Sunday, February 10, 2013


'Christian' Holy War on Indians

'Christian' Holy War on Indians

This is not about Jesus or God. It is about corrupt churches, so-called Christians and misguided/misguiding persons.

To white supremacists spewing their self-righteous justification and venomous bile, decrying Indians for expecting treaties to be honored, were it not for those 'christian' missionaries, Indigenous People would still own and control their lands and wouldn't need to beg for subsistence and a fair share of the natural resources needed to exist.

Ayn Rand expressed the ignorant and arrogant sentiments accepted by a far too large segment of the dominant society:

"Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. ... They had no right to a country merely because they were born here... You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. ... But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did."

One of her sociopathic followers recently added to this fanciful tripe:

"The transfer of Western civilization to this continent was one of the great cultural gifts in recorded history, affording Indians almost effortless access to centuries of European accomplishments in philosophy, science, technology, and government. As a result, today's Indians enjoy a capacity for generating health, wealth, and happiness that their Stone Age ancestors could never have conceived.

From a historical perspective, the proper response to such a gift is not resentment but gratitude. America's policies toward the Indians were generally benign, aimed at protecting them from undeserved harm while providing significant material support and encouragement to become civilized."

You can't white wash the blood on your hands, simply by re-labeling conquest and genocide as the "benign" "transfer of Western civilization". John Trudell well expressed reality when he stated

"They are not civilized. That's the big lie. Or, if that is really what 'civilization' is, then the lie is that 'civilization' is good for us as human beings."

Even though one may deny being responsible for the centuries of genocide, virtually all immigrant settlers enjoy benefits and lives of privilege and status that are built on the blood, sweat, tears and bodies of humans sacrificed to their so-called christian ways. The genocide did not end, it continues as long as any people are held captive to colonial institutions and tyrannical governments denying individuals the right of self-determination, sufficient resources for subsistence and independence.

I suggest that if you really believe in Jesus and a higher authority, you should be shaking in your boots for blaspheming them, blaming your murderous ways on 'god's will', manifest destiny.

Let us never forget, after conquering the tribes of Europe, the Holy Roman Church opened new fronts of its war against the Indigenous Peoples of the world.

In 1452, Pope Nicholas issued the Romanus Pontifex, declaring war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioning and promoting the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories.

The Pope directed King of Portugal to "capture, vanquish, and subdue the saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ," to "put them into perpetual slavery," and "to take all their possessions and property."

After Columbus crashed into the 'Americas', this Declaration of War was continued with the Papal Bull of 1493, the Inter Cetera, "granting" to Spain the right to conquer the lands which Columbus had already found, as well as any lands which Spain might "discover" in the future.

Pope Alexander stated his desire that the "discovered" people be "subjugated and brought to the faith itself."

This was followed by El Requerimiento of 1513, which was delivered in Spanish, often from aboard their ships, incomprehensible to any Indians even if within ear shot. The gist of it was, we are ordained by church and God to dominate you. If you resist we kill and/or enslave you and your babies.

“If you do not acknowledge the Church as the ruler and superior of the whole world, and maliciously make delay in it, I certify to you that, with the help of God, we shall powerfully enter into your country, and shall make war against you in all ways and manners that we can, and shall subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their highnesses; we shall take you, and your wives, and your children, and shall make slaves of them, and as such shall sell and dispose of them as their highnesses may command; and we shall take away your goods, and shall do you all the mischief and damage that we can, as to vassals who do not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict him: and we protest that the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this are your fault, and not that of their highnesses, or ours, nor of these cavaliers who come with us.”

The Catholics brought with them mass human sacrifice ceremonies to facilitate the subjugation process.

As reported first hand by Barotolome de Las Casas, a priest turned whistle-blower and contemporary of Columbus, a beam would be placed between two trees or posts and then 13 Indians at a time would be tied high so their feet would dangle above the piles of firewood placed below them then set afire, roasting them alive. When this ceremony was performed, it was not allowed to use 10, 15 or 20 Indians at a time. The strict protocol called for exactly 13 human sacrifices. Why 13? Simple. It was in "honor" of "savior" Jesus and the Twelve Apostles of the Church.

