MEGATRENDS: Valley of Wolves    
 Valley of Wolves6 comments
The founding fathers believed that men were inherently corrupt. They believed that absolute power corrupts absolutely so they avoided concentrating too much power into any single individual.

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." --Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821. ME 15:332

"Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction; to wit: by consolidation first and then corruption, its necessary consequence. The engine of consolidation will be the Federal judiciary; the two other branches the corrupting and corrupted instruments." --Thomas Jefferson to Nathaniel Macon, 1821. ME 15:341

"The [federal] judiciary branch is the instrument which, working like gravity, without intermission, is to press us at last into one consolidated mass." --Thomas Jefferson to Archibald Thweat, 1821. ME 15:307

"There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government by the noiseless and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:421

"I wish... to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the Constitution for the limitation of both [the State and General governments], and never to see all offices transferred to Washington where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at market." --Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:450

"What an augmentation of the field for jobbing, speculating, plundering, office-building and office-hunting would be produced by an assumption of all the State powers into the hands of the General Government!" --Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1800. ME 10:168

"I see,... and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by constructions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power... It is but too evident that the three ruling branches of [the Federal government] are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved by them, and to exercise themselves all functions foreign and domestic." --Thomas Jefferson to William Branch Giles, 1825. ME 16:146

"We already see the [judiciary] power, installed for life, responsible to no authority (for impeachment is not even a scare-crow), advancing with a noiseless and steady pace to the great object of consolidation. The foundations are already deeply laid by their decisions for the annihilation of constitutional State rights and the removal of every check, every counterpoise to the engulfing power of which themselves are to make a sovereign part." --Thomas Jefferson to William T. Barry, 1822. ME 15:388

For further quotes supporting the above, see:

[link]


“By that law the several States and Governments spread over our globe, are considered as forming a society, not a NATION. It has only been by a very few comprehensive minds, such as those of Elizabeth and the Fourth Henry, that this last great idea has been even contemplated. 3rdly. and chiefly, I shall examine the important question before us, by the Constitution of the United States, and the legitimate result of that valuable instrument. “

[Chisholm v. Georgia, [link] 2 Dall. (U.S.) 419, 1 L.Ed. 440 (1794)]



By creating such distinct separation of powers among all the forces of government, the founders ensured that the only way anything would get done within government was exclusively by informed consent and not by force or terror. The Declaration of Independence identifies the source of ALL "just" government power as "consent". Anything not consensual is therefore unjust and tyrannical. An informed and sovereign People will only do things voluntarily and consensually when it is in their absolute best interests. This would ensure that government would never engage in anything that wasn't in the best interests of everyone as a whole, because people, at least theoretically, would never consent to anything that would either hurt them or injure their Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court described this kind of government by consent as "government by compact":

“In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state…where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both…In America, however the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact [consent expressed in a written contract called a Constitution or in positive law]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.” [Glass v. The Sloop Betsy, 3 (U.S.) Dall 6]

Here is the legal definition of “compact” to prove our point that the Constitution and all federal law written in furtherance of it are indeed a “compact”:

“Compact, n. An agreement or contract between persons, nations, or states. Commonly applied to working agreements between and among states concerning matters of mutual concern. A contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. A mutual consent of parties concerned respecting some property or right that is the object of the stipulation, or something that is to be done or forborne. See also Compact clause; Confederacy; Interstate compact; Treaty.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 281]

Enacting a mutual agreement into positive law then, becomes the vehicle for expressing the fact that the People collectively agreed and consented to the law and to accept any adverse impact that law might have on their liberty. Public servants then, are just the apparatus that the sovereign People use for governing themselves through the operation of positive law. As the definition above shows, the apparatus and machinery of government is simply the “rudder” that steers the ship, but the "Captain" of the ship is the People both individually and collectively. In a true Republican Form of Government, the REAL government is the people individually and collectively, and not their "public servants".

[link]



HIGHLIGHTS OF AMERICAN LEGAL AND POLITICAL HISTORY:
The Conquering of the American Republic by the U.S. Democracy

Are you ready for your eyes and understanding to be opened so you can see the full extent of how the "American Matrix” shapes everything in your current life?

