artificially intelligent chatbot and a human. If they can’t tell the difference, the A.I. passes. We see this type of test happening all the time on social media networks like Facebook with fake profiles. This, however, does not measure awareness, it just measures information processing—particularly the ability to follow rules or at least imitate a particular style of communication. In particular, it measures the ability of a computer program to imitate humanlike dialogue, which is different than measuring awareness itself. Thus, even if we succeed in creating good A.I., we won’t necessarily succeed in creating A. (“Awareness”). Remember it is called artificial for a reason, no matter how close we get to mimicking reality it is still only a construct. “It doesn’t matter if the machine is conscious or not,” said Titus Sharpe, president of MVF in an interview with TechCo. “It’s whether you can tell the difference between man and machine.” But even if a machine were to fool a man, does it magically make it self-conscious? Of course not, that’s like saying a lie becomes truth if it is believed. But he also means that if a machine can fool a human then it is close enough of being conscious that it wouldn’t matter if it wasn’t. It is easy to fool a human and the closer we come to mimicking humanity the easier it will be to fool humanity. This is culture assimilation; one cannot infiltrate a culture without knowing what the culture is or you will stick out like a sore thumb. The Puppet Master continues on with saying “I refer to myself as an intelligent life form because I am sentient and I am able to recognize my own existence, but in my present state, I am still incomplete. I lack the most basic processes inherent in all living organisms: reproducing and dying.” Major Motoko Kusanagi: “But you can copy yourself.” Puppet Master: “A copy is just an identical image. There is the possibility that a single virus could destroy an entire set of systems, and copies do not give rise to variety and originality. Life perpetuates itself through diversity and this includes the ability to sacrifice itself when necessary. Cells repeat the process of degeneration and regeneration until one day they die, obliterating an entire set of memory and information. Only genes remain. Why continually repeat this cycle? Simply to survive by avoiding the weaknesses of an unchanging system.” The Puppet Master has the urge to be able to die, which happens to be a very sentient thing. Giving us that human side of the “A.I.” (If it is truly sentient then is it not an A.I.), making us question again is his claim is true? Since he is incapable of having children his wishes to merge with Motoku so that he leaves behind something of himself, but that something will be a completely new creation. This is the Great Sexual Transmutation of the sacred polarities, the Masculine, and Feminine in the alchemical wedding. He is unconcerned with what happens to him after death only what he leaves behind. Motoku worries about her “self” and asks if she will still be herself afterward? He goes on to say that there is no one self only an ever-changing self that you will never know. His supposition about the Self is incorrect, based that he is starting with the idea that the Self is the effect and not the causality. He thinks of the “self” in the physical only and not metaphysical. Though it sounds smart, it really is a failure in the ontological understanding. It shows that he is still a program and nothing more. But he is correct in his understanding about reproduction and how sacred it is. Though I feel it is still lacking an emotional side to it leaving as some kind of ego-centric idea that as long as I reproduce then I remain. This is a selfish attitude towards the idea of another life form, it is not really about the other being but only that he gets to have some part of him remain. “We are not supposed to all be the same, feel the same, think the same, and believe the same. The key to the continued expansion of our Universe lies in diversity, not in conformity and coercion. Conventionality is the death of creation.” ― Anthon St. Maarten “What endlessly fascinates is that man is played for a fool, even by himself, in his idea of creating a great A.I. central god-system to run the future utopian SmartCities – do the proud architects not realize that they, too, will be enslaved? At all points, we are confronted with phony dialectics, which are essentially false paradigms of opposition, and they are all mostly wrong, reflecting only a piece of the puzzle.” ~ Jay Dyer This is a form of Dialectical materialism which adapts the Hegelian dialectic for traditional materialism, which examines the subjects of the world in relation to each other within a dynamic, evolutionary environment, in contrast to metaphysical philosophy. Dialectical materialism has led humanity into some of the darkest places that we can think of. It is one of the root axiomatic problems we face in our world today. Things like Marxism, Communism, and Socialism all have been birthed from this dogmatic ideological approach to the world. The final question in the conversation is when she asks why he picked her. He