A.J., the ADL and the Real Oath Keepers

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

Real Oath Keepers

November 29th, 2009 by Subverted Nation
Listen to this article. Powered by Odiogo.com

You may have heard of the group calling itself "oath keepers" by now, as they are heavily promoted by CNN, Alex Jones, and even (heaven forbid) attacked by the ADL and SPLC.  The group claims to be "defenders of the republic", but maybe they haven't noticed our officials in Washington have considered this a democracy for a long time, and have us heading straight into a communist form of government.  It's all well and good to consider yourself a "defender of the republic", except for the fact that the republic of these united states does not exist.  Sure, it may still exist in the minds of people who believe in fairy tales, but this website here is all about reality and perception. You can perceive it however you like, but there is no republic.  Then again, you can keep supporting the idea of a republic, because the jews have made it clear over the years that they are going to form a one world republic.  Honestly, if a republic is what they are after, it's the last thing you should be supporting.
This elitist Yale graduate pretends to be an "oath keeper" but in reality he is nothing more than a "gate keeper" distracting U.S. Armed Forces personnel from the real issue, which we know to be his tribe of kikes.

This elitist Yale graduate pretends to be an "oath keeper" but in reality he is nothing more than a "gate keeper" distracting U.S. Armed Forces personnel from the real issue, which we know to be his tribe of kikes.

About two years ago I made a short video titled "Plea to our US Military", which has had hundreds of thousands of views since it was first put together.  It was my way of reaching out to our armed forces and getting them to point the finger (at least) towards Israel, instead of blaming Muslim and Arab people for jewish terrorism.  The video itself was quite successful, and has become a favorite to many of my supporters.  The video was the first part of a plan to continue reaching out to our armed forces and attempt to disrupt the jew mind control spell that many of these unwitting pawns are under.  Then one day a group popped up on the radar, called "oath keepers", and instantly they were all over the place.  Getting spots on Alex Jones' radio show, getting lip service and interviews from CNN and other major news sources, including some other questionable "activist" radio shows. Next thing you know they are holding gatherings and conferences all over the place, signing up everybody and their brother, etc.

One of the things that struck me right off the bat about this group was it's leader, Stewart Rhodes.  Of course, Rhodes is a common jewish name, and not only that, but the guy is an elitist Yale graduate, and supposed former Army paratrooper, but as you'll see, some are questioning that already too.  The real story is that Rhodes is a kike spreading disinformation and is a total piece of shit, nothing more. If you can't see all the tell tale signs already, you need glasses.  He's an infiltrator of the worst kind, because he is misleading honest Military, Law Enforcement, Veterans and patriots down a dangerous path.  Of course, the "oath keepers" openly support jewish groups like the JPFO or jews for the preservation of firearm ownership (which Rhodes has written for numerous times), which if you know anything about jewish gun grabbers in Washington, is nothing more than another piece of jewish controlled opposition. Take a look at this kike's bio:

    Stewart is the founder and Director of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump.

    He is a former firearms instructor and former member of Rep. Ron Paul's DC staff.

    Stewart currently writes the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine

    Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper "Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status" won Yale's Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people.

Here's another bio on this guy:

    Stewart is the founder and Director of Oath Keepers. He served as a U.S. Army paratrooper until disabled in a rough terrain parachuting accident during a night jump. He is a former firearms instructor and former member of Rep. Ron Paul's DC staff. Stewart graduated from Yale Law School in 2004, where his paper "Solving the Puzzle of Enemy Combatant Status" won Yale's Miller prize for best paper on the Bill of Rights. He assisted teaching U.S. military history at Yale, was a Yale Research Scholar, and is writing a book on the dangers of applying the laws of war to the American people. He is a staff attorney with Jefferson Legal Foundation and has assisted in constitutional litigation in state and federal courts. Stewart currently writes the monthly Enemy at the Gates column for S.W.A.T. Magazine, and has written for The Warrior, the journal of Gerry Spence's Trial Lawyer's College; for www.moreliberty.org; and for JPFO. Stewart has appeared on several radio shows, was invited to speak at Stanford University on unlawful enemy combatant status, and teaches classes on the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He welcomes e-mail at http://www.realoathkeeper...

    as a Marine I am offended and embarassed by the content on this website.....just goes to show some people have a very weak grasp on reality.....or history...