"None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free."
by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Are you ready to become a “Free” American or do you prefer to continue to live in a blissful slumber within the "American Matrix”? Most Americans ignorantly believe they live in the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave” but they are far from Free and in some ways have less freedoms than most other countries of the world. Here is one simple example: Most International Mutual Funds generate higher annual returns than most United States Mutual Funds so while International Mutual Funds can send information to most any citizen of any country in the world, they are barred by the United States Government from sending information or allowing United States citizen to buy their Mutual Funds.

How did the power- and money-hungry politicians and lawyers and bankers collude to successfully destroy our freedoms and undermine our God-given rights? How did we start out as such a free country and end up being slaves living on a federal plantation? Who did it and when did they do it? What evidence is available to prove each event or popular hypothesis within the freedom community? How much of what you read on the internet about freedom subjects on various websites is actually true? How can we separate patriot myth from verified reality? How much of the government's propaganda can you believe?

To learn the truth, you must study American history stripped of all the media and political spin propaganda that is distorting it. “We the People” must learn that America’s true greatness comes from our origins as a Constitutional Republic. We must learn the significant differences between our original de jure Constitutional Republic, where the people are the masters with government created to serve the people, and the current de facto legislative Democracy, where the government is the master and people are the servants, to understand our “American Birthright”. We can't restore our freedoms and fight an insidious enemy unless we know exactly what we are fighting for and more importantly, what we are fighting against.

[link]



y creating such distinct separation of powers among all the forces of government, the founders ensured that the only way anything would get done within government was exclusively by informed consent and not by force or terror. The Declaration of Independence identifies the source of ALL "just" government power as "consent". Anything not consensual is therefore unjust and tyrannical. An informed and sovereign People will only do things voluntarily and consensually when it is in their absolute best interests. This would ensure that government would never engage in anything that wasn't in the best interests of everyone as a whole, because people, at least theoretically, would never consent to anything that would either hurt them or injure their Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court described this kind of government by consent as "government by compact":

“In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state…where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both…In America, however the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact [consent expressed in a written contract called a Constitution or in positive law]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.” [Glass v. The Sloop Betsy, 3 (U.S.) Dall 6]

Here is the legal definition of “compact” to prove our point that the Constitution and all federal law written in furtherance of it are indeed a “compact”:

“Compact, n. An agreement or contract between persons, nations, or states. Commonly applied to working agreements between and among states concerning matters of mutual concern. A contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. A mutual consent of parties concerned respecting some property or right that is the object of the stipulation, or something that is to be done or forborne. See also Compact clause; Confederacy; Interstate compact; Treaty.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 281]

Enacting a mutual agreement into positive law then, becomes the vehicle for expressing the fact that the People collectively agreed and consented to the law and to accept any adverse impact that law might have on their liberty. Public servants then, are just the apparatus that the sovereign People use for governing themselves through the operation of positive law. As the definition above shows, the apparatus and machinery of government is simply the “rudder” that steers the ship, but the "Captain" of the ship is the People both individually and collectively. In a true Republican Form of Government, the REAL government is the people individually and collectively, and not their "public servants".

[link]


belief
ETYMOLOGY: Middle English bileve, alteration (influenced by bileven, to believe), of Old English gelafa. See leubh- [link] in Appendix I.


belief
Etymology: 12c as bileafe: from Anglo-Saxon geleafa.

belief
c.1175, replaced O.E. geleafa, from W.Gmc. *ga-laubon (cf. O.S. gilobo, M.Du. gelove, O.H.G. giloubo, Ger. glaube), from *galaub- "dear, esteemed." The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c...

faith
c.1250, "duty of fulfilling one's trust," from O.Fr. feid, from L. fides "trust, belief," from root of fidere "to trust," from PIE base *bhidh-/*bhoidh- (cf. Gk. pistis; see bid [link] ). For sense evolution, see belief. Theological sense is from 1382; religions called faiths since c.1300. Faith-healer is from 1885.
[link]


In the 50 years in which we've been engaged in disputes over UFO sightings, one thing has become really clear: that belief and the sense of reality differ in people, that we do not all approach the world in the same manner. I'm sure there are a lot of people in Arizona this morning who refuse to believe this is a weather balloon just as their are equally a number of people who now dismiss the image of the light in the sky in the rationalized explanation of a weather balloon.