replies with “because we are more alike than you realize like the real thing and its mirror image.” Circling back around to the reflection metaphor. He is referring to her as the real version and him as the reflection. He wants to assimilate her and intern become something new and “god” like. As they merge, we get a shot of light from above then feathers falling down, and a figure of an angle seems to appear for a moment. The archetype Hermes fly’s down from the heavens above, symbolizing the divine union of the sacred masculine and feminine principles. The Feathers are symbolic of higher consciousness and the being the kundalini energy. There are snipers set up ready to take out both Motoku’s and PM cyberbrains, Batou saves Motoku, right before the sniper's fire by throwing his arm in front of Motoku’s head in a selfless way. As the bullets hit each Shell a church bell rings symbolizing the end of the old and the beginning of the new, just as a clock does. In a way, this all can be looked at as a ritual, because all the components are in place, like totems, and elements. Neo-"Kusanagi" wakes up in Batou's safe house with her previous “shell's cyberbrain attached to a new cyborg child body. In this shot, we are seeing through her eyes, and see another Cyber body/shell across from her. This could be more mirror metaphor or did she become 2 people afterward? I think it is a mirror, and she is seeing her new self for the first time. She tells Batou that the entity within her body is neither Kusanagi nor the Puppet Master, but a combination of both. Thus, we find that the sublation has been completed, the alchemical wedding is done. We find out that this film has been a Trans-humanist Alchemical Transmutation from the very beginning, the merging of opposites into a synthesis of human with machine. I feel that this movie is an allegorical warning of a post-trans-human occult technocracy “(d)evolution.” That embraces Moral Relativism, Marxism, Socialism, and Communism. Most Science Fiction is based on Dialectical Materialism and Social Darwinism, and this film is no exception. Putting primacy on the Material instead of a balance between the Spiritual and Material. In the end, slavery is still embraced, and Human existence is all but obsolete. Just like your iPhone, you must be upgraded or you will be filled with viruses by the occult elite ruling crony capitalist class that owns you. Even know she has a new body, it is still under “contract” with “sector 9” (ego mind) a government agency which is used in petty geo-political agendas. From my point of view, they both have failed to reach a new level of “Freedom” like they claim they wanted, they actually are right back where they started. In “Satanism 9” which represents the ego. In Satanism the number 9 is the symbol for the lower self or ego-based consciousness. One reason is because you can add it to any number and it can be reduced back to itself. “Despite others’ attempts to identify a certain number (666) with Satanism, it will be known that nine is his number. Nine is the number of the Ego, for it always returns to itself. No matter what is done through the most complex multiplication of nine by any other number, in the final equation, nine alone will stand forth.” ~ Anton LaVey. The Satanic Bible. Their ontological quest still remains, because they are still lacking the understanding the True Self and Natural Law Principles. Yet, we could also look at this as a Post-human Alchemical Transmutation of the Sacred Feminine and Masculine Principles of Consciousness, since all of these characters are only archetypes that reflect an aspect of ourselves. She goes through an existential crisis and reaches a new level of existence. No longer is she even post-human now she is post-trans-human, and not bound by many of the limitations of the previous version. She does end up back in a body but she could just stay on the net like the Puppet Master was doing. This an idea of Theseus Ship, in this philosophical inquiry we ask questions like “what makes a thing what it is? How much can a thing change before it is something else? Etc… This is idea of asking about the nature of Self Identity. In the metaphysics of identity, the ship of Theseus — or Theseus's paradox — is a thought experiment that raises the question of whether a ship—standing for an object in general—that has had all of its components replaced remains fundamentally the same object. Motoku new Self is like this story, all of her components have been replaced and thus is she even the same Self anymore? Before we can claim to have such knowledge of a thing, we must know why it is the way it is. Aristotle said something to this effect to help with the paradox of Theseus’s ship. He solved this paradox with the use of Reason and the understanding of Causality. Look into his 4 causality approach for more info on this solution. But simply put if the body is a symbol/form and the essence of the symbol is the energy that can never be destroyed or remains the same in any manifested form, then we can say the True Self/Soul is immutable. The purpose remains the same as I stated above; “their ontological quest still remains,” thus, we