Common Sense REVISITED - (Part Two)
A Sequel To "The Law"
Continued from Part One - Again, the lessons that we’ve learned throughout life need to be overturned by lessons from the past, for those who do not take note of history are doomed to repeat it. It is for this reason I have posted “The Law - 2024” and this 48 page work of Common Sense Revisited so that we can take a good close look at the alternatives before us and ask ourselves if this is better than what we have now. C.L.
This was the structure of government in the country at that time, with the power at the base of the pyramid, in the hands of individuals and their families:
Then things began to change, and the country started moving toward a top-down model of governing. It was so gradual that no one realized it was happening. In 1913, those who wanted to turn the power pyramid upside-down made significant gains. That year, the first income tax was passed and the Federal Reserve was created, essentially ceding the constitutional authority of Congress to create money to private individuals. Since 1913, the top-down government model has become predominant. Now most of the power is with the federal government instead of the individual and the family.
As a result of this shift to top-down, command-and control, force-based government, Americans have less freedom every day. There is never a time when power relinquishes itself; it just grows and grows until the people wake up and realize what has happened to them. It is time to flip the power pyramid back to its proper configuration (Pyramid 2), with the power once again held by the individual and the family.
Once people understand the true meaning of the fundamental principles upon which the Founders based this country, the standard debates of the political parties and all of the contentious arguments over issues will just melt away. These are natural laws and universal principles that have worked for thousands of years. Deep down, Americans still believe in a bottom-up society. Institutions (surrogates) have simply been allowed to grow too powerful. There is a worldwide battle going on—above and below the surface— between surrogate leaders who believe in top-down, command-and-control management of society and those who believe in the principles of indigenous power, bottom up management, freedom, and individual sovereignty.
"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." ~George Washington
The defining quality of top-down management will always be force. When a society is dominated by force, fear is the emotion that predominates. The bottom-up model is based on the indigenous power of the individual, and the fundamental governing unit is the family. What quality holds families together? Love. Therefore, the essential unifying principle—and the predominate emotion—of the bottom-up system is love. Love on one side, fear on the other.
Everyone needs to work together to bring the country back to the bottom-up model, which is based on love and freedom. Virtually any situation can be improved by human creativity, and creativity is stimulated and increased by freedom. The solution to all of the nation’s problems—including monetary policy, welfare, health care, education, environmental degradation, drug abuse, and even foreign entanglements—is to increase indigenous power.
Each of these areas will be covered in the following sections in order to inspire a strong desire in every reader’s mind and heart to make sure all surrogates that impact these areas are following their original charter.
Before we look at the bottom-up, common sense-based solutions, we need to understand how the concept of bottom up government has been perverted in America.
“America is a bottom-up society, where new trends and ideas begin in cities and local communities…My colleagues and I have studied this great country by reading its newspapers. We have discovered that trends are generated from the bottom up.” ~John Naisbitt, Megatrends, based on a 12-year study of 2 million local events
How can a society that has successfully operated in a bottom- up mode allow itself to morph into a society based on fear and force, rather than freedom and love? How have institutions/surrogates gradually assumed the role of indigenous power?
The real answer is that there are two competing ideologies in the country that are like two competing religions. The two have been at war for more than 100 years, and those who believe in freedom have been losing because they don’t understand how the war is being waged. The ideology of the Founders is based on the belief of the individual as a divinely created being with free will and unalienable rights based on natural law. This is the principle that gives rise to the concept of the indigenous power of the individual. In this belief system, only the individual has indigenous power. The individual is the sovereign master and the government is the surrogate servant.
English philosopher John Locke believed that natural law was divine law created by a divine creator. In Locke’s view, natural law, or God’s law, governs the material world as well as the spiritual world. Divine spiritual law applies to each individual and cannot be usurped or taken from the individual by anyone or any institution, including the church or the state. These natural rights are unalienable and they include freedoms and responsibilities. Locke rejected the divine right of kings because he believed that government was an agency or surrogate of the people and could only be created by the will of the people.
