Contributed article: The Bait and Switch History of Fraud

Leave a comment

This article was contributed by a retired professional of law Joyce Rosenwald who is no longer with us on this precious earth due to illness and by other concerned US citizens shared via drop box who have been studying the origin of our problems from our original intended Constitutional Republican form of government that today is progressively threatened by those wishing to bring back a feudal system as in the days of old world history which was the original intent all along to deceive the people since our revolutionary war in 1776. It is important to learn that in the event this country ever gets taken back from the many inimical interests; the very next day they will once again attempt to deceive and even a minor term or word in the fine print could be used to once again deceive the masses and this must not be allowed to occur for humanity in general will once again embark on a path to unneccessary suffering. The new in the works feudal system (accelerating under right vs. left confusing the masses electoral process) will be even more bizarre than the ones of days of old for the entire world resources will be owned by the few (or super class: by Carnegie’s own definition) that often will forget that there are real human beings existing on this earth while they maximize each others shares holders worth; that will be affected by many of the onerous profit driven decisions when concerning food, air and water. Most weather calamities and other demises are stepping-stones to take America down from its current system of checks & balances and respectful of the people form of government. (all individuals regardless of class or origin since their birth). I will leave you with two researchers who have extensive information along with proof of the many steps that are lately accelerating taking America to a different type of system and to later attempt to merge for a one-world government which is a threat to our liberties and even health for the ends justify the means in their Utility system to include the deliberate destruction of private property which will even include no right to self-shield your own body(or personal space)from their future imposed possible vaccinations or controversial experimental medicines.
This system is a real threat to all mankind and being implemented daily via smart meters and other such future carbon exchange systems which is not a growth system but a FEUDAL one placing all income benefit potential in the hands of the few. Two very prominent American patriots that have well documented information on this subject and the incremental process that has been destroying our nation are; Editor Patrick Wood of the August Forecast Review and Bernadine Smith of the Second Amendment Committee in liberty gun There have been many warnings given by great individuals worldwide sacrificing their limited time, resources and money along with their expertise so I sure hope that some of you appreciated it and that others help out in whatever small way for no one can baby-sit voters nor do all of the work; its up to you each person to get up and do something to make your nation and local community better always looking out for the well-being of yourself, families and communities. I spent countless of hours and to include family time and now its up to you to try and help-out for I served since the year 2008 and while attending University so I must now go to focus on my other pursuits in the world of business which will still be good in that of trying to build a stronger local economy and attempting to further develop thriving American communites while keeping diplomatic ties with our neighbors worldwide. May our creator continue to bless us all and fly your flag proudly.