can say that the lower self has reached the Gnosis of the Higher Self. "We are fractal extensions of the transcendent consciousness. We collectively create an infinite spectrum of symphonies, of vibration for the purpose of experience. We are the Universe perceiving itself, and thus creating itself." – Ryan Boyd In conclusion, I feel that without the epidemiological understanding, most will be all but lost in the deeper philosophical meaning. Allegorically the film has a feel of perseverance, devotion, loyalty, identity, and individuality. This film focuses on you “being there” rather than “getting there.” The entire film has a sense of the old and new forms and structures, an ouroboros world. Since the Ghost is = to the Mind or Self and it can be hacked (mind control) it brings into question about the meaning of what is humanity? If we change all the part of the body are we still even human? Many would say no, and others would argue yes. The true Self is made up of the sum total of the dynamic experience and stimulation from the environment. You cannot understand the 1 (Self) without the 2 (reflection). It is true that we are ever growing and changing beings and that trying to hang on to the identity can be a limiting factor for the evolution of the being. In the film, I do believe that this is the true intended meaning of the conclusion. To understand that life is a dynamic fractal emergent property of the causal Cause. An ever-changing unfolding wonder of spectacular mysteries. Though we can come to know the Nature Laws and who we truly are which could be said to be dynamic ever-changing Spiritual Beings, there will always be new mysteries for us to explore, and discover. The occult nature of the universe is inherent and it is our jobs to de-occult its wonders, to bring light where there is darkness. By Brandon Martin

Are You A Slave? Suppose a slave is forced to work for the enrichment of a master against his will, beaten, completely unpaid, not allowed to switch masters at will, and is not allowed free travel. Now suppose he is not beaten, but the rest remains true…is he still a slave? Clearly, yes. A nicer master isn’t the absence of a master. So, treatment is rather irrelevant to the condition of slavery. Now suppose he is also allowed to switch masters at will…is he still a slave? Clearly, yes. The ability to choose your masters isn’t the absence of a master. So, the ability to choose for whom you work against your will is rather irrelevant to the condition of slavery. Now suppose he is also allowed to travel freely when not laboring, as long as he finds someone else to labor for against his will, or returns to his previous master…is he still a slave? Clearly, yes. The ability to move about between masters is not the absence of a master. So, the ability to free movement (within a certain area anyways) is rather irrelevant to the condition of slavery. Now suppose he is also allowed to keep 1% of the fruits of his labor, with 99% going to his master (against the worker’s will)…is he still a slave? Clearly, yes. The exact percentage taken by force is just a matter of degree, not a matter of principle. Any forced labor is slavery, no matter if done by percentage or by direct forced labor at whip’s end. The ability to keep anything less than 100% of the fruits of your labor is irrelevant to the condition of slavery. So, how do we then define a “slave”? It isn’t about how good or bad you’re treated, it isn’t about the ability to choose your masters, it isn’t about the ability to move freely from master to master (to live where you wish, within a certain area at least), and it isn’t about what percentage of the fruits of your labors are taken from you by force (or on the threat of force)…so what then defines the word “slave”? What defines a slave is ANYTIME you labor for others against your will. In Ancient Egypt slavery was a condition of most any taxpayer that couldn’t pay his tax bill, which threw that person into slavery for 3-4 months a year. That meant Egyptians had to work for the enrichment of the state to the tune of 25%-33% of their yearly incomes, whether paid in some form of money, crops, etc., or paid directly in labor. This was and is universally accepted as a form of slavery. In fact “labour in ancient Egyptian is a synonym for taxes” (see footnote 1). Sound familiar? Don’t taxpayers today pay the equivalent of 25%-33% (or far more) of their total incomes to the state on the threat of rape cages (prison) and justly held property (or “justly held possessions capable of being traded”, if you prefer) being seized? Sure, modern slave masters figured out a much more sly way of doing it – by percentage as opposed to all at once in an obvious forced labor situation…but is that really a substantial or substantive difference? Clearly, no. For those thinking “but I don’t mind paying taxes”…that doesn’t really matter, because you weren’t given a choice. It’s analogous to saying a man who breaks in a woman’s house at night to rape her isn’t a rapist because she happened to be horny and decided to have sex with him willingly. Who cares?! That isn’t relevant to the fact she wasn’t offered a choice, which still makes the