"As a Marine, I carry a sword with the jew star of david on it", is what this dumb mother fucker should have said! This my friends, is how you rattle their cage!  I've only just begun....Go sign up!!  Also, those of you who were looking for a way to help support SN and projects like this can feel free to use the paypal donate button on the ROK website to do so. Since the site doesn't openly say "jews" all over it, I should be able to receive donations through it, which would be a hell of a lot better than being a broke ass revolutionary with their neck on the line and no resources. Pony up, join up, and let's start working together to make a big dent, unless of course, you have no intention to actually stand and fight.  In that case, you need to support those of us who do.

http://www.subvertednation.net/

[Christopher Marlowe]

The United States Constitution is the highest law in the US. I won't pretend that there are not problems with the Constitution, but what are US citizens supposed to take an oath to, if not the Constitution?  

People united in a cause need to agree on something. They could agree to support: the Bible, the Green Bay Packers, rhythmic gymnastics, etc...  But the one thing that US citizens have in common is that they are members of a Republic, governed by Laws. There is the US Constitution, Treaty laws, Federal laws, State Constitutions, and state laws.  The one thing that I can see everyone getting behind is the Constitution. And maybe Rhythmic gymnastics.

[Chargeemquick]

"In fact, the way things are set up, anyone wanting to join ROK is going to have to go through the discovery process on their own by purchasing my Basic Training manual"

Great,more profiteering.I don`t like his over-use of the word "kike" either.It makes him look very unimaginative.

[Jenny Lake]

this person just obviously hates Jews and the Consitution.

[CrackSmokeRepublican]

The guy has a radio show that is pretty "foul mouthed". I should of cleaned this up before posting it. I think he worked for a lot of Jews in Florida as a painting contractor and just pretty much saw them as his enemy #1 after numerous rip-offs, whines and cheats ... IMHO...  

He has point about the Jew military types though. They are trying to form para-military forces in the US.

[jai_mann]

The constitution is a non-binding piece of paper. It's been used to gradually enslave the population. Most of the people living in this land had no intentions of being a part of this new "overseeing" structure. The government indoctrination of the youth trains them young to not question authority (teachers) or you will get punished (principal) until you comply or you will be passed off to some one else to discipline you. You stand and pledge allegiance to an idol (flag). You do all of this while not having the foggiest idea of what it all means. By the time you graduate you tend not to even question having some one else lord over you and steal from you to operate.

Cohesion can be had with out legal fictions. Cohesion can be had by threats. Let's keep in mind what these SOBs have laid out as their means of manipulating the population through contrived threats. Well, the more people that understand that these talmudists doing such things are an enemy, the more they will act in a cohesive manner against them.

I don't think this guy is a profiteer. Putting out a book which points people right at who is fucking them over doesn't seem like he's just doing something for money. If you compare a known profiteer, Alex Jones for instance, with the behavior exhibited by this other person, you have two very different individuals. The way he says things might not be all fluffy and sugar coated, but damn it, we are at WAR with these talmudists who plan to kill and enslave us. People need to get it through their heads that this is war. There aren't tanks and soldiers on the ground yet, but what is being done now is laying the ground work for the resource looting of the geography associated with "the USA". That's what those super highways through texas are all about. They aren't going to be bringing in toys and trinkets from china; they're going to be looting the hell out of the natural resources that haven't been tapped or that have been hushed up, waiting for the time where the population won't be able to defend itself. "America has debts to pay, it's only fair that they pay up for living high on the hog...". They've got their fraudulent excuse all lined up...

The same thing was done to Germany by France. Super roads were built into Germany that were used for natural resource looting.

[Christopher Marlowe]

The constitution is a non-binding piece of paper.

I don't know how to respond to that. The Constitution is the basis of our government. All powers of the government are derived from that document. Many of our rights are memorized in it. (Though the 9th Amendment informs us that the "enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.")