The Bait and Switch History of Fraud
When the People decide to embark on an extremely important journey to independence
it is wise to inquire as to whether a roadmap already exists, rather than to boldly and
unwisely venture out into the unknown and thus engage the potentially self-defeating
acts of trial and error if they’re at all avoidable. Fortunately, when we search for a
roadmap we find but only one: We discover that we’re actually “reviving” and perhaps
enlarging upon the largest undertaking of its kind in the history of Mankind that already
occurred in 1774, historically known as The Great American Republican Experiment.
There is no other known model of independent Republican Government from which to compare, before or since.
What was the Great American Republican Experiment?
The great experiment was to create a government that was truly in the hands of the
People, not the King or his Representatives, that would provide peace and harmony for
the People and for the Earth itself. More definitive is the Magnificent Supreme
Republican Statute of Rome: OF the People, BY the People, FOR the People, TO the
People, FROM the People of the Natural Family Mother, guided and governed only by
the Devine Providence over all Worldly Men!
It is important to point out that the Natural Republican State is completely defined and
contained in one single statute; and you will find the underlined referenced in the
dedication of the July 4, 1776 Unanimous Declaration of These United American
In order for all the People to fully understand the highly significant elements of this
Great American Republican Experiment, they must first be aware of the application of
the original Latin in which over one third of the text of the original Colonial
Declarations of candid Republican government were written. It is a well-known
principle of law that the exact determination of a lawful or legal document is dependent
upon a precise uniform knowledge of the law of grammar in which the document is
written at the time it was prepared by its framing Deputies; otherwise known as
“functional literacy” preservation.
To prove a very important point here, perhaps a very embarrassing one, at the turn of the
20th Century in America, a very simple qualifying literacy question was asked the
prospective Voter as follows: Sir (or Madam) how many main grammar usages make up
the entire English Vocabulary?
How many folks out there today, whom you know, could readily answer that simple, but
very important literacy question; much less even understand the question?
You can think about the correct answer while we proceed on.
To begin with, original Latin, as in many of its off-shoot languages, is male-singular or
feminine-plural gender sensitive. Therefore, in order to fully understand the law of
Statute, one must be aware of the law of Language upon application, as then applied,
and be very aware of the gender being used. For example, all “manly governments
corporate” of the World are defined by Latin male-singular-gender terms, because the
“flow” of government is only in one direction: from the Ruling Class down, via issue of
an “Enumerated Charter” for that purpose. Only one government in all history is defined
by a Latin feminine-gender-plural term, because the “flow” of government extends to
and from the People in a Natural plenary system at every temporary Deputy level. With
this in mind, one must fully digest the following definitions:
Democracy: Anglicized singular male expression from original Latin “demos +
cratios” meaning “Upon the Majority of anything, including Men (People)”. The
“flow” is singular.
Republic: Anglicized singular male expression from original Latin “res + publicus,”
meaning “For all Men (People)”. The “flow” is singular.
Republican: Anglicized plural-feminine expression from original Latin “res +
publicae” to “res + publicanus,” meaning “Of, By, For, From, and To all Men
(People)”. The “flow” is not only in the plural, but also “plenary” in nature as in the
natural Family Unit free of any corporate influences. Hence “natural checks &
balances” that circulate around the “Heart” (the Mother) to and from her husband to
her offspring! Indeed, the family Mother’s Kitchen Table is considered to be the
most powerful political desk in the World! Some learned writers on American History
and Government often refer to America as “A Mother’s Government” for this reason.
Culture: “Land-water.” Lately this has been extended to include even the “air”!
Colony: Assembly of Farm Families (natural Republican States) within a prescribed
geographical boundary (of culture). This also pertains to “Tribe.”
Citizen: City, Town, and Borough residents transient within the respective established
Colony: A City Dweller.
Republican State: The family members of every Natural Mother, to include her
husband and all of her offspring.
Confederate: A criminal federation involving two or more individuals operating over
and against the lawful and accepted mode of government
Federal: Slang term for Confederate.
What Style and Form of Government did the 1774-1812 American Colonists
The “Form” refers to the written framework of the government; “Style” refers to its
actual operation within the confines of its framework, sometimes referred to as The
Flow of the Government. An important reminder: The present 1846 Hickey & Company
version of the Constitution guarantees only a republican FORM of gov’t, but not a
republican STYLE of gov’t. as “perfected” and set into motion in 1787-1790.
There are only three principal styles and forms of public governments operating
throughout the history of the World: (1) Manly Republic: Rule by King or Queen (or a
Dictator)(“For all of the People Subjects,”) who alone is free (2) Manly Democracy:
Rule by Class (“Upon all People Subjects,”) who alone are free; (3) Republican: “Rule
Of, By, To For, From All of the People,” who are All free.
Therefore we can clearly see that there is but a “hair’s breadth distinction” between a
Manly Democracy Corporate and a Manly Republic Corporate: “Upon” versus “For.” In
both cases the “flow of government” remains in a single direction – from the top down
(as in direct current).
The idea of a Government “Republican in Form and Style” is a very serious and
diametric departure from the rest of the candid world’s democracies and republics,
because the flow of government is variable (as in alternating current), or “plenary” at
each Deputy level, each of which serves as a “check & balance” against each other
Deputy level. In this sense, what the Deputy does unto others from his temporary
official seat, he also does to himself and his posterity. The People, of course, are the
final “check” against their Deputies, at the election and by jury of peers.
However, the most important and primary “check” against the “natural known manly
corporate enemies from within” is the FORM of the original American Instrumentations
of Government, described as “Republican in Form” to perpetually defend the intended
“National Republican Style” of the government.
Present generations of Americans erroneously refer to these governmental instruments
as “Constitutions”; because that is what has been allowed to happen by a functionally
illiterate society under European Royal Family Confederate Congress University
Publishing House Company dominance over our Schools, Churches, and public medias.
The original American Colonial form and style of government is the only government in
history that is defined by a Latin feminine-gender-plural Term: Republican; obviously
because of the plural flow of government extending to and from all of the People. And
equally important to understand is that by reference to all present “State Enabling
Legislation (Acts)”, the instrument “Republican in Form” is mandatory, and to be on an
“equal footing with the original (American Republican Colonial) States in all respect
whatever.” Remember that in this case “The People” of the original United American
Colonies ARE THE STATES, individually, as well as “United” collectively via their
appointed temporary Deputies for the purposes set forth in their “non-enumerated
Declarations”, sometimes called “American Republican Freeman Letters” for want of a
better term by the European Royal Family Confederate Congress University Clergy.
The official American Government was manned by Deputies at the individual Colonial
level as well as at the new Perfected National Supreme Republican level; and was
originally described as The Supreme Law of the People, NOT of the Land (culture). All
individuals become “Deputies” when performing specific duties for the assembly of
People, because they were “Deputies” even unto themselves and their own families. The
Great American Experiment is the only assembly of people in all history (1774-1812)
that has attempted to employ a Natural (hence National) Republican Government (of,
by, from, to, for) in actual operation (in Style), and in writing (in declarative Form).
There is no other governmental operation in comparison. All other Styles of Worldly
government throughout all recorded history are defined by Latin male-singular terms:
Republic, Democracy, Anarchy, Monarchy, Oligarchy, etc, etc; all most commonly
referred to as Manly States Corporate, whereby all flow of government is in the singular
(i.e. one way only) from Ruler or the Ruling Class downward, and their Written
Documents are in “enumerated” Corporate Charter (Charta) (i.e. Latin Co-Statutere)
hence in “Constitution Form”. Unfortunately we have also just described the present
Confederate system of government that has encroached upon and has, by and large,
taken over via its transposed adopted “Constitutions” and other “enumerated code”
systems of culture control modus operendae.
Therefore there is a vast distinction between a Constitution (a list of “enumerated”
independent statutes for different purposes)” and a Statute (a non-enumerated
declaration of single purpose). Many folks understand the legislative limitations
imposed by their individual state Constitution provision prohibiting the amendment of
an existing statute, or a proposed legislative Bill for statute for another purpose by
simply referring to the original title (enacting clause). However it is important to point
out that your several individual “State” Constitutions are supposed to be in single statute
“Declarative (non-enumerated) Form” in order to be on an actual “equal footing” basis
with the original 14 Colonial Republican States. The 1889 Montana Convention
Delegates were very well aware of this important fact! This explanation will help you
understand why the original Perfected 1787 Supreme Republican Declaration of the
United American Colonies had to be transposed into “Constitution Form” by Hickey &
Company, converting the title (enacting clause) to a mere “preamble”, so that the
desired “enumerated Charter of Confederate Appendages & Index” attached to the end
would not attract immediate functionally illiterate and docile public attention. This
methodology had already worked very well for the European Royal Family and its New
York Confederate Congress University Publishing Company system immediately
following the 1812 American Colonial Archives Depository Fires; in which all of the
destroyed original Colonial Declarations of Republican Government were thus cleverly
substituted for the desired transposed “enumerated Constitution Form” versions without
requiring public vote; and by 1860 most of the American Colonies, now transformed
into “political states” since 1813, were attempting to function via their THIRD new
“enumerated Constitution” of 1787 Northwest Territorial Ordinance Model government,
on the average! Therefore it was actually very simple to slide in the new desired 1846
Hickey & Company Version of “The Constitution FOR the American People, with
Charter of Confederate Appendages & Index”, adopted by “Select” members of
Congress and the Courts by Resolution of Volume Purchase, February 1847, and
distributed to all of America via the new March 1847 Post Roads and Franking Act;
which has gone undetected by the general public. By reference to “volume purchase”
means that the 1846 Wm. Hickey & Company Version of “The Constitution” is actually
a small black hard cover BOOK in excess of 400-pages of similar transposed
Confederate Congress Library documents that were not destroyed by fire in 1812.
By reference to “Select Members” means card-carrying B.A.R. members of the New
York Confederate Congress University Legislative Council who were either elected to
official American Congressional Seats or appointed as Judges presiding over American
Courts, as was Abraham Lincoln an elected President.
You most likely will recognize that this practice continues in America at the present
time; whereby it is now mandatory that in order to hold any high government office
position, a “degree” from a leading “World University” is required by the “qualifying
individual”! However our Framers in Convention held that such “degree of University”
was a “Title of European Royal Family Nobility”!
Can these transposed Constitutions be reversed back into their original Declarative
(Republican) Form?
The answer is YES; and believe it or not, this is still being done as a simple classroom
exercise in some schools throughout America; but was more common in the schools of
higher education prior to, and during the early part of the 19th Century. However this
exercise is limited only to the original transposed Constitutional Manuscripts from the
original Declarations. This exercise cannot operate upon subsequent amendments nor
upon enumerated Charters of Appendage at their inception to include any of the socalled
“new state Constitutions” adopted since 1969.
In conducting this simple but very educational classroom exercise, THE FIVE MAIN
extreme importance. If you answered the foregoing literacy question (four of the five in
any order) correctly as follows: Spelling, Word Order, Punctuation, Capitalisis, and
Signs & Symbols (to include Arabic Numeral Symbols); you are now qualified to vote
in the elections at the turn of the 20th Century. Indeed, all English Grammar Lessons are
broken down into these five main parts. Moreover, when any ONE or MORE of these
main usages is applied to our written laws, A STATUTORY AMENDMENT HAS
OF STATUTE. To be sure, the substitution of a capital or small Arabic Numeral
Symbol for the declarative word “That” in any statute is an AMENDMENT to that
original statute! A “Declaration (A Statute)” is thus transformed into an enumerated
“Corporate Constitution” for “other purposes” well apparent!
Therefore, the People of (name of the Assembly) who are concerned must decide
whether they wish to maintain a Manly Corporate Representative Style and Form of
Government, or erect a Supreme National Republican Style and Form of Deputy
Government. Here it is important to note that “National” and “Republican” are actually
synonymous associations while both being diametric to a mere Union or “Federation”.
This to point out that in the 1774-1812 American Colonial Republican example, where
the individual People are “The State”, a mere Union or Con-Federation of men cannot
co-exist for any given length of time. Furthermore, the American People already have
the advantage of simply resurrecting their existing original Colonial Supreme National
Republican Form and Style of Government.
If a Republican Form is desired, the true authority of its creators – all of the People –
needs to be identified in its Enacting Clause, an integral part of the statute. This is NOT
a mere preamble to a “constitution.”
The original fourteen (14) American Colonial Declaration “Enacting Clauses,”
extending more or less from the original Virginia Plan, make up the “Enacting Clause of
Purpose” which is essentially the main body of the Unanimous Declaration of 4 July
1776. The July 4, 1776 Unanimous Republican Declaration was “perfected” thirteen
years later in September, 1787 by the very same “Deputy Framers” who penned the
1776 model, and in the very same grammar form and style, known as “Republican in
Form” or in “Letter Form,” for want of a better term. These very unique American
Colonial Republican instruments defining and containing the new untried Republican
government were known as “The American Freeman Letters” for this reason.
(Enclopedia: American Printing Presses: History of)
The Enacting Clause is perfectly authoritative in its source: the People; peremptory in
its action: ordain and establish; definite and exact in its subject: this (Statute); and
distinct, broad, and extensive in its purpose and ends: embracing the defense of liberty,
safety, and welfare of the National (natural) Independent Republican States (every
Natural Mother) of America as its primary objective by its established Deputies.
We have here (1) the Authority: We, the People of these United Colonies; (2) the ends
for which the More Perfect 1787 Supreme National Republican Statute is made, in Six
Particulars of Supreme Importance known to every natural Mother on Earth; (3) the
explicit ordaining of this Statute, including this introductory clause; (4) the Nation of
Republican States for whom it is made: the People of These United Colonies of
America. The only distinction between this Perfected 1787 Colonial Republican Statute
and the individual fourteen Colonial Statutes in place from 1774 to 1787 is the coined
word Nation (National). This, in part, explains why no further oath was required at the
new Perfected National Seat of Government, since the “Deputies” thereof held their
respective National Seats under the same oath(s) as their respective individual fourteen
Colonial Statute counter parts at each respective Colonial Seat of their residence. In
other words in this Natural (National) Republican plenary system, the oath of the seat
and oath of fidelity pertained to every Colonial Deputy regardless of his temporary
appointment level. And the individual Colonial Statute, and the new Supreme National
Republican Statute, placed limitations of action only upon the Seat of the temporary
Deputies identified therein.
In this respect, (1) The Authority, THE PEOPLE, as (4) THE NATION, do not need to
have a “Bill of Rights” involving themselves; because what is not specifically limited to
their temporary Deputy Seats in the non-enumerated Statute is automatically reserved to
themselves, as in the case of any other “King or Queen” of history.
The 1787 Perfected Supreme National Republican Declaration was in the very same
format and graphics style as is the 1776 Unanimous Declaration of the American
Republican States (all of the American Families), which is required of all New
Republican States desirous of National status recognition in order to retain consistency
in Form with regard to the “equal footing doctrine” of the United Colonies. Hence the
term: “Republican in Form.” Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do with a
“Republican Fraternal Political Party Organization of University.” It is, in fact, an
official non-partisan operation of Government, distinctive and unique in its Form
(framework) and distinctly authoritive and unique in its Natural Style (mode of
operation) of checks and balances at every level.
To further clarify the foregoing, the 1774-1812 Great American Experiment was not a
“representative” style of government under any kind of pretext. This is the dramatic, and
most misunderstood distinction between the 1774-1790 Continental Congress versus its
natural enemy from within—“The Legislative Council of the Confederate Congress of
New York and its notorious University Publishing House Company Representatives”.
Obviously a “Deputy Seat” is not an individual or collective “Representative” (implied
power of attorney). Indeed, the original Colonies were possessed of a Senate (Land
Owner Minority) and “House of Deputies” (Colonial Citizens Public Majority)
extending from the original Virginia Plan; which was also applied by the Continental
Congress framers as the basis for their perfected Supreme National Republican Plan that
emerged from the September 1787 Philadelphia Convention and adopted by Colonial
Conventions for that purpose in 1789.
Some so-called “Constitutional” historians, committing a folly against themselves,
argue that the European Royal Family’s Confederate Congress University’s Articles of
1777, designed and intended to regain cultural control over all of the Colonies, did not
grant the Deputies in the 1787 Philadelphia Convention the authority to frame and adopt
the new plan of Supreme National Republican government. This is true from the
standpoint that the 1777 Articles of Confederation is actually a “foreign and/or criminal
Form and Style government”, in flagrant violation of the recent July 4, 1776 Unanimous
Declaration, designed and intended to operate over and against the official Republican
State governments of the several Colonies already in place in attempt to confuse and/or
destroy the idea of a Natural Republican government from the minds of the people of
the Colonies, and especially to the rest of the Candid World lest it would destroy all of
the other “Manly Forms and Styles” of government the World over, thereby displacing
all of the Kings, Queens and other “Nobles”! Moreover the 1777 Confederate Charter,
extending from the original Latin, admits by its title that it is a “criminal” Charter to the
lawful Republican establishment then in place.
Therefore, for easy clarification, the so-called 1777 Articles of Confederation, by that
date, had no more authority over and among the American Colonies than did the
Charters of another other foreign country under Royal Family dominance; and which the
Republican States of America made explicitly clear in their 1776 Unanimous
Declaration by the application to two terms: “absolved and dissolved” from any and all
political connections whatever! This then would necessarily include the subsequent
foreign 1777 Articles of Confederation issued by the European Royal Family
Confederate Congress of New York as well.
What is essentially pointed out here is that for all American Lawful Purposes, the
original individual fourteen (14) American Republican Declarations of Republican
government are still in force and effect by fact of the official July 4, 1776 Unanimous
Declaration that the majority of Americans celebrate every Fourth of July. This holds
for the individual original “equal footing Colonial governments” (called “states”) as
well. Therefore, where the original American Declarations of Republican government
remains in the minds of the majority of the natural American Republican State(s), THE
INDIVIDUAL AND COLLECTIVE PEOPLE, fully supported by the fact of this one
remaining original instrument “Republican in Form”, the important American
Framework of, for and by the American People, merely set aside and gathering dust on
the shelves, can be readily resurrected and restored in a very short period of time, IF
Will such a feat be easy? Obviously NO. The criminal Confederate University
Publishing House Company system, driven underground during the Civil War with
prices on their heads, even by the military, as being the primary cause of that deadly war
in the first place, is now very well-entrenched and are manning our lawful governmental
seats at every level, to include our courts. This is compounded by the fact of a 98%
public functional illiteracy problem and University programming of 45-year olds on
down. The good news is that wide spread public exposure remains their primary and
natural enemy, and the internet is serving that purpose very well.
To best describe this remarkable American Colonial Republican system, it was (and still
is to some extent in the minds of the American People as above-mentioned) a Plenary
System of Revolving Temporary Deputy SEATS at every level: Township, Parish
(County), Colonial (State), and Supreme National (originally diametrically opposite of
federal); and in each level, the flow (style) of the government is in the Plural; and the
whole system was completely defined and contained within one single non-enumerated
Statute (a Declaration Letter) in Form, following its “Enacting Clause” of Authority
(We, the People) and Purpose (limitations of action imposed only upon the temporary
Deputy Seat). In other words, the “Limitation of Action” was imposed upon the “Seats”
of all of the Colonial Deputies uniformly, regardless of their station, as set forth in that
one single non-enumerated Statute. The Colonial Oath(s) pertained to all Deputy levels
extending from their respective Colony of Residence, to include the perfected Supreme
National Republican level established September 1787. In all actuality, the perfected
Supreme Republican system of 1787 served as an extension of each individual Colony
while establishing and maintaining an enforceable uniformity of checks and balances
between all of the Colonies already in existence; because the National Senate Seat
Deputy was appointed by the individual Colonial legislative Deputy assemblies.
The single July 4, 1776 Statute, the non-enumerated Unanimous Declaration of these
United Colonies of America, a compilation of all of the individual Colonial Declaration
Enacting Clauses then in place extending from the originating 1774 Virginia Plan, in no
manner, shape, or form, implied or established any kind of alleged Representative
(unlimited Power of Attorney) Government, contrary to the adverse 1777 Articles of
Confederation, and the July 1787 Northwest Territorial Ordinance (Compact of the
Confederate Congress of New York calling only itself and its “representatives”
individually and collectively “The United States”) or the later transposed 1846
Confederate Congress’ Hickey Version of “The Constitution FOR the American
People” elaborated upon below.