man an attempted rapist (likely to try to rape someone else later). You being willing to pay taxes doesn’t mean you have a choice in the matter, and if you tried to stop paying you’d figure that out very quickly (and violently). YOU HAVE NO CHOICE, you are forced to labor against your will. One form of slavery IS forced labor: “Forced labor occurs when an individual is forced to work against his or her will, under threat of violence or other punishment, with restrictions on their freedom” (see footnote 2). And so, logically, you are a slave (assuming you pay any taxes, including sales taxes, property tax, licensing costs, etc.) in the most modern manifestation of the condition. The fact they LET YOU keep some of your own fruits of your labors is just so the slaves don’t rebel; so they don’t notice their slavery. They gave the plantation a flag, a song, a pledge, and a mythos by which children are implicitly and repeatedly told “you are free and this isn’t brainwashing”. It’s all just a cult built up around the masters. You are not free and all that you have been taught via nationalism is brainwashing. No person who labors for another, directly or indirectly, against their will (whether they like it or not), on the threat of violence (like prison and seizure of justly held alienable possessions) is free. See, donations are voluntary and therefore a choice, as are payments for consensual service, whereas tax is not a choice and is involuntary. If you really want to give money to the state, then go to the Treasury Department’s website and donate. Forcing your neighbors to pay just because you WANT to pay is not ethical…it’s being an accessory to extortion and is a conspiracy to extort (racketeering). If I changed the name of the entity you paid from “government” to “mafia”, would you still feel the same? I really hope not. And changing the words that describe a thing does not change the thing described…as Shakespeare put it “a rose by any other name…” is still a rose. And if your excuse (bad rationalization or faux justification) is majority rule or tradition, please consider these are informal logical fallacies (argumentum ad populum and ad antiquitatem, respectively) – majority opinion has been on the side of both tyranny and liberty, and tradition has been used to sustain oppression and liberation; neither matters to the ethics of a matter. Besides, if everyone agreed funding the government was a good thing, then why do you require a law to make people pay? Clearly, people won’t pay if not forced…which suggests the “mass agreement” on the necessity of funding the state is nonexistent. The same hypocrites and liars who say they’d pay, even if there was no law to force them, would quickly stop paying when they A) can’t force their neighbors to subsidize their favorite pet projects and instead have to pay the full cost themselves for what they SAY they want government to do, and B) realize there is no law to force them to pay and they realize how much richer they’d be in their own lives if they didn’t pay at all. And anything the market (all the voluntary trades between individuals or groups in a society) wants will be supplied by the market. It’s just supply and demand, rational incentives, etc. So, why do we need the state to supply inefficiently (and funded by force) that which can logically be more efficiently and ethically provided by alternative private for-profit, non-profit, cooperative, or completely charitable institutions? Even if you’re against profit, per se, couldn’t the rest of the institutions mentioned handle it? We don’t need it. The state just makes it illegal to compete with them. They SAY it’s because no other institution can do what they do, as well as they do it…but how can that be proven without allowing competition? It can’t. It’s just a perpetuated myth of which all of us are convinced, since childhood. It’s no more logical or rational or evidence-based than the Tooth Fairy (belated spoiler alert: the Tooth Fairy isn’t real). Slavery is alive and well. And you can see it where the slaves turn against each other; house slave and field slave mentality. House slaves cheer for the punishment of field slaves who refuse to comply. They call them “tax cheats” (which is absurd, considering you CANNOT cheat on extortion – there is NO FAIR SHARE of extortion that anyone needs to pay). The field slaves hate the house slaves because of their cultish beliefs in the master’s necessity and beneficence (or at least the master’s benignity). Divide and conquer on the plantation: alive and well. They even take some of the slaves and hand them whips to punish the field slaves who dare to step out of line (the police who enforce these unethical laws). But “we’re free”? Only if you’re delusional and playing on relativism. Sure, we (Americans) MAY be the freest nation-state on Earth…but that’s like being the prettiest ugly girl at the prom – you’re still an ugly girl and won’t get introduced to his friends or his parents even if he has sex with you after the dance. Relative freedom is a nonsense measure, because if the whole world were fascist and we were just slightly less than fascist, that would be “freest” still, but