"Binding" suggests that parties are held to perform or refrain from acting in ways the document describes. Let's take an example of that: "habeas corpus", which some call our most basic right, is the obligation imposed upon the government to give a legal reason why they are holding any person in custody.  It is assumed into existence, before even the first amendment, in the first article, section 9: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended,[because it's already there, just existing, Ed.] unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

But after israhell attacked the US on 9/11, the fuckwits in Congress passed the PATRIOTARD Act, which allowed the government to imprison non-citizens in Guantanamo indefinitely. Was the PATRIOTARD Act unconstitutional? I think so. It makes no sense to say that a non-citizen does not have rights to habeas corpus. If that were the case, then the government could throw a person in jail and avoid proving that person committed a crime by merely asserting that the person is a non-citizen. How could the person prove otherwise without access to a court? It is a simple Catch 22 argument.  

Further, the text of the Constitution implies that the right of habeas corpus exists prior to any determination or definition of citizenry. And since 9/11 was not a Rebellion or an Invasion, neither exception applies.  Therefore habeas corpus still exists and the government is obliged to show legal cause for incarceration of any person.

So what happened? I believe our government is failing.

It is not the Constitution which is to blame. I believe the matter is very simply laid out by the Constitution.  But no document is "binding" to those who will not be bound. Any "Gordian Knot" of a legal problem can be overcome by using a sword, but the wielder places himself outside the law.  

I suppose that every time the courts render an unjust decision, the Republic is made a little weaker. Our theory of government is that people give the authority to govern based on a social contract (a binding contract!): the people consent to be governed (obey); the government will create laws that are not arbitrary (justice).  "Absolute arbitrary power", which Locke defines as "governing without settled standing laws", would put people into a worse condition than their natural state.  "It cannot be supposed that they should intend...to...put a force into the magistrate's hand to execute his unlimited will arbitrarily upon them..."    

We see Locke's principles expressed in the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." ; and in the United States Constitution: "We the people, in order to form a more perfect union..."  

I think this is logical: A government which bases its Authority on the consent of the Governed, who cede their power with the understanding that the government will be just, will therefore be Weakened when it ceases to act justly. When the government acts outside the settled standing laws, it is no longer a Republic, it is a gang of bullies.

Should we have stuck with Articles of Confederation? Probably. I think it is the concentration and centralization of power that causes many of our problems, both economic and political. And I believe that ignoring States' Rights, as expressed in the 10th Amendment, has led to this unwieldy federal government. (Look at the overly relied upon commerce clause, and ask yourself: If the founders meant to enshrine so much power here, why did they not flesh it out more fully?)

Could the Constitution be improved? Sure. Replaced? Maybe. With what? I don't know.

The Constitution is a settled system of laws that represents more than two hundred years of Jurisprudence. It is the latest draft in an attempt to draw that social contract Locke was describing.  It can be ignored, or disobeyed by those who claim to be Law Professors. But what is better than the Constitution?          

One could say that the Constitution has

been used to gradually enslave the population.

But it also has been used to keep us free. The same Constitution kept the peculiar institution of slavery legal without mentioning it, and then was used to abolish slavery and to give former slaves the rights to own property and to vote. It gave equal rights to women and all races and classes of people. When in the history of the world has a charter of laws ever done this?  When were all human beings said to be free and equal in any state prior to the US Constitution?

So while I don't hold the Constitution to be perfect, I have a hard time abandoning this document that has helped to bring about a more perfect union.  And if people are to find cohesion outside of written laws, how is this going to come about? It is by writing down the laws that we show agreement.

The better drafter can withstand the onslaught of time and sophistry, but words on paper cannot restrain a man's evil impulses. St. Paul said that the law was given to prove the power of sin. "For by the law is the knowledge of sin."  If people are ever going to get it right, we are going to need more than laws. "Because by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified before Him."

Is there anyone who believes that the Constitution can be improved upon? Then propose an amendment. If it is clearly an improvement, than it will be approved by the necessary majority. Once we all agree to protect our liberty and equality as enshrined in the Constitution, then the question becomes one of how to deal with a gang of bullies.

[jai_mann]

The Constitution is the basis of our government. All powers of the government are derived from that document.

Government indoctrination boils down to idolatry. It's not "my" government. I do not consent to any bullshit being foisted upon me by any group of people even if they collectively call themselves "government".