Therefore it must be clearly understood that only the Confederate Congress and its
private University Publishing House Company system has referred to itself, individually
and collectively—“The United States” from 1777 to the present time; and is now more
commonly known as “The United Nations” at the same address. In the 1787
Philadelphia emergency Convention of the Colonial Continental Congress (May-
September), the criminal Congress of New York and its private University was the
reason for the emergency; and was described by the Convention Deputies as “The
Jeffersonian Leopard”!
The Republican State is a direct reference to the Family Members of the Natural
Mother; hence, the true Independent State of America, and which includes the Mothers
of the Republican States of (name of country or colony) of all other parts of the World,
candid nor non-candid Peoples. For this reason, all 1774-1812 American instruments of
government were also Republican in Style (operation) as set forth in the Republican
Form (written framework). The Form was a Single Statute (a Declaration) – explaining
why the Colonial Framers never referred to their written frameworks as Constitutions
(Latin: co-statutere), i.e. in “corporate charter form.” The July 4, 1776 Declaration, for
example, is in single Statute (letter) form, and therefore does not require a “committee
of arrangement”. The original fourteen Colonial Declarations of government and their
Unanimous 1776 Declaration, and as Perfected thirteen years hence were often referred
to by the Royal Family clergy as the Freeman Letters or Letters of American Republican
Government, for want of a better description! Indeed, the 1774-1789 American
Continental Congress was possessed of only a “Committee on Style.” A Declaration
(one single non-enumerated Statute) does not need to be arranged. This is what is truly
unique about the 1774-1812 American Colonial System of Republican Government; in
that not one of their primary instruments even remotely resembled the typical European
Royal Family River Basin Enumerated Corporate Charter instruments. A most unique
“check” all by itself; while establishing that any incorporation between two or more
men was considered to be a felony against the natural (National) Republican States!
The majority of the people, especially new immigrants from manly corporate countries,
have a misunderstanding of the manly Democratic-Republic state (corporate) versus the
natural Republican State (non-corporate). Remember, Republic is male singular;
Republican is feminine plural. This misunderstanding is normal because of the
European Royal Family University programming that has been instilled in the minds of
the Worldly Posterity gradually since the American Colonial Archives Depository fires
of 1812 to the present time, thus serving to create a blind trust (discussed in more detail
below). Some folks might relate to the Confederate Congress and its private University
Company as “The Devil’s Creature”.
Neither a manly republic corporate nor a manly democracy corporate can operate within
the intended feminine natural (National) non-corporate Republican system that is wholly
defined and contained within a single statute for that purpose. One single statute,
following its Enacting Clause of singular purpose, does not need any Arabic Numeral
Symbols between its clauses because it does not need to be “arranged” or “codified” in
any order; and this very unique design serves as a natural “check” against outside and
internal corrupt Corporate University political influences that rely upon “enumerated
Charters and “Codes” for their desired “culture-control” agenda or modus operendae of
design and purpose (i.e. “Supreme Law of the LAND” 1846)! In this respect, all
“Lawyers” and “Lawyer Judges”, are best identified as “Natural Corporate Creatures of
University”; while our Framers in Convention considered anyone possessed of a
“Degree of University” to be therefore possessed of “A Degree of European Royal
Family NOBILITY”; hence the reason for the “Nobility Clause” in the original Supreme
National Republican Declaration of the United American Colonies, further clarifying
the “absolved & dissolved” clause of their original July 4, 1776 Unanimous
What Style and Form of government did the King want for the Colonies?
Unfortunately, the European Royal Family’s Confederate Congress and its University
Publishing House Company system has reversed the intended American Colonial
government, both in Style and in Form, by cleverly transposing (altering the grammar)
of all original American documents and private writings, gradually upon all subsequent
Republican State generations from 1812 to the present, for the purpose of regaining
complete CULTURE control over all of the North American Continent. “Confederate”
is an original Latin reference meaning a “criminal private federation of several men”
(synonym to Oligarchy) in opposition to the intended “Lawful Republican (we, the
People) Authority.” “Con” is old Latin for “criminal”, as in “CON-MAN” for example.
ALL of the original American Colonial Instruments of candid Colonial American
Republican government from 1774 to 1812 were completely destroyed in the Arlington
and Richmond depository fires, excepting only the Unanimous Declaration of the
United Colonies of America July 4, 1776, and The Records of the Colonial Debates of
the 1787 Convention of the American Continental Republican Congress of Philadelphia,
which had been placed into the custody of Mr. Jonathan Elliot for printing and
publication. The careful reading of the original Records of The Debates, from the
original Plates, by Elliot can put a great deal of this discussion into proper perspective,
supported further by the original 1911 publication of Professor Max Farrand, of Yale
University, RECORDS OF THE FEDERAL CONVENTION, in three volumes, who
obviously experienced a rather rude wake-up call himself, discovering the very
extensive altering of documents prior to admission into the refurbished Library of
Congress since 1816. The works of Farrand is mislabeled as well, because it actually
involved the DEBATES OF THE UNITED COLONIES, therefore the proper label
It is essential to understand that during this same period, from 1774 through 1812, there
was only one organization operating on American soil that called itself “The United
States”; and that was, and still is, the Confederate Congress of New York and its Select
European Royal Family University “Representative Membership, i.e. “One House
Legislative Counsel.” The term “con-federate” in its original Latin reference describes a
criminal federation operating against the lawfully established style & form of public
government; the slang term of which is Federal.
For the purpose of gaining a better understanding of the Law of Statute we will use the
Perfected September, 1787 American Colonial Supreme National Republican State
Declaration of Government (erroneously referred to by subsequent generations as a
Constitution) for an example:
The first sentence of the Constitution is often called a Preamble. But that term was not
applied to it by those who framed the instrument, and is not found in the original
manuscript. It is not a preamble in form or substance, but is the Enacting Clause – an
integral part of the statute itself. A preamble gives reasons why a resolution should be
adopted or an enactment made, but is not a part of the resolution or enactment. The
enacting clause, to the contrary, is mandatory. No other part of a statute is more
important – such as is the introductory sentence of the 1787 Supreme National
Republican Declaration (the Constitution): “We, the People of________, for certain
Purposes, do ordain and establish this (Statute) for the (United Republican States) of
America (for the ends as follows); That, That, That, etc.” Again, in this official one-ofa-
kind case example, the “States” are in fact each individual family unit collectively
within each respective “Parish,” “Colony” AND all of the Colonies collectively; and
NOT in reference to the Deputy Seat(s) of the government as is now the case due to the
cleverly-transposed American instruments that gradually occurred between 1812 and
In this perspective, by application of a simple school classroom pencil, paper and eraser
exercise, the Constitutional Preamble reverts back to the original Enacting Clause, and
all Arabic Numeral Symbols are deleted wherever they appear in the text and are
replaced by the declarative word “That”. After you have completed this simple
classroom exercise upon the present American transposed “1846 Hickey Constitution
version”, you will be among the growing number of people who know what the original
perfected American Colonial Declaration of Republican Government looked like when
it emerged from that historic 1787 Philadelphia Continental Congress Convention. Of
course, some words and punctuation were also transposed by the Confederate Congress
and its private University Publishing House Company, most of which are quite obvious
once you properly apply “The Law of English/Latin Grammar” as then uniformly used
and understood.
Bill of Rights
Needless to point out in this case, whatever actions a Deputy takes he also takes against
himself, or herself, and against his or her posterity. In this sense, the question arose in
the 1787 Philadelphia Convention as follows: What King or Queen, throughout all of
history, ever ordered or consented to a “list of rights against themselves” after he or she
had just declared himself or herself King and/or Queen over their own Culture (land &
water)? In other words, their family farm and their family home! The debate on this
issue in Convention lasted only a few minutes; because only the National Deputy was
limited of action by the new Republican Plan. Do you personally know of any such
King or Queen?
It is strongly suggested that you are not standing in front of a mirror when you ask
yourself this question; lest you might spot such a King or Queen. One must fully
understand that the only time in history when a People required a “bill of rights” in
defense of their private God-given liberties was when someone other than the People
themselves, individually and collectively was the King and/or Queen or the Royal
Family/Dictatorship ruling class issuing River Basin Culture Control Enumerate
Charters limiting the actions of their subjects.
“During the 1787 Philadelphia Convention as it was preparing to adjourn sine die, a
member who had been absent rose with the need for a bill of rights to be appended. The
silence in the chambers was instantly deafening with all eyes fastened on the Deputy
with the motion. The chair finally broke the silence with a question to the now
bewildered gentleman: ‘Does the learned gentleman know of any instance in history
whereby any king or queen ordered a list of rights against themselves after they had just
declared themselves King and Queen over their very own Culture?’ The now very red
faced gentleman’s knees seem to buckle as he slumped back into his chair as he
withdrew his motion on the way down! As soon as the assembly adjourned sine die, the
embarrassed gentleman rapidly made his exit leaving his papers scattered on the table.
Several curious deputies went over and examined his abandoned papers to discover that
the gentleman had obviously committed the folly against himself by taking his notes in
the enumerated corporate charter form familiar to his profession as a lawyer!” (Records
of the Convention, Max Farrand, Yale University, 1911)(Private Writings, of Jefferson,
Madison, Washington, and Story)
The term “human” is original Latin for “manslayer,” or “destroyer of People or a
Society” as in the case of “Hu a tree”; and is officially-applied by the American
Framing Deputies in their Unanimous Declaration listing the dastardly Events imposed
upon the Families of the Natural American Mothers and the reason(s) for their
Separation, in addition to the Mothers of All Mankind by those World Rulers of
“Human Tendency”, specifically by King George III at that point in time. Thus the
relation to “Human Events” in this case pertains entirely to the control of the Natural
Republican State of the World by “the controlling of All Worldly Culture (land &
water) by a very small class of people.” The Unanimous Declaration is the only known
“official” document that uses this term. This goes hand in hand with whomever controls
the Worldly Public Education and therefore the Currency. We should all feel extremely
embarrassed to have allowed ourselves to be led into this flagrant assault against our
Natural Mothers, at our expense via the disguise of public education at the public
expense (property tax) and should use the word “Human” very judiciously in our
vocabulary to self-describe ourselves and our own actions of neglect and ignorance.
In every human (manly corporate) example, the flow (Style) of the government is
obviously in the singular: from the Minority Ruling Family, Class, etc. authority down
to, or upon the Majority of the Natural Family (i.e the Republican State). It occurs in
every possible aspect, commencing with the control over all public education, then
control of the currency, to finally complete ownership and control of All Worldly
Culture (land & water) and all life activity there upon. Hence the European Royal
Family University’s (Confederate Congress of New York) goal to control all World
geography, naturally would thereby assume complete control of all Life Activity thereupon
which is clearly set forth of purpose in its privately-owned 1777 Articles of
Confederation, the 1787 Northwest Territorial Ordinance (Compact), the Constitution
For the American People, 1846 by Hickey, and United States Code Statutes at Large
Publication (USC), 1926 to present. It is therefore only these particular Human
University Regency Order (sometimes referred to as “Devil Worshipers”) select
members who have been, and still are today, calling only themselves, individually and
collectively “The United States” by direct reference.
Call it “The Parade of the Humans” for want of a better term to describe only the
History of the Rulers of the World and only their related events imposed upon the
Natural Republican States (All of the People), as we study the Covenants of the Arks.
Governments do not make history – only people make history.
Remember the History of “Modern” World Warfare – it’s primary purpose is to destroy a
Mind Set within a particular Class of Republican People (a Colony) to the advantage of
the Human Class Mind Set. Time has well proven that the lives of the Republican State
of the World, as well as America, has little or no value to the Human Class at any given
There are but only two WORLD classes – the majority Natural Republican Class
(Families of all People) within each of their respective Geographical Boundaries, versus
the minority Royal University Human Class desiring to Control All World Geography
(Culture); and therefore All Life Activity there-upon. Prior to the introduction of the
July 4, 1776 Unanimous Declaration to the rest of “the Candid World” by the founders
of the untried 1774 Great American Republican Experiment, only The European Royal
University Human Class existed in its various “manly styles” of Corporate government,
also Corporate in Form; and which, unfortunately, is what now prevails in America.
We are not dealing with, nor establishing communities, but in fact with assemblies of
People in which their Seats of Government in no manner resemble the typical and more
familiar “manly corporate Representative (power of attorney) state” vested in entirely in
a King, Ruler, Monarchy, Anarchy, Leader, or such other singular synonymous terms
grouped under the title of Human Events to which the term “Federal” can apply.
So, essentially what we are actually engaging is the Revival, and Enlarging of the
greatest undertaking in the history of all Mankind, to make it fit the demands of Natural
Republican States in this new century of nearly complete University Human Geographic
Control of all Worldly Culture, and thus all forms of life activity thereupon.
How was the initial new American Republican experiment derailed in America?
The framework of all candid Colonial American Republican Government was in
Declarative Format until 1813, following the American Colonial Archives Depository
Fires at Richmond and Arlington in 1812. All original American Colonial Instruments,
to include the “perfected Supreme National Republican Declaration of September 1787
and related Convention papers, described as being “Republican in Form”; or sometimes
referred to as “the American Republican Freeman Letters”, were completely lost when
these Depositories were burned to the ground during the so-called “War of 1812”. The
Confederate Congress of New York Archives Depository remained intact with only
some “select original Colonial document contents” taken out in the streets and burned
with some furniture. Coincidently, little other additional damage was inflicted during
this very short incursion.
The year 1812 was when the European Royal Family sacked Washington, D.C. and the
American Colonial Archives Depositories in Arlington and Richmond were burned to
the ground from within by Confederate operatives posing as librarians. This is in
reference to the librarians who were actually Confederate Congress University
operatives (equivalent to Rhodes Scholars today) posing as trustworthy American
Librarians. Only some of the New York Confederate Congress Library contents were
taken out in the street and burned with some furniture by its librarians; thus leaving only
the desired “transposed versions of the official American Colonial documents.”
After the “burning” the University Press, Crown Press, and several other related private
Confederate Congress Code Publishing Houses printed hundreds of different versions of
the destroyed documents and scattered them throughout the land. With the help of
Carnegie libraries, select members of the Congress and the Courts, the Sir William
Hickey, Esq.1846 version of “The Constitution” was chosen as the “Standard Version”
adopted by resolution of volume purchase by the select membership in the U.S.
Congress and the Courts in February 1847. The U.S. Congress then ordered it “Franked
(mailed at the government expense)” to the public by the new March 1847 Post Roads
and Postal Franking Act. This officially established the date in which the so-called
Twelve Articles (Charter) of Federal Amendment (commonly known as the Bill of
Rights) were first officially published in America. And this is how they were actually
From 1813 forward, the Confederate Congress and its University Publishing House
Company system virtually took over the government from within by replacing all of the
original American non-enumerated Declarations with cleverly transposed “enumerated
Constitutions” in typical Royal Family River Basin Corporate (Magna Charta) Charter
style, by simply transposing (substituting) the word “That” wherever it appeared in the
text with a capital Arabic numeral symbol, substituting semi-colons with ordinary
commas, changing words and word order. In some cases, involving the original
individual Colonial Declarations, a capital Arabic Numeral Symbol was added before
the declarative word “That”. Later versions included the addition of small Arabic
numeral symbols within the “Capital Enumerated Articles” of the Constitution(s). After
the 1812 Archives Depository fires, all such American official assemblies under
Federal, i.e., Confederate Congress control and authority via the bastardized (Revised)
American documents, were possessed of “A Committee of Style… and Arrangement.”
The clear objective was to remove the potential widespread global threat of candid
Republican government from the minds of the People, while directing the operation of
the government back to the desired European Royal Family’s control over all Worldly
Culture agenda.
Therefore, from 1813 forward, the original fourteen American Colonies no longer had a
“Senate and House of Deputies,” but instead consisted of a “Senate and House of
Representatives,” simply by reason of clever Private University Publishing House
Company substituting the original American Republican Instruments with the
transposed “Constitution Versions” to eliminate the need for a public vote. Interestingly,
the records show that by 1859 the original remaining 13-American Colonies were
attempting to function via their THIRD NEW CONSTITUTION VERSION (The 2nd
and 3rd Versions by Public Vote) on the average; while the 14th Colony (Providence
Plantations & Western Territory) simply vanished from record, and is now known as
“Canada”, to even include the Northern part of the Louisiana Purchase!
“Representative” simply means implied unlimited or limited power of attorney. By 1816
all original “Fourteen American Republican Colonies” had been cleverly transformed
into “Corporate Democratic Republics” by the Confederate Congress of New York and
its notorious private University Publish House Companies; and the 14th Colony,
Providence Plantations, extending from Rhode Island to the Northern tip of Nova Scotia
and Territories West, had been cleverly ceded from the United American Colonies by
the Confederate Congress of New York and its private University Publishing House
Company’s manipulation of the original American Colonial records.
This points out that from 1813 forward, the University transpositions remained
continuous and uniform to coincide with United States Statutes at Large (i.e. formerly
known as Lawyers Guides of Great Britain…for the American Colonies). The
connection here is “When in the course of Human Events, it becomes necessary for one
people…, etc, etc.” (July 4, 1776). This Unanimous Declaration made it clear to the rest
of the Candid World (this one People), that henceforth all connection (all ties whatever)
is absolved and dissolved from the European Royal Family and its University clergy
(lawyers and professors of Degree), and its diverse Culture Control agenda. That would
include those lawyers’ Guides too, wouldn’t it?
The foregoing research references disclose that our undertaking to restore National
Republican government is certainly much greater now in this century than what
confronted those American Framers between 1774 and 1812, primarily because of the
massive increase of the World’s Republican (Family) population compounded by the
University’s near-complete control of all World Media and Public Education at the
public expense from 1910 forward to the present time, compounded even further by the
University-induced functional illiteracy problem involving 98% of the present
population. Other than these features, the only thing that has changed is technology, and
the speed of communications.
At this point, we must necessarily switch our focus to another very important Natural
Law known as Law of Language (grammar) in order to establish the desired
“Uniformity of Understanding (The element of Functional Literacy) among the Natural
Republican State of the World,” which is the most important single element dealing
with any public issue, to include the National Defense of, by and for our Republican
States from without as well as from within, and the winning of any war without as well
as within.
Law of Language
Interestingly, the Law of Language was formerly the sole property, so to speak, of only
The Candid English/Latin Speaking World at the time of the 1776 Unanimous
Declaration. Since the turn of the 19th Century, the Law of Language has extended,
more or less, to include a major segment of The Non-Candid Indigenous World
adopting the English/Latin language due to the development of global communications
and commerce. And this is a good thing. However, the Natural Republican State of the
World exists and extends to both the Candid (white) World and the Non-Candid (nonwhite)
Indigenous World equally, regardless of the mode of communications between
individuals thereof, especially for the subject purpose of this writing. Essentially no
man, woman or child is exempt from the importance of this Republican State reference
subject, free of corporate influences.
The European Royal Family Rule has been in fact, up to this time, Rule by Class via an
illusion of “Collective Sovereignty.” It’s been an illusion because the People have been
barred from assembling as a whole due to the lack of knowledge and technologies, and
their elected “representatives” have, by default of the People, taken on the role of
“Collective Representative Sovereignty for the Common Good”, and have even become
so bold as to allege that they are “qualified public leaders”! The University Company
has cleverly substituted “equality” in lieu of the actual state of being “equal.” But now
the People have the necessary technology – the Internet – to assemble for the first time in
history, and, in fact, as “Equals,” but the real key at all times is “Uniformity of
Understanding what is written, read, and said.” During the American Revolutionary
period, the concerned European Royal Family University Clergy applied the reference:
“The candid American Farmers are all as Lawyers”! Perhaps that is again taking shape
in America, as well as in other parts of the World, thanks to the Internet.
The good news is that even though it has taken more than 230-years for the European
Royal Family Confederate Congress University Company Culture Control (Land &
Water, to now include Air) modus operendae to mature to the point it presently has;
widespread public exposure of its criminal activity from within remains its greatest
natural enemy as history has very well proved, with its operatives being driven
underground three times in American history. Perhaps the Fourth time will be more