What we believe is not about facts, nor is it necessarily about religion. It is about a perspective of reality and an understanding of belief. The topic of belief, especially in the area of such things as UFO's was an area of interest to Dan Noel, PHD who passed away suddenly in August 2002. Dan was a professor in the Mythological Studies Program at Pacifica Graduate Institute.

Dan was working on a book based on what he called, "epistemythology", the mythology of knowing and the mythologies surrounding belief. In a letter republished on the web, Dan provides this explanation of his thoughts on epistemythology:



Epistemythology: A Comment by Daniel Noel

August 30, 2000

To the Editor:

I read with great interest Kevin Sharpe's and Michael Shermer's articles on belief in the July/August issue. There is much to praise in each piece. However, each misses a – perhaps the – fundamental point about the word and concept "belief." It is a factor that is secretly present in almost every current usage of this term, a term that is central to the debate or dialogue between science and religion.

This fundamental point involves the etymology of "belief" and a fateful drift away from that original meaning over the recent centuries of Western history under the influence of the Protestant Reformation and the rise of science. The shift in meaning of this crucial term is itself implicated in a particular modern stance toward the religion-science relationship: what I have been calling an "epistemythology," a cultural mythology about how we validly know, that is driving the credulity/skepticism tandem. Every time we employ the idea and word "belief," consequently, we are to some extent skewing that relationship as per this epistemythology.

How did such a situation come about? -In two books on the discourse of belief published in the late 1970s and reissued two years ago, Believing: An Historical Perspective and Faith and Belief: The Difference Between Them, the late historian of comparative religions Wilfred Cantwell Smith has demonstrated in painstaking detail that ever since the sixteenth century, "belief" has been departing from its original meaning: the etymology of "belief" is actually cognate with belieben (German: "to hold dear") and with libido (Latin: "love, desire"). It meant cherishing, trust, heartfelt loyalty – not at all the propositional claim about objective fact it has come to mean most often today. Nowhere before the Reformation – not in the Bible nor in the early Church Creeds – or away from the West, Smith shows, has this latter meaning been attached to the word. But by now, here, it quite disastrously has.

The implication of Smith's work, along with that of philosopher Peter Harrison in The Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of Natural Science (1998), is clear. Our modern misuse of "belief" has been a futile attempt by Western religion (initially Protestant Christianity) to keep pace with the persuasiveness of science, on what were understood to be science's epistemological terms. It has not worked – because it cannot work. The discourse of "belief" has drawn religion (the study and the practice) into a no-win game with science, an epistemythology most perniciously at work in fundamentalism and in foolish claims and counter-claims about "the paranormal."

This discourse and its ramifications, hidden in the aberrant meaning of a key term, shows up in Kevin Sharpe’s right-minded article as the issue of the "accuracy" of religious beliefs, an issue Sharpe wants to move beyond but must acknowledge as basic to his topic. In Michael Shermer's piece the problematic is partly presupposed – as a self-styled "skeptic" he inhabits the very credulity/skepticism binary that modern belief has created with its wrong-headed epistemythology – and partly implicit. When Shermer asks, at pivotal moments in his essay, "Why do people believe?" he fails to address the implied and more basic corollary question imbedded in the discourse of "belief": "What does doing so entail today?" Nowhere in his book How We Believe, from which his article is adapted, is the etymology of "belief" explored or the work of Cantwell Smith cited, though the epistemythology stirred up by this corrupted word shapes his skeptical conclusions.

In short, neither Sharpe nor Shermer appears to know that the term they are talking about, as we usually presume its use in the modern West, is the dubious semantic result of a problematic history, doomed by its distorted meaning to narrow and thereby devalue the larger nonscientific vision of religious faith each time we speak, hear, write, or read it. Their well-intentioned writing on belief thus misses an opportunity to get at an under-appreciated, perhaps unconscious, obstacle in the current conversation of science and spirit.