But after israhell attacked the US on 9/11, the fuckwits in Congress passed the PATRIOTARD Act, which a

llowed the government to imprison non-citizens in Guantanamo indefinitely.

Correct me if I'm wrong. Prior to 9/11, people doing business as "the government", have

been involved in robbing from the public. If you know any thing about 9/11 then you know that on 9/10 Rumsfeld announced 3.1 trillion missing dod money. They also deceive the public into wars and create a well oiled mechanism for fucking over tens of thousands, or millions of people. If you think this "patriot act" "allows" these people doing business as "the government" to imprison ANY ONE, you're NUTS. It's just a piece of paper too. They do it because no one is stopping them. The paper is the easy excuse for people to focus on because the alternative means drawing blood and probably a lot of killing. The sooner people realize the latter is required the sooner these degenerates, who waive around a piece of paper and claim it allows them to imprison people or torture them, will be properly dealt with.

But no document is "binding" to those who will not be bound.

That's not true. They "bind" you to it all the time, they even bind you to things that they make up which you have no obligation to like licenses for using a car. Try telling a cop that you don't consent to the constitution and see if he leaves you alone. No. You're a peasant slave and you better do as you are told or you'll get tazed.

. Our theory of government is that people give the authority to govern based on a social contract (a binding contract!): the people consent to be governed (obey); the government will create laws that are not arbitrary (justice).

It's forced upon those who do not consent. It's slavish to agree to be told what you can and can't do. The articles of confederation were no better. Please read Lysander Spooner's work to open your mind to a viewpoint which is what you would have if not for the prussian indoctrination system set up in this land. http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64

You're giving attributes to a piece of paper to make it seem human. The paper did none of those things you claim. Humans did. The people who came to live in this land came to get the fuck away from other groups of people telling them how to live their lives.When local governments started popping up to leech off of the productivity of the population that went out the window. Why do you think people kept pushing further west? It was constant fight to get the fuck away from other people who claim you owe them something for a service they provide (or don't provide but claim to). Short of fleeing to relatively uninhabited areas and hoping that too many others don't live in the area (because then the pigs would arrive because there's a trough to feed from) there is no easy means to avoid interaction with people doing business as "the government".

[Christopher Marlowe]

I haven't heard any replacement for the Constitution under which people can find a common allegiance.  

Picture: A large gathering of people, in a dark basement, downtrodden and poor, deprived of their liberty and wealth by their own elected government. They are just beginning to realize what has happened and they deciding what to do about it. In walks the Hero, wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt and an MK-47, and he says, "Let us unite and throw off the yoke of our oppressors!"

Yes, everyone agrees. But what shall unite us? Shall it be the principle of liberty only? Let every man sort it out for himself. Take as much as you need. Property is defined by the one with the greater will. What if the strongest and cleverest person wants to make other people into his property? What remedy is there?  

Locke said that nature "willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind."

for the law of nature would...'be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders.   And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so...
     
And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him...what is proportionate to his transgression...

In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men...

Reason and equity. The former is self evident, and equity is apparent to the youngest children. These two boundaries set by God and made manifest in nature are the basis of all law. Locke states that the wronged man has the right to punish and to seek reparation from the wrong doer. But

it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, that self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends: and on the other side, that ill nature, passion and revenge will carry them too far in punishing others; and hence nothing but confusion and disorder will follow ...
I easily grant, that civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniencies [sic] of the state of nature, which must certainly be great, where men may be judges in their own case, since it is easy to be imagined, that he who was so unjust as to do his brother an injury, will scarce be so just as to condemn himself for it

So we institute government to judge more fairly than we ourselves can. But Locke warns us to remember

that absolute monarchs are but men; and if government is to be the remedy of those evils, which necessarily follow from men's being judges in their own cases, and the state of nature is therefore not to how much better it is than the state of nature, where one man, commanding a multitude, has the liberty to be judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects whatever he pleases, without the least liberty to any one to question or controul [sic] those who execute his pleasure and in whatsoever he cloth, whether led by reason, mistake or passion, must be submitted to much better it is in the state of nature, wherein men are not bound to submit to the unjust will of another: and if he that judges, judges amiss in his own, or any other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of mankind.