Americans Becoming Voluntary Slaves?

Leave a comment

A Nation can be taken over by the enemy via force or by having citizens surrender via voluntary servitude accomplished via deceptive methods. Deception occurs in many forms by spin false reporting media that spoon feeds lies to the public, publications telling even bigger lies than radio or television and by plain propaganda also infiltrated into our educational systems even making its way into primary grades. One would then ask, Who is the enemy? The enemy of America are individuals that wish to dismantle our economy, our families, our rule of law, our rights, our constitution, our health, our jobs, our sanity, our tranquility and in a sense they wish the entire “enchilada” to own everything and all placing God- fearing and respectful people in total servitude to them. The sad part is that many participating in the big “lies” were once citizens just like us who thanks to our rule of law in government and for the most part normal not “crazy” form of government that they wish for us to have; they got great educations but later once succesful sold us all out worse than a Judas. It is a shame since I could never imagine betraying the nation that helped educate me and that allowed the most sanity compared to the rest of the world that once succesful could never even imagine selling it out for power or money. These individuals fail to see that future generations of Americans deserve the same chance; in that of becoming successful, raise good families and have some piece of mind in that their hard work and labor will be secured along with their properties and future ability to be stable and prosperous not slaves to others. America is taking a very dark turn and its up to the Citizens to stand-up for themselves and recognize what is taking place and to be on the alert for sabotage, further orchestrations destroying our land and communities, crops, food and water. Trust that no other form of government nor global entanglements are a solution; for YOU are the solution to repairing America back to work and away from predatory wolves or wanna-be Master Lords stamping over you.
by Theresa Nielsen, Precinct 391 Leader.