'Christian' human sacrifice ceremony in the "New World"
 13 Indians at a time roasted, in 'honor' of Jesus and the 12 apostles.

On Columbus' return voyage, a colony was established on an island they called Hispaniola (known today as Haiti and the Dominican Republic). Within 2 generations, virtually the entire Indian population was exterminated. Las Casas reported 3 million were wiped out. Other scientists today suggest it may have been closer to 8 million. The Spaniard then had to resort to importing slaves from Africa and Indians captured from the South American mainland to replenish their working class, hence the unusual demographics we see today on that particular island.

Hatuey, one of the chieftains on that island fled the conquistadors. Taking with him his village people numbering over 400, they crossed the open ocean to Cuba in their own canoes. They tried to warn the Indians on Cuba what was coming their way. The Spanish were incensed that anyone would dare reject their 'benevolent' subjugation and civilization, so they launched a manhunt to capture this runaway resistor and make an example of him.

"Hatuey showed the Taíno of Caobana a basket of gold and jewels, saying:

Here is the God the Spaniards worship. For these they fight and kill; for these they persecute us and that is why we have to throw them into the sea... They tell us, these tyrants, that they adore a God of peace and equality, and yet they usurp our land and make us their slaves. They speak to us of an immortal soul and of their eternal rewards and punishments, and yet they rob our belongings, seduce our women, violate our daughters. Incapable of matching us in valor, these cowards cover themselves with iron that our weapons cannot break...

The people of Caobana were of such innocence they could not believe Hatuey's message, and few joined him to fight. Hatuey resorted to guerrilla tactics against the Spaniards, and was able to confine them to their fort at Baracoa. Eventually the Spaniards succeeded in capturing him. On February 2, 1512, he was tied to a stake and burned alive at Yara.

Before he was burned, a priest asked him if he would accept Jesus and go to heaven. La Casas recalled the reaction of the chief:

Hatuey, thinking a little, asked the 'religious' man if Spaniards went to heaven. The 'religious' man answered yes... The chief then said without further thought that he did not want to go there but to hell so as not to be where they were and where he would not see such cruel people."

Hatuey burned at the stake for resisting the 'Christians'

After laying those Islands to waste, the Spaniards set their sights on the mainland. Cortez invading 'Mexico' and de Soto the 'Land of Flowers', Florida.

On invading in 1539, De Soto sent out emissaries demanding the Indians submit to the Spanish church and king, or else. Acuera, in reply, spoke so clearly and with such integrity and strength, the Spanish deemed him to be 'insolent'.

"I have long since learned who you [European Christians] are through others of you who came years ago to my land; and I already know very well what your customs and behavior are like. To me you are professional vagabonds who wander from place to place, gaining your livelihood by robbing, sacking and murdering people who have given you no offense.”

Nothing has changed since, except the genocide, especially in the Protestant British Occupation Zone of the Americas, got much worse.

Americans - The Indigenous Peoples of the Americas

We are still at war, still under attack by European masters and their psychopathic lackeys. To this day, the church has refused to repeal the Papal Bulls of 1452 and 1493 and repudiate the "doctrine of discovery" and 'Christian Manifest Destiny' they gave birth to. The USA has adopted the Catholic decrees as the foundation of its case law in 'dealing with' the Indians, ascribing validity to the 'doctrine of christian discovery'.

White position of privilege is based on plunder and monopolization of resources. Impoverishment of others is an essential part of the program.

“Manufactures [wage workers] are founded in poverty. It is the multitude of poor without land in a country, and who must work for others at low wages or starve, that enables undertakers to carry on a manufacture, and afford it cheap enough to prevent the importation of the same kind from abroad, and to bear the expence of its own exportation. But no man who can have a piece of land of his own, sufficient by his labour to subsist his family in plenty, is poor enough to be a manufacturer and work for a master.” - Benjamin Franklin

Seizure and privatization of the land and natural resources is theft from others as it is a denial of equitable shares in the means of subsistence, without requiring submission and servitude to a master, a landLORD.