So to paraphrase, we submit to the government only to the extent that it will grant us greater justice than we are able to gain without government in nature. The purpose of the government is to avoid every man becoming a tyrant. But if the leaders of the government should become tyrants, that should even be worse as they would be commanding a multitude.

Has this government become a tyranny? Of course. Have they been tyrannical for some time, even before 9/11? Yes. I used 9/11 as an example of how the LAW was being changed to cheat the people out of their natural rights; and how this law was not proper as it ran afoul of the Constitution.

I don't want to make the Constitution seem human. It is only a system of laws. Our government leaders have failed to uphold those laws and must be held to answer.  But I do not think that confusion and disorder is preferable to a system of laws. Even the simplest board game follows a set of rules. The rules are set down in writing because the game would not work without them.

We use things in common and so consent to rules governing their use. The roads serve to make life convenient and must be kept safe. How best to accomplish this? A minimal standard of driving skill, and occasionally testing for blindness. Paying for the operation of this system. Anyone is free to drive out in nature on their own property without a license, but once he gets on the public road he submits to the laws governing the road. If he does not like the laws, he can walk freely on the road or take a bus.

Supporting the Constitution really comes down to a baby & bathwater argument. The powers that be are attempting to enslave us and to kill some of us "useless eaters".  They are acting outside of the law, and outside of the Constitution and are by Locke's terms "degenerate" as they have "quit the principles of human nature".  The Constitution and the Common Law have remedies, and it remains to be seen whether we have the courage to see that the law is enforced.  But if these scoundrels are removed from office and punished, are we to do away with all of our laws as well? And replace them with what?

[Chargeemquick]

I don't think this guy is a profiteer. Putting out a book which points people right at who is fucking them over doesn't seem like he's just doing something for money.

"anyone wanting to join ROK is going to have to go through the discovery process on their own by purchasing my Basic Training manual"

At least Jonestein does`nt charge a membership fee.This chap is.Money handed over for some "manual"?

He might very well not be doing it just for the money either,a la Hal Turner.

[maz]

The promotion of puting all Jews through a woodchipper isn't the way to go IMO.

[GordZilla]

The promotion of puting all Jews through a woodchipper isn't the way to go IMO.

You're right, but the guilty ones should go through :twisted: . Unfortunately, I feel, you'll find (after having fair trials) that it's a HUGE majority of them.
 :|

[jai_mann]

I don't think this guy is a profiteer. Putting out a book which points people right at who is fucking them over doesn't seem like he's just doing something for money.

"anyone wanting to join ROK is going to have to go through the discovery process on their own by purchasing my Basic Training manual"

At least Jonestein does`nt charge a membership fee.This chap is.Money handed over for some "manual"?

He might very well not be doing it just for the money either,a la Hal Turner.

So don't join his oath keeper group. From every thing I've read he's disabled, like me, and spends a shit load of time researching this stuff. I don't see any problem with trying to help put some food on the table through selling a book that you've put together. This guy is hardly an Alex Jones or Hal Turner. Those two have big operations compared to this guy. Just look up the number of hits his site gets. I have to give him major props for putting up a competing site with oath keepers. I knew that group was for identifying loyalists who will be targeted down the road. It's no different that how Ron Paul's campaign worked. They got donations and can id people who follow his planned diversion. The fact that Stewart made it on the air is a dead give away.

[jai_mann]

I haven't heard any replacement for the Constitution under which people can find a common allegiance.  

Uhm, liberty and freedom? It was only a small number of people in the colonies who made bonds through the constitution and they dragged every one else into the system at the barrel of a gun. Look at the whiskey rebellion.

Picture: A large gathering of people, in a dark basement, downtrodden and poor, deprived of their liberty and wealth by their own elected government. They are just beginning to realize what has happened and they deciding what to do about it. In walks the Hero, wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt and an MK-47, and he says, "Let us unite and throw off the yoke of our oppressors!"

Yes, everyone agrees. But what shall unite us? Shall it be the principle of liberty only? Let every man sort it out for himself. Take as much as you need. Property is defined by the one with the greater will. What if the strongest and cleverest person wants to make other people into his property? What remedy is there?  