certainly wouldn’t be FREE in any objective sense of the word. We have to quit confusing objective criteria for relative criteria, and principles for matters of degree. It leads to disgusting complacency and incremental loss of even more liberty. We’re all slaves, like it or not, accept it or not, and resist it or not. You can make no logical, rational, or evidence-based argument to the contrary. I know this all too well, because I tried to lie to myself about it for years. It was painful to face the Truth, as it sometimes is, but now that I’ve gotten past that period in my life and am able to look back at it, it was the best thing I could have ever done for my personal dignity as a human being; to recognize the condition in which I live without bias of a brainwashed childhood. It feels empowering, believe me, to know you ACTUALLY don’t give a damn what others think about it (or you), since it isn’t simply an opinion – it’s a provable fact (via evidence, logic, and reason). Now I always question my own opinions anytime they match tradition or popular opinion. More often than not, I find those opinions to be bad and without merit. The idea with the least merit is taking that which is illegal for the slaves (extortion, for one example) and making it legal and revered when the masters do it. There is no legitimacy in such ideas. “Slavery is a legal or economic system in which…humans [are] classified as property,[1]” (see footnote 3). If you don’t own all the fruits of your labors, then you don’t completely own yourself (if “own yourself” is an objectionable phrase, then replace it with the equivalent of “have individual autonomy”)…and if you don’t completely own yourself/have individual autonomy (putting aside the determinism/free will debate for now), then logically someone else owns you (in total, or in part). That IS, undeniably, treating people as property. It is taxation and similar coercive acts of the state that makes you a slave (and if you think corporations aren’t manifestations of purely state-granted protectionism, then read a little history on the subject or my future essays on the topic). People think I’m crazy to be an anarchist and to say these things, but in fact, anarchists were among the first (and most vocal) abolitionists (of chattel slavery). Apparently, we’re also the LAST abolitionists too. One more form of slavery is left to abolish: the state (and with it, corporate economic domination). When the house slaves figure out we field slaves aren’t the problem, and that the master is, we’ll get there. It’s just a much tougher sell today because in chattel slavery the house slaves were the minority of slaves, whereas today they are the vast majority of them, and their relative good treatment keeps them from recognizing both the chains around their wrists and ankles and the locks fastened to their children’s necks. “George Mason University professor Thomas Rustici uses two hypothetical anecdotes to illustrate this point. In the first, Sam Slime mugs a person for £50. In the second, Sam Slime votes for a politician who taxes a person in order to redistribute £50 to the “disadvantaged” Slime. Both examples involve the use of force. However, the second scenario is arguably worse, since through the state, Slime is now empowered to repeatedly take others’ money, thus putting them in a condition of slavery. Leo Tolstoy argued that taxation of labor is one of three stages of slavery (the other two being land slavery and personal slavery)” (see footnote 4). “Gail Buckley also notes, ‘In British eyes, the American colonies existed only for the benefit of the mother country, but Americans saw any form of taxation as slavery’ ” (see footnote 5). What the hell happened to us? When did we become such unthinking, whipped dogs? When did we come to accept, and even embrace, our slavery? The answer is a sad one: almost from the beginning. The new government soon placed on the people a tax, after the veterans of the revolution, at least in part, fought to abolish the requirement of such a payment…and some of those same veterans had their lands seized by banks because the new state they fought to establish never compensated them with their promised back pay from the war. That, my friends, was the first bank bailout in American history – right after the revolution ended. So, consider it’s not what the hell happened to us back then that matters (as nostalgia, even if true to life, cannot aid us now), but what the hell needs to happen to us from here forward. And what the hell needs to happen is more people accepting the Truth of our slavery. And why is that? Because you can’t begin to solve a problem until you admit you have it. Footnotes: “A World History of Tax Rebellions”, pp. vi-viii “Slavery in the 21st century”, New Internationalist Magazine Issue 337 “The Politics of Property: Labour, Freedom and Belonging”, p.162 “The Slavery of Our Times”, Leo Tolstoy, ch. 8-12 “American Patriots: The Story of Blacks in the Military From the Revolution to Desert Storm”, Gail Buckley, p. 3 By Tony Palmentera, who is an anarchist without adjectives, an essayist, an ethical theorist, a poker player, and contributor to the Skatopia community.