He reasoned that there should be a contract between the people and the government called a constitution. The government should protect the equal rights of the citizens and not step outside of the bounds of the contract/constitution. The constitution should be the supreme law of the land, rendering other laws not in accord with the constitution invalid.
Locke believed that the primary goal of the government was to increase the freedom of its citizens and that there should be a separation of powers to keep the government from ever exceeding its role. In addition, he believed the constitution should strictly limit the functions of the government and that the people should replace the government/surrogate if it ever exceeded the powers delegated to it.
According to Locke, the government should protect property and the fundamental natural rights of the individual, including life, liberty, religion, and speech. It was this clear and coherent philosophy that most closely resembled that of the Founders.
The counter philosophy is based on the theory of materialism first introduced by Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed that matter was the source of life and that humans were nothing more than a complex collection of particles. According to Hobbes, the human mind has no existence outside the interactions of matter. Hobbes believed that human relationships followed the same mechanical laws as the world of matter and that there was nothing spiritual or divine about human beings. He concluded that government itself could alter the terms of the social contract between government and individuals as justified by the material laws of matter.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau expanded on Hobbes’ theory of materialism and originated the idea that human beings were nothing but the products of their environment. He believed that the primary role of the government was to create equality for its citizens. However, Rousseau did not believe in the political equality that Locke and the American Founders believed in; he believed in material equality. Material equality can only be created by an extremely strong central government, strong enough to take from some and give to others in order to create equal results for all.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels expanded on the theory of materialism, creating the theory of dialectic materialism. Their theories led to the concept of the state as the supreme authority, the supreme arbiter, and the supreme power. This led to the gruesome and brutal regimes of Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin in Russia and Mao Tse-tung in China. Under these regimes tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, died and most of the living wished they were dead. This is the natural result of a surrogate government having all the power, completely crushing the indigenous power of the people.
Promoters of top-down, command-and-control institutions (surrogates) have become extremely adept at masquerading as proponents of freedom and justice. Whether they come from the left or right makes no difference in the end. Adolf Hitler was a fascist and Stalin was a communist, but what difference did the label mean to the people living under either regime?
Collectivism in all its forms—socialism, communism, fascism— is nothing more than an incredibly deceptive scheme enabling some of the most powerful people on the planet to increase their power and wealth. They do this by slowly shifting the country from indigenous power to surrogate power, and they control all the surrogates.
Does this mean that all those who believe in collectivist policies are knowingly part of a deception? Absolutely not. Few people really understand the nature of what is happening when they vote for candidates who support policies that move us closer to a purely socialist or fascist state. Many Germans voted for Hitler, who ran on a platform that sounded exactly like those of some of the modern-day American politicians. Hitler’s proposals included strong anti-smoking laws as well as national registration of firearms.
Looking back over the last 50 years, it is truly amazing that, despite the complete and utter failure of top-down federal programs to eliminate poverty and drug abuse, improve education, restore the environment, reduce crime, and solve other social problems, most people still don’t realize that the top-down paradigm does not work. The reality is that all problems can be more effectively solved at the local level, and in most cases, through private, non-coercive organizations rather than government agencies. In other words, through civil society rather than political society, and through indigenous power rather than surrogate power.
The inherent desire for power and control never sleeps. In the 1800s, the proponents of surrogate power found the perfect tactic as the theories of Marx, Engels, and other collectivists began to sweep Europe. These theories appealed to the natural human desire to help others. Since then, the collectivists have perfected their ability to appeal to the compassionate hearts of the people—and in so doing, have expanded their power—by presenting a never-ending array of social programs to help children, the poor, the disabled, and others. They gain the votes of the compassionate and, of course, those who come to depend on the programs. The extra bonus is the loyalty of all those who work for the newly created bureaucracies.
In her famous book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, author Ayn Rand describes the insidious process that takes a society inch by unremarkable inch to collectivism.