How about uniting against oppressors? How is this strongest and clever man going to make other people his property? Why should there be a "remedy"? Unless you're stupid or slavish I don't see it happening. If either of those is the case then the "remedy" is moot, because the oppressed is too stupid to know about the "remedy" or doesn't care because being a slave is fine by them.

Reason and equity. The former is self evident, and equity is apparent to the youngest children. These two boundaries set by God and made manifest in nature are the basis of all law. Locke states that the wronged man has the right to punish and to seek reparation from the wrong doer. But

it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, that self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends: and on the other side, that ill nature, passion and revenge will carry them too far in punishing others; and hence nothing but confusion and disorder will follow ...
I easily grant, that civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniencies [sic] of the state of nature, which must certainly be great, where men may be judges in their own case, since it is easy to be imagined, that he who was so unjust as to do his brother an injury, will scarce be so just as to condemn himself for it

The average person may not be able to handle themselves objectively but that doesn't mean that everyone else can't. I have no problem with the common law jury of peers but forget having people who sit in positions like that of a judge. Keep it random. Creating positions is one more step closer to permanent structures which is what winds up leeching off of the public.

So we institute government to judge more fairly than we ourselves can. But Locke warns us to remember

that absolute monarchs are but men; and if government is to be the remedy of those evils, which necessarily follow from men's being judges in their own cases, and the state of nature is therefore not to how much better it is than the state of nature, where one man, commanding a multitude, has the liberty to be judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects whatever he pleases, without the least liberty to any one to question or controul [sic] those who execute his pleasure and in whatsoever he cloth, whether led by reason, mistake or passion, must be submitted to much better it is in the state of nature, wherein men are not bound to submit to the unjust will of another: and if he that judges, judges amiss in his own, or any other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of mankind.

Step back from the parroting for a minute and think about this. Government is nothing more than men and women who carry out roles. HOW are men and women all of a sudden unbiased if they work for the government? They're not. They're still human and still operate like humans. They can either carry themselves in an objective manner or not and most people do NOT.

So to paraphrase, we submit to the government only to the extent that it will grant us greater justice than we are able to gain without government in nature. The purpose of the government is to avoid every man becoming a tyrant. But if the leaders of the government should become tyrants, that should even be worse as they would be commanding a multitude.

What's with the "we"? I don't consent to be governed, maybe you missed that. Maybe you haven't noticed how the court system works. Simply put, it's parasitic. It creates crimes out of nothing. It also forces you to participate even if you don't consent to being governed. How on earth could every man become a tyrant? You would have no subjects if every one was a tyrant. You're last sentence is on the mark and we wouldn't be in this mess if a bunch of mason's hadn't forced government on their fellow men living in this land.

Has this government become a tyranny? Of course. Have they been tyrannical for some time, even before 9/11? Yes. I used 9/11 as an example of how the LAW was being changed to cheat the people out of their natural rights; and how this law was not proper as it ran afoul of the Constitution.

You need to go read the Lysander Spooner link that I pasted. The Constitution has NO authority. The people who wrote it have no authority to impose it upon me or any one else.

I don't want to make the Constitution seem human. It is only a system of laws. Our government leaders have failed to uphold those laws and must be held to answer.  But I do not think that confusion and disorder is preferable to a system of laws. Even the simplest board game follows a set of rules. The rules are set down in writing because the game would not work without them.

A lack of laws does not mean confusion and disorder. It simply means a lack of SOME ONE ELSE, telling you how to live. Those who behave as they are trained are nothing more than slaves.

We use things in common and so consent to rules governing their use. The roads serve to make life convenient and must be kept safe. How best to accomplish this? A minimal standard of driving skill, and occasionally testing for blindness. Paying for the operation of this system. Anyone is free to drive out in nature on their own property without a license, but once he gets on the public road he submits to the laws governing the road. If he does not like the laws, he can walk freely on the road or take a bus.