Below is another research on how even in the past Lords planned the taking over of populations as if they were cattle on a farm to be managed for their personal greed, hard labor and for profits. A nation must decide to either be free or romanced into surrendering to voluntary servitude. Please do not allow for this to be our fate since the day that America totally surrenders to servitude it will become the new dark ages but then even darker for their chains and weapons of slavery are today even more deadly.
Research by Joyce Rosenwald follows:

The Politics of Obedience: Discourse of Voluntary Servitude
by Éttiene de la Boétie.

Copyright 1993 by Frederick Mann, All Rights Reserved.
Brief Biography of Éttiene de la Boétie
(The modern French pronunciation of “La Boétie” is “La Bo-ay-see.” However, in the local dialect of the area where La Boétie lived his name was pronounced “La Bwettie.”)
Éttiene de la Boétie was born in the southwest of France in Sarlat (near Bordeaux) on November 1, 1530. He died in 1563 at the age of thirty-two (probably from dysentery). La Boétie was orphaned at an early age, and raised by his uncle and namesake, the curate of Bouillonnas. La Boétie wrote Discours de la Servitude Volontaire while a law student at the University of Orléans, probably in 1552 or 1553, at the age of 22. His main teacher at the university was Anne du Bourg, who later became a Huguenot (French Protestant) martyr, burned at the stake in 1559 for “heresy.”
La Boétie’s Discourse of Voluntary Servitude is particularly remarkable in that he was born into a family of terrocrats (coercive government agents or terrorist bureaucrats), and he himself – after graduating with a law degree in 1553 at the University of Orléans – received a royal appointment to the Bordeaux Parliament, where he pursued a career as a judge, a censor, and a diplomatic negotiator, until his death in 1563. In 1562 La Boétie reputedly wrote an unpublished manuscript (discovered in 1913), in which he recommended that Catholicism be enforced upon France, and that Protestant leaders (Huguenots) be persecuted as rebels. (I have no idea why La Boétie, after having written – in my opinion – the most advanced essay on politics, became such a depraved terrocrat.)
The Discourse was originally circulated in manuscript form and was never published by La Boétie. Nevertheless its influence became widespread. La Boétie was a close friend of the famous essayist, Montaigne (Michel Eyquem), whom he met around 1557. La Boétie undoubtedly had a considerable influence on Montaigne, who was born in 1533. In a letter to Henri de Mesmes in 1570, Montaigne wrote:
“So that having loved monsieur de la Boétie more than anything in this world, the greatest man in my opinion of this age, I thought I should grossly fail in my duty, if, knowingly, I should suffer so great a name, and a memory so worthy of esteem, to vanish and be lost, if I did not endeavor, by these pieces [later to become known as the Mesmes Copy of the Discourse] of his, to raise him up and bring him to life.”
Many Huguenot pamphleteers were strongly influenced by the Discourse, and some even claimed it as their own. It was first published in 1574 (anonymously and incompletely) in a Huguenot pamphlet. In 1576 the first complete version of the Discourse was published by Simon Goulart in Holland and Switzerland in a collection of radical Huguenot essays. La Boétie may have indirectly influenced Shakespeare (born around the time of La Boétie’s death) via Montaigne. Some critics have identified Hamlet with Montaigne and Horatio with La Boétie. Francis Bacon was influenced by Montaigne. Bacon’s elder brother spent twelve years near Bordeaux and later corresponded with Montaigne.
Between 1700 and 1939 several editions of the Discourse were published in France, sometimes as supplements to Montaigne’s Essays. It was reprinted twice during the French Revolution. In 1735 an English translation of the Discourse, probably translated by “T[homas]. Smith” was published in London. Around 1833 Emerson wrote his poem, Étienne de la Boèce. Between 1906 and 1908 Tolstoy used extracts from the Discourse in three of his books. In 1907 Gustave Landauer made the Discourse central to his German anarchist book, Die Revolution. In 1933 a Dutch translation by Barthelemy de Ligt was published in The Hague under the title Vrijwillige Slavernij (“Voluntary Slavery”). In 1942 an English translation by Harry Kurz was published in New York under the title Anti-Dictator. In 1947 an edition in modern French was published in Brussels by Hem Day. In 1952 a Russian translation was published in Moscow. In 1974 an edition of the Discourse was published in Colorado Springs under the title The Will to Bondage (Ralph Myles Publisher, Colorado Springs; 1974), containing both the original French text, and the 1735 English translation, with an Introduction by James J. Martin. In 1975 the Harry Kurz translation was republished with an Introduction by Murray N. Rothbard, under the title The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude (Free Life Editions, NY; 1975). In addition, several books have been written about La Boétie.
Éttiene de la Boétie can certainly be regarded as the father of non-violent (or pacifist) anarchism and civil disobedience. The central question he addresses is: Why do people consent to their own enslavement? One of his central insights is that, to topple a tyranny, the victims only need to withdraw their consent and support. Directly and indirectly La Boétie had a profound influence on the Huguenots, the French Revolutionists, and such notable pacifist anarchists as Tolstoy, Gandhi, Thoreau, and Tucker.
La Boétie also had Rose Wilder Lane’s central insight that humans are free by nature.
Possibly, the most important lesson we can learn from La Boétie’s Discourse is leverage. A student (La Boétie) writes a forty-page essay. An author (Tolstoy) reads the essay and incorporates its main ideas in his Letter to a Hindu. A pacifist rebel (Gandhi) applies the ideas to defeat the British Empire and drive the British out of India.
The La Boétie Analysis
Grasping the “La Boétie analysis” is a key to understanding advanced freedom strategies. La Boétie approached his subject like an outsider observing the strange phenomenon of political behavior. He wrote like someone who had jumped out of “the system” and viewed it without preconceptions. He somehow unbrainwashed himself so he could adopt a “Martian viewpoint.”
What is so remarkable is that La Boétie did this in 1552 or 1553 – four-hundred-and-forty years ago! It is also interesting that modern tyrants use the same formula today to subjugate and dominate their victims. Here are the main elements of the La Boétie analysis as I see it:

• The only power tyrants have is the power relinquished to them by their victims.
• The tyrant is often a weak little man. He has no special qualities that set him apart from anyone else – yet the gullible idolize him.
• The victims bring about their own subjection – they “win their enslavement.”
• If without violence the tyrant is simply not obeyed, he becomes “naked and undone and as nothing.”
• Once you resolve to serve no more, you are free.
• We are all born free and naturally free.
• Grown-up adults should adopt reason as their guide and never become slaves of anybody.
• People can be enslaved through either force or deception.
• When people lose their freedom through deceit, it is because they mislead themselves.
• People born into slavery regard it as a natural condition.
• In general, people are shaped more by their environment than by their natural capacities – if they allow it.
• Habit and custom are powerful forces that keep people enslaved.
• There are always some people who cannot be tamed, subjected, or enslaved. Even if freedom were to be entirely extinguished, these people would re-invent it.
• Lovers of freedom tend to be ineffective because they are not known to one another.
• People who lose their freedom also lose their valor (strength of mind, bravery).
• Among free people there is competition to do good for humanity.
• People seem to be most gullible towards those who deliberately set out to fool them. It is as if people have a need to be deceived.
• Tyrants stupefy their victims with “pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes.”
• Tyrants parade like “workers of magic.”
• Tyrants can only give back part of what they first took from their victims.
• Tyrants attain their positions through: (a) Force; (b) Birth; or (c) Election.
• Tyrants create a power structure, consisting of a multi-layered hierarchy, staffed by a conspiracy of accomplices. Accomplices receive their positions as a favor from the tyrant.
• The worst dregs of society gather around the tyrant – they are people of weak character who trade servility for unearned wealth.
• Accomplices can profit greatly from their positions in the hierarchy.
• If people withdraw their support, the tyrant topples over from his own corrupted weight.