"That conclusion may seem harsh, but it is truth.
The edge of extinction does not allow the luxury of mincing words."
- - Dr. Taiaiake Alfred - Kanien'kehaka Oyenko:ohntoh (Mohawk protector)

= = = = = = =
Partial References:

Steve Newcomb videos:
Pagans in 'our' promised land: 
 Part 1:
 Part 2:
'Christian' Doctrine of Discovery:
 Part 1:
 Part 2: Day:
Five Hundred Years of Injustice:

Las Casas, Bartolome. A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies


Why don't you people get a job! cries the jealous wage slave

Get a job? What's that?

"But no man who can have a piece of land of his own, sufficient by his labour to subsist his family in plenty, is poor enough to be a manufacturer [wage worker] and work for a master. "
- Benjamin Franklin

The Strange "Job" Concept

by Frederick Mann 10/6/98


Most people take it for granted that in order to earn the wherewithal to survive, to get ahead in the world, to become accepted and successful in the eyes of family and friends, you have to work, do something useful, produce products and services of value to others, and so forth.

There are of course alternatives. You could become a "professional welfare recipient." Or you could become a professional criminal... or a bureaucrat... or even a politician!

There are two basic ways to obtain the wherewithal to survive. The first is to produce it. The second is to "steal" it. Why work like a slave to produce or provide useful products and services if you can simply "steal" what you need?

Well, you don't "steal" because others might not like it. They might retaliate. They might "steal" back from you. They might even lock you up in jail.

An important phenomenon enters the picture here. Many people produce more than they need to survive. Probably for a variety of reasons. During good seasons you produce extra to set something aside you can live off during lean years. You feel more secure and successful if you've accumulated some capital. You may even want to start your own business. Maybe you want to retire one day and live off your savings.

So many people produce surpluses.

Some people produce large surpluses. For example, because the sun shines, plants use energy from the sun and minerals from the soil to grow, and various human methods can be used to increase production, one farmer can effectively produce enough food to feed 100 people.

The fact that some produce surpluses creates the opportunity for others to "steal" part of the production of producers in ways that enable everyone to survive.

"Stealing" can occur along a scale, spectrum, or continuum, ranging from most crude to most subtle. At the one extreme, you hold someone up at gunpoint or you knock him unconscious or even kill him and take what you want from him. Less crude is to enter someone's home or farm at night or when they're absent and to surreptitiously take what you want.

You can also use all kinds of trickery and deception to defraud your victims. This is what the con artist does.

Or, together with others, you can form a "government" and force people to pay "taxes."

You can be a large property owner and "rent" part of your property to others. They have to work in order to pay you "rent" and you live off the "rent."

Or you can own a factory or other business (you own the means of production) and provide others with "jobs" to work for you. You effectively take part of their production as your "profit." You live off the "profit" and they have to work for a living.

Somewhere along this spectrum, it ceases to be "stealing" and becomes "legitimate enterprise."

To the sneak thief and con artist, it may be "legitimate" as long as you don't perpetrate physical violence against the victim's person.

To the bureaucrat, politician, and their believers and supporters, it's "legitimate" if the violence is only used as a last resort by someone else -- the "policeman" -- out of sight, out of mind?

To some people "property is theft" -- the practice of owning property is a form of "stealing." "Capitalists" who own the means of production are "thieves exploiting the workers."

I'll leave it to the reader to decide where to draw the line between "stealing" and "legitimacy."

The purpose of this article is to examine the "job" concept. There's a specific skill involved in analyzing the "job" concept. I call it "Martian analysis."

The Strange "Job" Concept ["Language creates spooks that get into our heads and hypnotize us." -- Robert Anton Wilson, Introduction to The Tree of Lies (by Christopher S. Hyatt. Ph.D.)]