I don't consent to some one else having authority over me period. Roads aren't safe just because there are driver's tests. I bet more people have accidents with licenses than with out. Licenses aren't even REQUIRED unless you are engaged in commerce, how's that for lying and pushing rules on people to whom they don't even apply??  "Driving" is an act of commerce, look it up in black's law dictionary. Traveling in an automobile is not a commerce activity but cops will still rob, cage, or kill you if they catch you w/o registration and all the crap required for "driving" because that's how the lying scumbag lawyers trained them. Just like the lawyers have trained the public to THINK that using a car requires a commercial license. Your lack of comprehension on this matter is disgusting. "Don't like the laws you can walk". Fuck that. Who gave any one else authority to tell me how I can or can't live my life?? I sure don't consent to this system of laws. Most of them don't even apply to the common person but they're too STUPID to know any better because it's how they were raised. If you think these "laws" apply to someone who doesn't consent then you've got another thing coming.

Supporting the Constitution really comes down to a baby & bathwater argument. The powers that be are attempting to enslave us and to kill some of us "useless eaters".  They are acting outside of the law, and outside of the Constitution and are by Locke's terms "degenerate" as they have "quit the principles of human nature".  The Constitution and the Common Law have remedies, and it remains to be seen whether we have the courage to see that the law is enforced.  But if these scoundrels are removed from office and punished, are we to do away with all of our laws as well? And replace them with what?

[/quote][/quote]

They've already enslaved you, they just want to tighten up the collar a little more. I've got remedies that will never leave my side, they're called .45acp, 7.62x54r, and .30-06. Oh wait, maybe these slavers will ban my remedies next. I guess I'll just have to listen to them. bahaha yeh right!  :lol:

[Jenny Lake]

Isn't this about instituting a Moral System? I guess at bottom the points of view are based on whether or not the people of the land wish to stay together as a nation or divide --secede, revert to State's Rights, or create new states or bind together for some type of protection and sovereignty. It seems to me that the Consitution was a good start and that the systematic attaching of riders and provisos and lot of other gunk from clever lawyers has stripped the ideological basis of its creation. People who support it do so for the value perceived in it as a Moral System.

Beyond that, the weakest possible state that an individual can be in is one of Hate. Binding in shared hatred is the lowest expression. What we need is tough Love. Really really tough.

[Jenny Lake]

page 42 of Beyond Freedom and Dignity, B.F.Skinner, 1971]
"Man's struggle for freedom is not due to a will to be free, but to certain behavioral processes characteristic of the human organism, the chief effect of which is the avoidance of or escape from so-called "aversive" features of the environment. Physical and biological technologies have been mainly concerned with natural aversive stimuli; the struggle for freedom is concerned with stimuli arranged by other people. The literature of freedom has identified the other people and has proposed ways of escaping from them or weakening or destroying their power. It has been successful in reducing the aversive stimuli used in intentional control, but it has made the mistake of defining freedom in terms of states of mind or feelings, and it has therefore not been able to deal effectively with techniques of control which do not breed escape or revolt but nevertheless have aversive consequences. It has been forced to brand all control as wrong and to misrepresent many of the advantages to be gained from a social environment. It is unprepared for the next step, which is not to free men from control but to analyze and change the kinds of control to which they are exposed."
 

Skinner worked for Army Intel. This is his summary of chapter 1. Our handlers know that avoiding our aversions is really what we want and anyone who defends our perceptions of being threatened by over-control will get support. I really detested this book the first time I read it, but now I see the strategy there.

[Christopher Marlowe]

Isn't this about instituting a Moral System? I guess at bottom the points of view are based on whether or not the people of the land wish to stay together as a nation or divide --secede, revert to State's Rights, or create new states or bind together for some type of protection and sovereignty. It seems to me that the Consitution [sic] was a good start and that the systematic attaching of riders and provisos and lot of other gunk from clever lawyers has stripped the ideological basis of its creation. People who support it do so for the value perceived in it as a Moral System....Beyond that, the weakest possible state that an individual can be in is one of Hate. Binding in shared hatred is the lowest expression. What we need is tough Love. Really really tough.

Yes. These discussions of Moral Systems, and dividing/binding seem to always go back to the same ones put forth in the Civil War. The site Jai Mann referenced above had some essays that appear to have been written by a guy who was really pissed off about the war between the states. And who can blame him. Technically, I could argue that the South had the right to secede and that Lincoln was acting like a tyrant.  