Discourse of Voluntary Servitude
by Éttiene de la Boétie.
(abridged and edited from the Harry Kurz translation)
Part I
For the present I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they, but simply, it would seem, delighted and charmed by the name of one man alone whose power they need not fear, for he is evidently the one person whose qualities they cannot admire because of his inhumanity and brutality toward them.
A weakness characteristic of humankind is that we often have to obey force; we have to make concessions; we ourselves cannot always be the stronger. Therefore, when a nation is constrained by the fortune of war to serve as a clique, as happened when the city of Athens served the thirty Tyrants, one should not be amazed that the nation obeys, but simply be grieved by the situation; or rather, instead of being amazed or saddened, consider patiently the evil and look forward hopefully toward a happier future.
Our nature is such that the common duties of human relationship occupy a great part of the course of our life. It is reasonable to love virtue, to esteem good deeds, to be grateful for good from whatever source we may receive it, and, often, to give up some of our comfort in order to increase the honor and advantage of some man whom we love and who deserves it.
Therefore, if the inhabitants of a country have found some great personage who has shown rare foresight in protecting them in an emergency, rare boldness in defending them, rare solicitude in governing them, and if, from that point on, they contract the habit of obeying him and depending on him to such an extent that they grant him certain prerogatives, I fear that such a procedure is not prudent, inasmuch as they remove him from a position in which he may do evil. Certainly while he continues to manifest good will one need fear no harm from a man who seems to be generally well disposed.
But – in the pursuit of understanding – I ask you! What strange phenomenon is this? What name shall we give it? What is the nature of this misfortune? What vice is it, or, rather, what degradation? To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility? Not ruled, but tyrannized over? These wretches have no wealth, no kin, nor wife nor children, not even life itself that they can call their own. They suffer plundering, wantonness, cruelty, not from an army, not from a barbarian horde, on account of whom they must shed their blood and sacrifice their lives, but from a single man; not from a Hercules nor from a Sampson, but from a single little man.
Too frequently this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman! Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted?
If two, if three, if four, do not defend themselves from the one, we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. In such a case one might be justified in suspecting a lack of courage. But if a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice?
When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice? Of course there is in every vice inevitably some limit beyond which one cannot go. Two, possibly ten, may fear one; but when a thousand, a million men, a thousand cities, fail to protect themselves against the domination of one man, this cannot be called cowardly, for cowardice does not sink to such a depth, any more than valor can be termed the effort of one individual to scale a fortress, to attack an army, or to conquer a kingdom. What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough, which nature herself disavows and our tongues refuse to name?
Place on one side fifty thousand armed men, and on the other the same number; let them join in battle, one side fighting to retain its liberty, the other to take it away; to which would you, at a guess, promise victory? Which men do you think would march more gallantly to combat – those who anticipate as a reward for their suffering the maintenance of their freedom, or those who cannot expect any other prize for the blows exchanged than the enslavement of others?
One side will have before its eyes the blessings of the past and the hope of similar joy in the future; their thoughts will dwell less on the comparatively brief pain of battle than on what they may have to endure forever, they, their children, and all their posterity. The other side has nothing to inspire it with courage except the weak urge of greed, which fades before danger and which can never be so keen, it seems to me, that it will not be dismayed by the least drop of blood from wounds.
Consider the justly famous battles of Miltiades, Leonidas, Themistocles, still fresh today in recorded history and in the minds of men as if they had occurred but yesterday, battles fought in Greece for the welfare of the Greeks and as an example to the world. What power do you think gave to a mere handful of men not the strength but the courage to withstand the attack of a fleet so vast that even the seas were burdened, and to defeat the armies of so many nations, armies so immense that their officers alone outnumbered the entire Greek force? What was it but the fact that in those glorious days this struggle represented not so much a fight of Greeks against Persians as a victory of liberty over domination, of freedom over greed?
It amazes us to hear accounts of the valor that liberty arouses in the hearts of those who defend it; but who could believe reports of what goes on every day among the inhabitants of some countries, who could really believe that one man alone may mistreat a hundred thousand and deprive them of their liberty? Who would credit such a report if he merely heard it, without being present to witness the event? And if this condition occurred only in distant lands and were reported to us, which one among us would not assume the tale to be imagined or invented, and not really true?
Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude.
A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it. If it costs the people anything to recover its freedom, I should not urge action to this end, although there is nothing a human should hold more dear than the restoration of his own natural right, to change himself from a beast of burden back to a man, so to speak.
I do not demand of him so much boldness; let him prefer the doubtful security of living wretchedly to the uncertain hope of living as he pleases. What then? If in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long for it, if only a simple act of the will is necessary, is there any nation in the world that considers a single wish too high a price to pay in order to recover rights which it ought to be ready to redeem at the cost of its blood, rights such that their loss must bring all men of honor to the point of feeling life to be unendurable and death itself a deliverance?
Everyone knows that the fire from a little spark will increase and blaze ever higher as long as it finds wood to burn; yet without being quenched by water, but merely by finding no more fuel to feed on, it consumes itself, dies down, and is no longer a flame. Similarly, the more tyrants pillage, the more they crave, the more they ruin and destroy; the more one yields to them, and obeys them, by that much do they become mightier and more formidable, the readier to annihilate and destroy. But if not one thing is yielded to them, if, without any violence they are simply not obeyed, they become naked and undone and as nothing, just as, when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.
To achieve the good that they desire, the bold do not fear danger; the intelligent do not refuse to undergo suffering. It is the stupid and cowardly who are neither able to endure hardship nor to vindicate their rights; they stop at merely longing for them, and lose through timidity the valor roused by the effort to claim their rights, although the desire to enjoy them still remains as part of their nature. A longing common to both the wise and the foolish, to brave men and to cowards, is this longing for all those things which, when acquired, would make them happy and contented.
Yet one element appears to be lacking. I do not know how it happens that nature fails to place within the hearts of men a burning desire for liberty, a blessing so great and so desirable that when it is lost all evils follow thereafter, and even the blessings that remain lose taste and savor because of their corruption by servitude. Liberty is the only joy upon which men do not seem to insist; for surely if they really wanted it they would claim it. Apparently they refuse this wonderful privilege because it is so easily acquired.
Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives.
All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose “greatness” you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you.
Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves?
You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest “privilege” he knows – to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check.
From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.
Part II
Doctors are no doubt correct in warning us not to touch incurable wounds; and I am presumably taking chances in preaching as I do to a people which has lost all sensitivity and, no longer conscious of its infirmity, is plainly suffering from mortal illness. Let us therefore understand by logic, if we can, how it happens that this obstinate willingness to submit has become so deeply rooted that the very love of liberty now seems no longer natural.
In the first place, all would agree that, if we led our lives according to the ways intended by nature and the lessons taught by her, we should be intuitively obedient to our parents; later we should adopt reason as our guide and become slaves to nobody. Concerning the obedience given instinctively to one’s father and mother, we are in agreement, each one admitting himself to be a model. As to whether reason is born with us or not, that is a question loudly discussed by academicians and treated by all schools of philosophers.
For the present I think I do not err in stating that there is in our souls some native seed of reason, which, if nourished by good counsel and training, flowers into virtue, but which on the other hand, if unable to resist the vices surrounding it, is stifled and blighted. Yet surely if there is anything in this world clear and obvious, to which one cannot close one’s eyes, it is the fact that nature has cast us all in the same mold in order that we may behold in one another companions, or rather brothers.
If in distributing her gifts nature has favored some more than others with respect to body or spirit, she has nevertheless not planned to place us within this world as if it were a field of battle, and has not endowed the stronger or the clever in order that they may act like armed brigands in a forest and attack the weaker. One should rather conclude that in distributing larger shares to some and smaller shares to others, nature has intended to give occasion for brotherly love to become manifest, some of us having the strength to give help to others who are in need of it.
Hence, since this kind mother has given us the whole world as a dwelling place, has lodged us in the same house, has fashioned us according to the same model so that in beholding one another we might almost recognize ourselves; since she has bestowed upon us all the great gift of voice and speech for fraternal relationship, thus achieving by the common and mutual statement of our thoughts a communion of our wills; and since she has tried in every way to narrow and tighten the bond of our union and kinship; since she has revealed in every possible manner her intention, not so much to associate us as to make us one organic whole, there can be no further doubt that we are all naturally free, inasmuch as we are all comrades. Accordingly it should not enter the mind of anyone that nature has placed some of us in slavery, since she has actually created us all in one likeness.
Therefore it is fruitless to argue whether or not liberty is natural, since none can be held in slavery without being wronged, and in a world governed by a nature, which is reasonable, there is nothing so contrary as an injustice. Since freedom is our natural state, we are not only in possession of it but have the urge to defend it.
Now, if perchance some cast a doubt on this conclusion and are so corrupted that they are not able to recognize their rights and inborn tendencies, I shall have to do them the honor that is properly theirs and place, so to speak, brute beasts in the pulpit to throw light on their nature and condition. The very beasts, if men are not too deaf, cry out to them, “Long live Liberty!” Many among them die as soon as captured: just as the fish loses life as soon as he leaves the water, so do these creatures close their eyes upon the light and have no desire to survive the loss of their natural freedom.
If the animals were to constitute their kingdom by rank, their nobility would be chosen from this type. Others, from the largest to the smallest, when captured put up such a strong resistance by means of claws, horns, beak, and paws, that they show clearly enough how they cling to what they are losing; afterwards in captivity they manifest by so many evident signs their awareness of their misfortune, that it is easy to see they are languishing rather than living, and continue their existence more in lamentation of their lost freedom than in enjoyment of their servitude.
What else can explain the behavior of the elephant who, after defending himself to the last ounce of his strength and knowing himself on the point of being taken, dashes his jaws against the trees and breaks his tusks, thus manifesting his longing to remain free as he has been and proving his wit and ability to buy off the huntsmen in the hope that through the sacrifice of his tusks he will be permitted to offer his ivory as a ransom for his liberty? We feed the horse from birth in order to train him to do our bidding.
Yet he is tamed with such difficulty that when we begin to break him in he bites the bit, he rears at the touch of the spur, as if to reveal his instinct and show by his actions that, if he obeys, he does not of his own free will but under constraint. What more can we say? And now, since all beings, because they feel, suffer misery in subjection and long for liberty; since the very beasts, although made for the service of man, cannot become accustomed to control without protest, what evil chance has so denatured man that he, the only creature really born to be free, lacks the memory of his original condition and the desire to return to it?
There are three kinds of tyrants; some receive their proud position through elections by the people, others by force of arms, others by inheritance. Those who have acquired power by means of war, act in such wise that it is evident they rule over a conquered country. Those who are born to kingship are scarcely any better, because they are nourished on the breast of tyranny, suck in with their milk the instincts of the tyrant, and consider the people under them their inherited serfs; and according to their individual disposition, miserly or prodigal, they treat their kingdom as their property.
He who has received his position from the people, however, ought to be, it seems to me, more bearable and would be so, I think, were it not for the fact that as soon as he sees himself higher than the others, flattered by that quality which we call grandeur, he plans never to relinquish his position. Such a man usually determines to pass on to his children the authority that the people have conferred upon him; and once his heirs have taken this attitude, strange it is how far they surpass other tyrants in all sorts of vices, and especially in cruelty, because they find no other means to impose this new tyranny than by tightening control and removing their subjects so far from any notion of liberty that even if the memory of it is fresh it will soon be eradicated.
Yet, to speak accurately, I do perceive that there is some difference among these three types of tyranny, but as for stating a preference, I cannot grant there is any. For although the means of coming into power differ, still the method of ruling is practically the same; those who are elected act as if they were breaking in bullocks; those who are conquerors make the people their prey; those who are heirs plan to treat them as if they were their natural slaves.
In connection with this, let us imagine some newborn individuals, neither acquainted with slavery nor desirous of liberty, ignorant indeed of the very words. If they were permitted to choose between being slaves and free men, to which would they give their vote? There can be no doubt that they would much prefer to be guided by reason itself than to be ordered about by the whims of a single man. Certainly all men, as long as they remain men, before letting themselves become enslaved must either be driven by force or led into it by deception; conquered by foreign armies, as were Sparta and Athens by the forces of Alexander or by political factions, as when at an earlier period the control of Athens had passed into the hands of Pisistrates.
When they lose their liberty through deceit they are not so often betrayed by others as misled by themselves. This was the case with the people of Syracuse, chief city of Sicily when, in the throes of war and heedlessly planning only for the present danger, they promoted Denis, their first tyrant, by entrusting to him the command of the army, without realizing that they had given him such power that on his victorious return this “worthy” man would behave as if he had vanquished not his enemies but his compatriots, transforming himself from captain to tyrant.
It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement. It is true that in the beginning men submit under constraint and by force; but those who come after them obey without regret and perform willingly what their predecessors had done because they had to.
This is why men born under the yoke and then nourished and reared in slavery are content, without further effort, to live in their native circumstance, unaware of any other state or right, and considering as quite natural the condition into which they were born. There is, however, no heir so spendthrift or indifferent that he does not sometimes scan the account books of his father in order to see if he is enjoying all the privileges of his legacy or whether, perchance, his rights and those of his predecessor have not been encroached upon.
Nevertheless it is clear enough that the powerful influence of custom is in no respect more compelling than in this, namely, habituation to subjection. It is said that Mithridates trained himself to drink poison. Like him we learn to swallow, and not to find bitter, the venom of servitude. It cannot be denied that nature is influential in shaping us to her will and making us reveal our rich or meager endowment; yet it must be admitted that she has less power over us than custom, for the reason that native endowment, no matter how good, is dissipated unless encouraged, whereas environment always shapes us in its own way, whatever that may be, in spite of nature’s gifts.
The good seed that nature plants in us is so slight and so slippery that it cannot withstand the least harm from wrong nourishment; it flourishes less easily, becomes spoiled, withers, and comes to nothing. Fruit trees retain their own particular quality if permitted to grow undisturbed, but lose it promptly and bear strange fruit not their own when ingrafted. Every herb has its peculiar characteristics, its virtues and properties; yet frost, weather, soil, or the gardener’s hand increase or diminish its strength; the plant seen in one spot cannot be recognized in another.
Whoever could have observed the early Venetians, a handful of people living so freely that the most wicked among them would not wish to be king over them, so born and trained that they would not vie with one another except as to which one could give the best counsel and nurture their liberty most carefully, so instructed and developed from their cradles that they would not exchange for all the other delights of the world an iota of their freedom; who, I say, familiar with the original nature of such a people, could visit today the territories of the man known as the Great Doge, and there contemplate with composure a people unwilling to live except to serve him, and maintaining his power at the cost of their lives?
Who would believe that these two groups of people had an identical origin? Would one not rather conclude that upon leaving a city of men he had chanced upon a menagerie of beasts? Lycurgus, the lawgiver of Sparta, is reported to have reared two dogs of the same litter by fattening one in the kitchen and training the other in the fields to the sound of the bugle and the horn, thereby to demonstrate to the Lacedaemonians that men, too, develop according to their early habits.
He set the two dogs in the open market place, and between them he placed a bowl of soup and a hare. One ran to the bowl of soup, the other to the hare; yet they were, as he maintained, born brothers of the same parents. In such manner did this leader, by his laws and customs, shape and instruct the Spartans so well that any one of them would sooner have died than acknowledge any sovereign other than law and reason.
I am of the opinion that one should pity those who, at birth, arrive with the yoke upon their necks. We should exonerate and forgive them, since they have not seen even the shadow of liberty, and, being quite unaware of it, cannot perceive the evil endured through their own slavery. It is truly the nature of man to be free and to wish to be so, yet his character is such that he instinctively follows the tendencies that his training gives him.
Let us therefore admit that all those things to which he is trained and accustomed seem natural to man and that only that is truly native to him which he receives with his primitive, untrained individuality. Thus custom becomes the first reason for voluntary servitude. Men are like handsome racehorses who first bite the bit and later like it, and rearing under the saddle a while soon learn to enjoy displaying their harness and prance proudly beneath their trappings. Similarly men will grow accustomed to the idea that they have always been in subjection, that their fathers lived in the same way; they will think that they are obliged to suffer this evil, and will persuade themselves by example and imitation of others, finally investing those who order them around with proprietary rights, based on the idea that it has always been that way.