“The goal of the ‘liberals’—as it emerges from the record of the past decades—was to smuggle this country into welfare statism by means of single, concrete, specific measures, enlarging the power of the government a step at a time, never permitting these steps to be summed up into principles, never permitting their direction to be identified or the basic issue to be named. Thus statism was to come, not by vote or by violence, but by slow rot—by a long process of evasion and epistemological corruption, leading to a fait accompli.”
She understood that the two parties presented to the people in their democratic process provide only an illusion of choice. She said that the conservatives were just there to present the alternative of a slightly slower growth of surrogate power, and with either choice the people still get statism. With statism comes increasing governmental power because as the government grows, so too must force and coercion increase in order to extract the necessary finances from the people to pay for the growing government.
The growth of force must happen gradually so that the people do not wake up and realize what is happening. What will it take for people to wake up? How many violations of individual rights and outrageous searches and seizures in the name of the war on drugs will people endure before realizing what is happening?
People don’t mind sacrificing to help their neighbors or those in need, but they do not appreciate being forced to sacrifice the fruits of their own labor for the achievement of abstract social goals. Increasing force is required to maintain a growing top-down massive welfare/warfare state. The monstrous social experiments in Russia, China, and other communist countries, which have resulted in the mass murder of tens of millions of human beings over the last century, could have been avoided if intellectuals and philosophers had not ignored the fundamental laws of human nature:
Human beings are born with free will and are driven to express it.
Human beings act in their own self-interest.
Human beings will act to help others once they feel secure themselves.
Human beings do not like to be forced to do anything.
Any institution, government, or business that ignores these fundamental facts of life is doomed to fail. Propaganda, mind control techniques, or brute force will all eventually fail. Collectivism cannot be implemented without force and that force always increases over time. There has never been a government bureaucracy that has come forward and said, “You know, we have completed our task now and there is really no need for the taxpayers to continue to fund our department.”
Once begun, the process of collectivism (in whatever form) always leads to a totalitarian government and serfdom for the vast majority of the people.
“A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers.”
“Emergencies’ have always been the pretext on which the safeguards of individual liberty have been eroded.” ~Friedrich August von Hayek
In the last century, the proponents of centralized top-down governance have adopted a strategy of transferring the sovereignty of individual nations to world government. The United States, being the only government in the world with founding documents totally dedicated to the concept of indigenous power, has been the major target of efforts toward globalization. The goal of the proponents of total surrogate power is straightforward: weaken the United States in every conceivable way and gradually transfer the national sovereignty of the United States to the United Nations.
It is not possible to explain this entire story in this pamphlet. To learn more, read The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve, by G. Edward Griffin. This book offers one of the best and most comprehensive explanations of the situation, including the historical perspective.
The United Nations does not have a constitution founded on the principles of indigenous power. The U.N. charter and founding documents are patterned after the constitution of the former Soviet Union, which allowed all constitutional rights to be abrogated by enforcement provisions. The Soviet constitution had a clear provision for freedom of religion. However, it also had a clause in it that allowed any provision in the constitution to be overridden by the Soviet penal code. Under this code, parents who tried to teach their children religion were subject to life imprisonment; many Soviet citizens spent their lives in prison under this provision.
In other words, the U.N. charter, like the Soviet constitution, has no meaning. It is a fraud. The United Nations is the perfect government for collectivists. The people have no rights. It is truly a government of the governments, by the governments, and for the governments. It is a process of surrogates supporting the power of other surrogates, working together to increase surrogate power to create the ultimate surrogate, a global government with absolutely no connection or responsibility to the people. The result is the total elimination of mankind’s indigenous power.
On Feb. 17, 1950, James Paul Warburg, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), told the U.S. Senate: “We shall have world government whether or not you like it, by conquest or consent.”
Is this really happening in the United States? Isn’t this just a conspiracy theory? It all seems so unbelievable! Yet, Texas Congressman Ron Paul, a medical doctor and one of the few congressmen with the guts to stand up to the constant transfer of sovereignty to the United Nations, has reported that the World Trade Organization has demanded that the United States change its tax laws. In his newsletter, he wrote:
“It’s hard to imagine a more blatant example of a loss of U.S. sovereignty. Yet there is no outcry or indignation in Congress at this naked demand that we change our laws to satisfy the rest of the world. I’ve yet to see one national politician or media outlet even suggest the obvious, namely that our domestic laws are simply none of the world’s business.”