What makes the argument difficult is when you see that the South wanted to perpetuate the Slavery economic system. IMHO, Slavery is really bad because it is a sin against God and nature. Also, there is a lot of evidence that the Rothschilds, in the person of their agent Judah Benjamin, were behind the whole enterprise of secession.  If Lincoln KNEW that the Rothschilds were splitting up the US, then he might be more easily forgiven for fighting that war. Of course, you might wonder why Lincoln didn't speak openly of the Rothschilds...  I can't make my mind up about that guy. Was he a man like the Henry Fonda version, or the sic semper tyrannis type?

The fellow in the above referenced site said that the South should have been allowed to secede, and that the enforcement of the law was a pretense.  He suggests that the North could have proven its true belief by restraint and allowing the South to secede.

If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result. It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them.

I don't know if Mr. Spooner really gives a fair presentation of the options available. Slavery could not have been stopped by the Congress. Dred v. Scott said that preventing slavery in federal territories was a deprivation of the slave holders 5th amendment right to property. (Because the slaves were their "property".  WTF?)  So beyond the obvious political impossibility of ever having the Senate vote to ban slavery in the Union, it seems that Congress did even not have this power.  

What Mr. Spooner might be saying is that the Union could have let the Southern States secede, and then refused to aid in the capture or return of any escaped slaves.  Perhaps he was right that Slavery would not have been able to continue under those circumstances. That might have been the better solution. I don't know if he is correct to say that "slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once".  

I read a book that said the civil war was created when the Constitution was signed because the institution of slavery had been incorporated into that document.  The Document had an inherent contradiction similar to the programming conflict in Hal9000 and would similarly express itself ultimately in violence. The Constitution asked us to believe that men are endowed with "the blessings of liberty" by our creator, but at the same time stated that some men were property owned by other men. I do not know what rational power could allow men to accept this contradiction, but at its heart it is an IMMORAL system and thus bound to conflict and failure.

The literature of freedom has identified the other people and has proposed ways of escaping from them or weakening or destroying their power. It has been successful in reducing the aversive stimuli used in intentional control, but it has made the mistake of defining freedom in terms of states of mind or feelings, and it has therefore not been able to deal effectively with techniques of control which do not breed escape or revolt but nevertheless have aversive consequences. It has been forced to brand all control as wrong and to misrepresent many of the advantages to be gained from a social environment. It is unprepared for the next step, which is not to free men from control but to analyze and change the kinds of control to which they are exposed.

Excellent quote.  This seems to be bang on as a summary of my conversation with Jai mann.  
Me: Governments can be Moral institutions;
Jai: Governments are inherently tyrannical institutions run by liars and thieves.  

I think my preference for the Articles of Confederation stems from my belief that the Articles are less controlling than the Constitution. I think humans should not have any more control over other humans than is absolutely necessary.  People have a tendency to abuse their power.

[Jenny Lake]

Cohesion can be had with out legal fictions. Cohesion can be had by threats. Let's keep in mind what these SOBs have laid out as their means of manipulating the population through contrived threats. Well, the more people that understand that these talmudists doing such things are an enemy, the more they will act in a cohesive manner against them.

jai --you make a very compelling case. I don't really know how I feel about the Constitution as a workable charter, but as far as being in a war I couldn't agree more. Only this guy from Subverted Nation is on overload. He's on a level of existence that I can't relate to, though I'd guess there are lots like him. There's a natural confusion going on in that people don't want a revolution --they want their country back! They want honest government. Is there any other example of a nation that has successfully won back their rights after ZOG?....no, I didn't think so. This is totally unfamiliar territory.

[Jenny Lake]

I'm working on getting a perspective based on 'behaviorism' a la B.F.Skinner. The Constitution is being used --maybe what we should be doing is figuring out how it failed and not what's good about it. Then we'd penetrate the illusion of the government we think we have and get to the facts of the government we actually have.
Skinner's 'extinction' theory comes into play. It's suggestive that the reintroduction of the Constitution, which they want eliminated, through 'support the Constitution' propaganda, is a form of emotionalizing us --we respond to it 'rapidly'-- but in the long run, because its not continuously 'applied', we adapt away from the emotionalism with the knowing that the Constitution has been withdrawn. Make sense?
Mr. Subverted Nation knows this. He's not wrong in any sense. But the hate he feels makes about as much sense as a predator hating its prey.