There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection. These are in fact the men who, possessed of clear minds and far-sighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them, behind and before, and even recall the things of the past in order to judge those of the future, and compare both with their present condition. These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.
The Grand Turk was well aware that books and teaching more than anything else give men the sense to comprehend their own nature and to detest tyranny. I understand that in his territory there are few educated people, for he does not want many. On account of this restriction, men of strong zeal and devotion, who in spite of the passing of time have preserved their love of freedom, still remain ineffective because, however numerous they may be, they are not known to one another; under the tyrant they have lost freedom of action, of speech, and almost of thought; they are alone in their aspiration.
The essential reason why men take orders willingly is that they are born serfs and are reared as such. From this cause there follows another result, namely that people easily become cowardly and submissive under tyrants. For this observation I am deeply grateful to Hippocrates, the renowned father of medicine, who noted and reported it in a treatise of his entitled Concerning Diseases.
This famous man was certainly endowed with a great heart and proved it clearly by his reply to the “Great King,” who wanted to attach him to his person by means of special privileges and large gifts. Hippocrates answered frankly that it would be a weight on his conscience to make use of his science for the cure of barbarians who wished to slay his fellow Greeks, or to serve faithfully by his skill anyone who undertook to enslave Greece. The letter he sent this tyrant can still be read among his other works and will forever testify to his great heart and noble character.
By this time it should be evident that liberty once lost, valor [strength of mind, bravery] also perishes. A subject people shows neither gladness nor eagerness in combat: its men march sullenly to danger almost as if in bonds, and stultified; they do not feel throbbing within them that eagerness for liberty which engenders scorn of peril and imparts readiness to acquire honor and glory by a brave death amidst one’s comrades.
Among free men there is competition as to who will do most, each for the common good, each by himself, all expecting to share in the misfortunes of defeat, or in the benefits of victory; but an enslaved people loses in addition to this warlike courage, all signs of enthusiasm, for their hearts are degraded, submissive, and incapable of any great deed. Tyrants are well aware of this, and, in order to degrade their subjects further, encourage them to assume this attitude and make it instinctive.
It is indeed the nature of the populace, whose density is always greater in the cities, to be suspicious toward one who claims to have their welfare at heart, and gullible toward one who fools them. Do not imagine that there is any bird more easily caught by decoy, nor any fish sooner fixed on the hook by wormy bait, than are all these poor fools neatly tricked into servitude by the slightest feather passed, so to speak, before their mouths.
Truly it is a marvelous thing that they let themselves be caught so quickly at the slightest tickling of their fancy. Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny. By these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so successfully lulled their subjects under the yokes, that the stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes, learned subservience as naively, but not so creditably, as little children learn to read by looking at bright picture books.
Roman tyrants invented a further refinement. They often provided the city wards with feasts to cajole the rabble, always more readily tempted by the pleasure of eating than by anything else. The most intelligent and understanding amongst them would not have quit his soup bowl to recover the liberty of the Republic of Plato. Tyrants would distribute largess, a bushel of wheat, a gallon of wine, and a sesterce: and then everybody would shamelessly cry, “Long live the King!” The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them.
A man might one day be presented with a sesterce [Roman coin] and gorge himself at the public feast, lauding Tiberius and Nero for handsome liberality, who on the morrow, would be forced to abandon his property to their avarice, his children to their lust, his very blood to the cruelty of these magnificent “Emperors” without offering any more resistance than a stone or a tree stump. The mob has always behaved in this way – eagerly open to bribes that cannot be honorably accepted, and dissolutely callous to degradation and insult that cannot be honorably endured.
They didn’t even neglect, these “Roman Emperors,” to assume generally the title of “Tribune of the People,” partly because this office was held sacred and inviolable and also because it had been founded for the defense and protection of the people. By this means they made sure that the populace would trust them completely, as if they merely used the title and did not abuse it. Today there are some who do not behave very differently; they never undertake an unjust policy, even one of some importance, without prefacing it with some pretty speech concerning “public welfare” and “common good.”
The earliest Kings of Egypt rarely showed themselves without carrying a cat, or sometimes a branch, or appearing with fire on their heads, masking themselves with these objects and parading like workers of magic. By doing this they inspired their subjects with reverence and admiration, whereas with people neither too stupid nor too slavish they would merely have aroused, it seems to me, amusement and laughter. It is pitiful to review the list of devices that despots have used to establish their tyranny; to discover how many little tricks they employed, always finding the populace conveniently gullible, readily caught in the net as soon as it was spread. Indeed they always fooled their victims so easily that while mocking them they enslaved them the more.
What comment can I make concerning another fine counterfeit that ancient peoples accepted as true money? They believed firmly that the great toe of Pyrrhus, tyrant of Epirus, performed miracles and cured diseases of the spleen; they even enhanced the tale further with the legend that his toe, after the corpse had been burned, was found among the ashes, untouched by the fire. In this wise a foolish people itself invents lies and then believes them.
Many men have recounted such things, but in such a way that it is easy to see that the parts were pieced together from idle gossip of the city and silly reports from the rabble. When Vespasian, returning from Assyria, passes through Alexandria on his way to Rome to take possession of the empire, he performs wonders: he makes the crippled straight, restores sight to the blind, and does many other fine things, concerning which the credulous and undiscriminating were, in my opinion, more blind than those cured. Tyrants themselves have wondered that men could endure the persecution of a single man; they have insisted on using religion for their own protection and, where possible, have borrowed a stray bit of “divinity” to bolster up their evil ways.
Our own leaders have employed in France certain similar devices, such as toads, fleurs-de-lys, sacred vessels, and standards with flames of gold. However that may be, I do not wish, for my part, to be incredulous, since neither we nor our ancestors have had any occasion up to now for skepticism.
It has always happened that tyrants, in order to strengthen their power, have made every effort to train their people not only in obedience and servility toward themselves, but also in adoration. Therefore all that I have said up to the present concerning the means by which a more willing submission has been obtained applies to dictators in their relationship with the inferior and common classes.
Part III
I come now to a point which is, in my opinion, the mainspring and the secret of domination, the support and foundation of tyranny. Whoever thinks that halberds [battle-axes], sentries, the placing of the watch, serve to protect and shield tyrants is, in my judgment, completely mistaken. These are used, it seems to me, more for ceremony and a show of force than for any reliance placed in them.
It is not the troops on horseback, it is not the companies afoot, it is not arms that defend the tyrant. This does not seem credible on first thought, but it is nevertheless true that there are only four or five who maintain the dictator, four or five who keep the country in bondage to him. Five or six have always had access to his ear, and have either gone to him of their own accord, or else have been summoned by him, to be accomplices in his cruelties, companions in his pleasures, panders to his lusts, and sharers in his plunders.
These six manage their chief so successfully that he comes to be held accountable not only for his own misdeeds but even for theirs. The six have six hundred who profit under them, and with the six hundred they do what they have accomplished with their tyrant. The six hundred maintain under them six thousand, whom they promote in rank, upon whom they confer the government of provinces or the direction of finances, in order that they may serve as instruments of avarice and cruelty, executing orders at the proper time and working such havoc all around that they could not last except under the shadow of the six hundred, nor be exempt from law and punishment except through their influence.
The consequence of all this is fatal indeed. And whoever is pleased to unwind the skein [reel of yarn or thread] will observe that not the six thousand but a hundred thousand, and even millions, cling to the tyrant by this cord to which they are tied. According to Homer, Jupiter boasts of being able to draw to himself all the gods when he pulls a chain. Such a scheme caused the increase in the senate under Julius, the formation of new ranks, the creation of offices; not really, if properly considered, to reform justice, but to provide new supporters of despotism.
In short, when the point is reached, through big favors or little ones, that large profits or small are obtained under a tyrant, there are found almost as many people to whom tyranny seems advantageous as those to whom liberty would seem desirable. Whenever a ruler makes himself a dictator, all the wicked dregs who are corrupted by burning ambition or extraordinary avarice, these gather around him and support him in order to have a share in the booty and to constitute themselves petty chiefs under the big tyrant.
This is the practice among notorious robbers and famous pirates: some scour the country, others pursue voyagers; some lie in ambush, others keep a lookout; some commit murder, others robbery; and although there are among them differences in rank, some being only underlings while others are chieftains of gangs, yet is there not a single one among them who does not feel himself to be a sharer, if not of the main booty, at least in the pursuit of it.
Thus the despot subdues his subjects, some of them by means of others, and thus is he protected by those from whom, if they were decent men, he would have to guard himself; just as, in order to split wood, one has to use a wedge of the wood itself. Such are his archers, his guards, his halberdiers [soldiers with battle-axes]; not that they themselves do not suffer occasionally at his hands, but this riff-raff, can be led to endure evil if permitted to commit it, not against him who exploits them, but against those who like themselves submit, but are helpless.
Nevertheless, observing those men who painfully serve the tyrant in order to win some profit from his tyranny and from the subjection of the populace, I am often overcome with amazement at their wickedness and sometimes by pity for their folly. For, in all honesty, can it be in any way except in folly that you approach a tyrant, withdrawing further from your liberty and, so to speak, embracing with both hands your servitude?
Let such men lay aside briefly their ambition, or let them forget for a moment their avarice, and look at themselves as they really are. Then they will realize clearly that the townspeople, the peasants whom they trample underfoot and treat worse than convicts or slaves, they will realize, I say, that these people, mistreated as they may be, are nevertheless, in comparison with themselves, better off and fairly free.
The tiller of the soil and the artisan, no matter how enslaved, discharge their obligation when they do what they are told to do; but the dictator sees men about him wooing and begging his favor, and doing much more than he tells them to do. Such men must not only obey orders; they must anticipate his wishes; to satisfy him they must foresee his desires; they must wear themselves out, torment themselves, kill themselves with work in his interest, and accept his pleasure as their own, neglecting their preference for his, distorting their character and corrupting their nature; they must pay heed to his words, to his intonation, to his gestures, and to his glance. Let them have no eye, nor foot, nor hand that is not alert to respond to his wishes or to seek out his thoughts.
Can that be called a happy life? Can it be called living? Is there anything more intolerable than that situation, I won’t say for a man of mettle nor even for a man of high birth, but simply for a man of common sense or, to go even further, for anyone having the face of a man? What condition is more wretched than to live thus, with nothing to call one’s own, receiving from someone else one’s sustenance, one’s power to act, one’s body, one’s very life?
Still men accept servility in order to acquire wealth; as if they could acquire anything of their own when they cannot even assert that they belong to themselves, or as if anyone could possess under a tyrant a single thing in his own name. Yet they act as if their wealth really belonged to them, and forget that it is they themselves who give the ruler the power to deprive everybody of everything, leaving nothing that anyone can identify as belonging to somebody. They notice that nothing makes men so subservient to a tyrant’s cruelty as property; that the possession of wealth is the worst of crimes against him, punishable even by death; that he loves nothing quite so much as money and ruins only the rich, who come before him as before a butcher, offering themselves so stuffed and bulging that they make his mouth water.
These favorites should not recall so much the memory of those who have won great wealth from tyrants as of those who, after they had for some time amassed it, have lost to him their property as well as their lives; they should consider not how many others have gained a fortune, but rather how few of them have kept it. Whether we examine ancient history or simply the times in which we live, we shall see clearly how great is the number of those who, having by shameful means won the ear of tyrants – who either profit from their villainies or take advantage of their naivety – were in the end reduced to nothing by these very tyrants; and although at first such servitors were met by a ready willingness to promote their interests, they later found an equally obvious inconstancy which brought them to ruin.
Certainly among so large a number of people who have at one time or another had some relationship with bad rulers, there have been few or practically none at all who have not felt applied to themselves the tyrant’s animosity, which they had formerly stirred against others. Most often, after becoming rich by despoiling others, under the favor of his protection, they find themselves at last enriching him with their own spoils.
Quite generally known is the striking phrase of that other tyrant who, gazing at the throat of his wife, a woman he dearly loved and without whom it seemed he could not live, caressed her with this charming comment: “This lovely throat would be cut at once if I but gave the order.” That is why the majority of the dictators of former days were commonly slain by their closest favorites who, observing the nature of tyranny, could not be so confidant of the whim of the tyrant as they were distrustful of his power Thus was Domitian killed by Stephen, Commodus by one of his mistresses, Antoninus by Macrinus, and practically all the others in similar violent fashion.
The fact is that the tyrant is never truly loved, nor does he love. Friendship is a sacred word, a holy thing; it is never developed except between persons of character, and never takes root except through mutual respect; it flourishes not so much by kindness as by sincerity. What makes one friend sure of another is the knowledge of his integrity: as guarantees he has his friend’s fine nature, his honor, and his constancy. There can be no friendship where there is cruelty, where there is disloyalty, where there is injustice. And in places where the wicked gather there is conspiracy only, not companionship: these have no affection for one another; fear alone holds them together; they are not friends, they are merely accomplices.
Although it might not be impossible, yet it would be difficult to find true friendship in a tyrant; elevated above others and having no companions, he finds himself already beyond the pale of friendship, which receives its real sustenance from an equality that, to proceed without a limp, must have its two limbs equal. That is why there is honor among thieves (or so it is reported) in the sharing of the booty; they are peers and comrades; if they are not fond of one another they at least respect one another and do not seek to lessen their strength by squabbling.
But the favorites of a tyrant can never feel entirely secure, and the less so because he has learned from them that he is all powerful and unlimited by any law or obligation. Thus it becomes his wont to consider his own will as reason enough, and to be master of all with never an equal. Therefore it seems a pity that with so many examples at hand, with the danger always present, no one is anxious to act the wise man at the expense of the others, and that among so many persons fawning upon their ruler there is not a single one who has the wisdom and the boldness to say to him what, according to the fable, the fox said to the lion who feigned illness: “I should be glad to enter your lair to pay my respects; but I see many tracks of beasts that have gone toward you, yet not a single trace of any who have come back.”
These wretches see the glint of the despot’s treasures and are bedazzled by the radiance of his splendor. Drawn by this brilliance they come near, without realizing they are approaching a flame that cannot fail to scorch them. Similarly attracted, the indiscreet satyr of the old fables, on seeing the bright fire brought down by Prometheus, found it so beautiful that he went and kissed it, and was burned; so, as the Tuscan poet reminds us, the moth, intent upon desire, seeks the flame because it shines, and also experiences its other quality, the burning.
Moreover, even admitting that favorites may at times escape from the hands of him they serve, they are never safe from the ruler who comes after him. If he is good, they must render an account of their past and recognize at last that justice exists; if he is bad and resembles their late master, he will certainly have his own favorites, who are not usually satisfied to occupy in their turn merely the posts of their predecessors, but will more often insist on their wealth and their lives.
Can anyone be found, then, who under such perilous circumstances and with so little security will still be ambitious to fill such an ill-fated position and serve, despite such perils, so dangerous a master? What suffering, what martyrdom all this involves! To be occupied night and day in planning to please one person, and yet to fear him more than anyone else in the world; to be always on the watch, ears open, wondering whence the blow will come; to search out conspiracy, to be on guard against snares, to scan the faces of companions for signs of treachery, to smile at everybody and be mortally afraid of all, to be sure of nobody, either as an open enemy or as a reliable friend; showing always a gay countenance despite an apprehensive heart, unable to be joyous yet not daring to be sad!
However, there is satisfaction in examining what they get out of all this torment, what advantage they derive from all the trouble of their wretched existence. Actually, the people never blame the tyrant for the evils they suffer, but they do place responsibility on those who influence him; peoples, nations, all compete with one another, even the peasants, even the tillers of the soil, in mentioning the names of the favorites, in analyzing their vices, and heaping upon them a thousand maledictions.
All their prayers, all their vows are directed against these persons; they hold them accountable for all their misfortunes, their pestilences; and if at times they show them outward respect, at those very moments they are fuming in their hearts and hold them in greater horror than wild beasts. This is the glory and honor heaped upon influential favorites for their services by people who, if they could tear apart their living bodies, would still clamor for more, only half satiated by the agony they might behold. For even when the favorites are dead those who live after are never too lazy to blacken the names of these man-eaters with the ink of a thousand pens, tear their reputations into bits in a thousand books, and drag, so to speak, their bones past posterity, forever punishing them after their death for their wicked lives.
Let us therefore learn while there is yet time, let us learn to claim our liberty. Let us open our eyes to our natural freedom for the sake of our honor, for the very love of virtue. As for me, I truly believe I am right, since there is nothing so contrary to reason as self-imposed tyranny. I believe the time will come when support will be withdrawn from tyrants and their accomplices. Then let us watch them all fall from their own corrupted weight.
The End