Sincerely,

Daniel C. Noel, Ph.D.
Core Faculty-Elect in Mythological Studies
Pacifica Graduate Institute
Carpinteria, California



[link]



[< Back] [MEGATRENDS]


6 comments

3 Jul 2006 @ 03:48 by vaxen : Yah...
perhaps the above is all a bit too much for minds already tired from having to deal with the world as it is. Yet, I do hope that a few, even one or two, might find therein a new hope, a new vision, of what is ours by right. Right includes remedy.

“In Europe, the executive is synonymous with the sovereign power of a state…where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both…In America, however the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact [consent expressed in a written contract called a Constitution or in positive law]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.” [Glass v. The Sloop Betsy, 3 (U.S.) Dall 6]  



3 Jul 2006 @ 06:36 by jobrown : Thanks Vax!
All copied and saved in my private files! Great links too!
// A-d : )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sho nuff, A-d... ;) Thou art welcome.

Here is another 'link' that may be of interest to you. Ka Boom!

http://www.levity.com/  



4 Jul 2006 @ 07:52 by vaxen : Thanks A-d...
Hope you are prepared for the fourth and its' imitation war-fire-works. Don't know what it'll be like in Baldy but in Yasar-El Falastiniim will undoubtedly die... at the hands of the invaders. May peace be their lot some day. All of them...

Thus, the Palestinian president and the other regional and international leaders are in effect asking for the release of the soldier but at the same time for Gazans to prepare themselves for a widespread Israeli invasion. The message is that Palestinians should not resist - they should just wait for the Israelis in their homes, schoolyards and on the streets, ready to die. Palestinians should not defend themselves or defend their children; they simply need to wait to be killed without resistance because any resistance, even if it comes from a victim, is an act of terror.

Meanwhile, Associated Press and Reuters wrote:

"… the soldier's family broke its silence on Monday to plead with his captors to treat him humanely and to remember he has a loving family who misses him dearly. Noam Shalit, in an interview with Associated Press Television, described his son as a quiet, helpful boy who followed his older brother into the military’s armored corps. 'The only thing we have left right now is hope, nothing more,' he said."

Reading these heartbreaking lines pushed me to compare this with what a Palestinian mother had said on Al-Jazeera, following a recent shelling by Israel, when she stated that the very concept of hope has been erased from her consciousness.  



5 Jul 2006 @ 07:03 by jobrown : Oooh s----
It happened again!.... ahhhh well....u just gotta help me out here! : )
Of course, it is faaar after Midnight! hugs/A-d  



5 Jul 2006 @ 07:41 by jobrown : Yes, I can see how
that can be. David Hawkins in his book "Power vs Force" talks extensively about this 'phenomenon';how lifeforms( humans) can be fored to sink in their vibrations ( oftentimes via other people's cruelty), to the point where Hope is ONLY reachable again through what is called "Divine Intervention" (what form the intervention takes, is up to Providence, of course)Apathy is the nastiest vibration to climb out of!...Now, what vibration do you think this woman can be found in today??? ^!^..... yuppp... you got it Babe. we both know... in War ALL people will be victims to Apathy,that is a GIVEN!!!.... Indeed it doesn;tevent ake that much for people to lse Hope and fall into apathy.I would say most Americans today canbe in that particular vibratrion.That is why it is so difficult to stirr them up and get them going! Apathy equals death, guaranteed!
hugs/A-d  



9 Feb 2007 @ 03:49 by douglas @67.35.192.162 : Yahu...
Turkish films about the Iraq ''conflict'' are probably just like every other Turko-Machismo digereedoo ... pink and clouded. Yeah, this is all I need to see; a film about death, death, more death, Turkish ideas of death, heroes, schmeeroes etcetera baglidabus tramps the moron over clouds of yesteryears mourning... reflections of my mind. Just the kind of day to leave myself behind... "Tuesday afternoon."  


Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
Subject:       
Comment:
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:


[< Back] [MEGATRENDS] [PermaLink]?