View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Mon Nov 19th, 2018 03:22 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley


Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6353
The point about learning the past is not simply to avoid repeating past mistakes, there is another point behind learning the past. The past provides a number of rules to follow that preserve the power required to defend against certain relentless evils.


"Machiavelli's outlook was darkly pessimistic; the one element of St Augustine's thought which he wholeheartedly endorsed was the idea of original sin. As he puts it starkly in the same chapter 18 of The Prince, men are bad. This means that to deal with them as if they were good, honourable or trustworthy is to court disaster. In the Discourses (I,3) the point is repeated: 'all men are bad and are ever ready to display their malignity'. This must be the initial premise of those who play to found a republic. The business of politics is to try and salvage something positive from this unpromising conglomerate, and the aim of the state is to check those anarchic drives which are a constant threat to the common good. This is where The Prince fits into the spectrum of his wider thought: while a republic may be his preferred form of social organization, the crucial business of founding or restoring a state can only be performed by one exceptional individual."
Introduction in my copy of The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

The evil exposed in that historical study is this evil whereby people use the truth, and distort that truth, so as to make the truth something opposite of what the truth is: to reword a natural law beneficial to mankind and to turn that benefit into our living hell instead. Failing to account for deception as deception - as a rule - dooms the deceived to be controlled by that deception: a lesson worth knowing, it never loses validity not matter how much time passes.

The ability to use accurate accountability so as to stop criminal aggression in its tracks, for the moment, is exemplified recently in the trial of the Bundy family, whereby the whole country of free people (a country is a locality, not a "nation state") set the Bundy family free: momentarily. What is missing in that case is the same power of the whole people used aggressively on the aggressors: aggressively to hold the violent, criminal, aggressors to account for their crimes.

Aggression, in the context of a speedy trial, is not aggressive violence in the context of might somehow making right. There is a truth, and then in opposition to the truth there is a counterfeit version of the truth. Which is true? Is there a process by which people can agree to accurately discriminate the truth from the counterfeit versions of the truth, or is it good enough to just obey the "truth" in the form of orders that must be obeyed without question?

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. "

"Plaintiff admitted that it, in combination with the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, which are for all practical purposes, because of there interlocking activity and practices, and both being Banking Institutions Incorporated under the Laws of the United States, are in the Law to be treated as one and the same Bank, did create the entire 14,000.00 in money or credit upon its own books by bookkeeping entry. That this was the Consideration used to support the Note dated May 8, 1964 and the Mortgage of the same date. The money and credit first came into existence when they created it. Mr. Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this. A lawful consideration must exist and be tendered to support the Note. See Anheuser-Bush Brewing co. V. Emma Mason, 44 Minn. 318. The Jury found there was no lawful consideration and I agree. Only God can create something of value out of nothing."
First National Bank of Montgomery, Plaintiff
Jerome Daly, Defendant.

It is a moral duty to aggressively hold the guilty to an accurate accounting: do so speedily, do so to save current victims from further harm, and do so to prevent, deter, and help save future criminals from further evil they choose on their own volition. All that is voluntary, none of that enslaves anyone.

"For more than six hundred years—that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215—there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws."
Lysander Spooner, Trial by Jury

The truth has lasted for thousands of years, aiding to save everyone, through accurate accountability, despite some serious evil powers, and that is worth knowing, as proven by this recent Bundy family victory: in a war that will always continue, a war with falsehood at least: so learn better from worse, it isn't that hard to do.

Look in the following 3 examples, look deep.

1. Declaration of Independence

2. Common law solemn recognition of mixed war

3. The polar opposite difference of how peaceful, innocent, people treat prisoners, and how in direct opposition evil people confess their malevolence when dealing with slaves (prisoners).

Help to the needy:

"he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."

"9.2 - Escalation
A law enforcement officer will lose his bond if he oppresses a citizen to the point of civil. rebellion when that citizen attempts to obtain redress of grievances (U.S. constitutional 1st so-called amendment).
When a state, by and through its officials and agents, deprives a citizen of all of his remedies by the due process of law and deprives the citizen of the equal protection of the law, the state commits an act of mixed war against the citizen, and, by its behavior, the state declares war on the citizen. The citizen has the right to recognize this act by the publication of a solemn recognition of mixed war. This writing has the same force as the Declaration of Independence. It invokes the citizen's U.S. constitutional 9th and 10th so-called amend guarantees of the right to create an effective remedy where otherwise none exists."

"To the officers and soldiers in the service of the king of Great Britain, not subjects of the said king: The citizens of the United States of America are engaged in a just and necessary war — a war in which they are not the only persons interested. They contend for the rights of human nature, and therefore merit the patronage and assistance of all mankind. Their , success will secure a refuge from persecution and tyranny to those who wish to pursue the dictates of their own consciences, and to reap the fruits of their own industry.

"That kind Providence, who from seeming evil often produces real good, in permitting us to be involved in this cruel war, and you to be compelled to aid our enemies in their vain attempts to enslave us, doubtless hath in view to establish perfect freedom in the new world, for those who are borne down by the oppression and tyranny of the old.

"Considering, therefore, that you are reluctantly compelled to be instruments of avarice and ambition, we not only forgive the injuries which you have been constrained to offer us, but we hold out to your acceptance a participation of the privileges of free and independent states. Large and fertile tracts of country invite and will amply reward your industry."

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