2008 Election Results and America’s Future

1 Comment



2008 Election Results and America’s Future


     One of the leadership principles written about in the book Attila the Hun is that being a leader is often a lonely job. Another is that not all leaders get a chance to see all of their goals accomplished. The key however, is for the goals to be able to match or represent that of your electorate for if not you will have a great disparity and backlash if they get affected adversely by the goals that were not communicated. Leadership today is no longer unidirectional in which the populace would readily accept ideas or changes from the top. Now we have more of a two way conversation with a better informed public and one that is participating interactively in the political process. “There is compelling evidence that a communication revolution is underway, moving from a controlled-one-way model into a decentralized interactive one”, (Scoble and Israel, (2006) Naked Conversations United States: John Wiley & Sons, Inc). Thanks to advancement in technology and communication perhaps we may be able to change society for the better, with the public contributing more and becoming more educated about the issues affecting them.  Regardless of leadership styles or political affiliations the voters, constituents and leaders need to stay in touch with issues affecting our Nation, families and communities.  The world today is a lot more complex however these are also very exciting times in which we could say that we stand at a fork on the road, one in which we could decide to take the more positive and beneficial path instead of the negative non productive one.


     Our community leaders are not perfect nor is it possible to solve everyone’s issues. However collectively and by participating in the political process we could forge better communities and in the process get better public servants. We all need to contribute no matter by what small amount of time by sharing ideas, suggestions, or special skills that could help preserve our American way of life. In order to grow forward and not regress we must be vigilant of those wishing for changes to our way of life and form of government for our Nations’ foundation was not created with an expiration date. The time has come for us to re-evaluate who we are as a people and as a Nation and not allow globalism, financial chaos or so called terrorism to be used as an excuse to change our rule of law and system of checks and balances. It could be said that it is equally terrorizing to allow our families to suffer back into feudalism, despair and economic bondage.  Freedom, fiscal responsibility, honor and respect for ourselves and others around the world while maintaining who we are may prevent our nation from failing. In the 2008 elections perhaps we did not get the Leader that we wanted however we can still actively help out and each day do something that will help make our Nation prosper. Be a better neighbor, work harder, enterprise, be a better parent, have better relationships, and tell your elected officials that you expect them to follow their Oath of Office and to be proactive in making your State better than the year before. Call your house of representatives, department of commerce, the senate, and let the leaders know that you are not just idle watching your Nation being changed but that you are participating and part of the change and not one of a negative direction but a positive proactive one. In conclusion here are the Colorado Springs 2008 election results and some pictures of the candidates that you favored. These potential leaders did not win by numbers, however did by message delivered and that is that we need a better America. Let’s make it happen for our destiny is in our hands and we are able to forge healthy prosperous families, neighbors here and abroad and the best America that we could had asked for.  The elections of 2008 are just the beginning for a much better world and let’s decide to be part of the positive process. 

McCain/Palin REP 58.97%
Obama/Biden DEM 39.59%
Baldwin/Castle CST 0.26%
Bob Schaffer REP 56.70%
Mark Udall DEM 38.15%
Bob Kinsey GRN 1.86%
Douglas Campbell ACN 3.14%
Hal Bidlack DEM 36.68%
Doug Lamborn REP 60.32%
Amendment 46
YES 55.66%
NO 44.34%
Amendment 47
YES 50.76%
NO 49.24%
Amendment 48
YES 37.60%
NO 62.40%
Amendment 49
YES 45.34%
NO 54.66%

Here is the full list and details by The El Paso Elections

 Summary Elections 2008 Colorado Springs, Co 

Pictures among yahoo voted photos for 2008:Palin family 2008leaders_pres08runcolorado_rocks