A statement by former CFR president David Rockefeller at a 1991 Bilderberger meeting really sums up the whole ball of wax:
“We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The super-national sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”
After reading the above quote, it’s not difficult to believe that a large percentage of the leaders of U.S. media, government, major political parties, wealthy foundations, and large corporations believe that the world would be better off with them as a ruling elite. Even people who can’t, or won’t, believe what is described here must at least acknowledge that people in government, and those who influence government, do what they do not only to increase their power, but because they honestly believe that they are smarter than everyone else and that they know best how others should live their lives.
Is this happening right now? After the 2008 Iowa caucus, one of the leading Republican presidential candidates announced that one of his chief foreign relations advisors was the current president of the CFR, Richard Haass. Here is an excerpt from Haass’ article in the Tapai Times (Feb. 21, 2006):
“Moreover, states must be prepared to cede some sovereignty to world bodies if the international system is to function…The goal should be to redefine sovereignty for the era of globalization, to find a balance between a world of fully sovereign states and an international system of either world government or anarchy.”
Given these three quotes by two former CFR presidents and the current president of the CFR, it does not take an extraordinary level of perception to realize that their common agenda is the weakening of the sovereignty of individual nations and the transfer of that power to a global government.
This is not conspiracy theory, because a theory is not the same as a proven fact. This is conspiracy fact. These are real documented quotes from real people. Or you could look at it this way: it is just the long-term business plan of some very powerful families coming to fruition. Admiral Chester Ward, a member of the CFR for over a decade, became one of its harshest critics, revealing its inner workings in a 1975 book, Kissinger On The Couch. In it he states:
“The most powerful cliques in these elitist groups have one objective in common: they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty and national independence of the United States.”
Most members are one-world-government ideologists whose long-term goals were officially summed up in the September 1961 State Department Document 7277, adopted by the Nixon Administration:
“…elimination of all armed forces and armaments except those needed to maintain internal order within states and to furnish the United Nations with peace forces…by the time it [U.N. global government] would be so strong no nation could challenge it.”
According to Ward:
“The most powerful clique in these elitist groups have one objective in common—they want to bring about the surrender of the sovereignty of the national independence of the United States. A second clique of international members in the CFR comprises the Wall Street international bankers and their key agents. Primarily, they want the world-banking monopoly from whatever power ends up in the control of global government.”
Remember, this is not some lunatic fringe group. These are members of one of the most powerful private organizations in the world—the people who determine and control American economic, social, political, and military policy. Members’ influence and control extends, according to the CFR 1993 Annual Report, to “leaders in academia, public service, business, and the media.”
In case you were wondering:
Why does the mainstream media seem to have a clear cut agenda about who they want in power?
Why do you never hear anything about the CFR, or the loss of national sovereignty to the United Nations anywhere, at anytime, in the mainstream media?
Why does the mainstream media seem to favor establishment, pro-war candidates and censor antiestablishment, anti-war candidates?
Why does the mainstream media never talk about the true nature of the Federal Reserve, i.e., that it is not part of the federal government and is a private corporation?
Why does the mainstream media always promote global or federal solutions to environmental issues when top down solutions to environmental problems never work?
The answer to all of those questions is that many of the most influential people in the mainstream media are members of the CFR. In addition, virtually every major media outlet is controlled by one of a few major companies. The boards of directors of those companies have many interrelated members, many of whom are also members of the CFR.
CONTINUED - PART THREE
Hang in there friends! This one is a bit long, but it is one worth reading to the end. You can consider this a civics/government class in TRUTH! If I’ve keep your interest, I’m glad to have done so. This information is timely and needs to be read by as many of your friends and relatives that you can. C.L.
Awesome ♥️
Excellent! Thank you for this series can’t wait for part 3