Suppose a Martian came to Earth to study our economic systems. He soon finds out that on parts of Earth there are millions of people who don't work, because the Earthlings say they have a so-called "unemployment" problem."

To the Martian this is almost incomprehensibly strange. "Why don't the millions of not-working people work at satisfying the needs and wants of the billions with unmet needs and wants?" he asks.

An Earthling explains, "Well, they can't work because they don't have jobs; nobody wants to employ them."

Now the Martian is really flabbergasted, "I've been all over the Universe and studied over a hundred humanoid civilizations. And in all these other civilizations, all that people need in order to work is a brain, one or more eyes, and one or more hands. What else can you possibly need in order to work?"

Earthling: "We must have a job in order to work; someone must employ us; can't you understand something this simple?"

Martian: "No. What kind of a thing is this so-called "job?" Can you show me a "job?" Can you demonstrate to me how it enables someone to work?"

Earthling: "No, you don't understand. A job isn't a thing... it's a... it's a..."

Martian: "Is it perhaps an illusion? I've come across many illusions in the Universe, but this one seems to be one of the strangest of all!"

"And what about this "employment" thing you talk about? What's that?"

Earthling: "Well, you see, in order to work you have to get someone to employ you."

Martian: "This sounds strange. What does someone do to you when he "employ's" you."

Earthling: "He gives you work to do."

Martian: "I don't understand. Everywhere in the Universe I've visited, "work" isn't a thing that can be given; it's an activity, what you do."

Earthling: "It's not that simple. An employer gives you things like a desk, a chair, a computer, and whatever tools you need to do your job."

Martian: "In every part of the Universe I've been, all that people really need in order to work is a brain, one or more eyes, and one or more hands. Surely, people can either make the equipment, tools, or whatever they need to work more efficiently, or they can acquire them through exchange."

Earthling: "But what if everyone in a region is impoverished and there are no wealthy capitalist pig employers to provide tools and equipment?"

Martian: "If you go back far enough in history, you'll get to a time when all humans were poor. How was wealth created in the first place?"

"I'll give you a clue. Your Sun shines. Every day it showers vastly more energy on you than you can possibly use. You enjoy a huge surplus of energy. You can use some of that energy to grow things and much more besides."

"In the rest of the Universe, the first principle of economics is that Energy plus Brain produces Wealth -- provided you produce more than you consume. Because of the huge free surplus energy you get from your Sun every day, anyone and everyone (at least those with functioning brains, eyes, and hands) can produce a surplus and become wealthy."

Earthling: "My mind is spinning! I'll have to think about all this."

Moral: The language you use can have a profound effect on how you perceive the world, how you think about it, and how you act in relation to it.

The "Job"/"Employment" Illusion The words "job" and "employment" and the illusions they engender may have debilitating effects on those who blindly accept them. Here we have an important "Human Failure Program" that plays a major role in keeping people poor and stuck in what they call their "jobs." (Nevertheless, because much economic activity is organized on the basis of so-called "jobs," some of us may have to play the "job" game -- at least temporarily -- to survive and, hopefully, get back on our economic feet.)

The "job"/"employment" illusion has far-reaching implications. Because many people believe they need "jobs" to work gainfully, and "jobs are scarce," their only alternatives seems to be "government handouts" and crime. Jeremy Bentham wrote, "Out of one foolish word may start a thousand daggers." (Bentham's Theory of Fictions by C.K. Ogden.)

From the perspective of the wealthy "employer," it's wonderful that people think they need "jobs" in order to work and they have to come to someone like me to "employ" them. It gives me power over them. It makes me strong and them weak. The more powerful I am, and the weaker they are, the less I have to pay them, and the more I profit!

This isn't a criticism of profit as such. There are many "employers" who do their best to play the business game such that their "employees" enjoy the best benefits possible while keeping the business viable, particularly considering the restrictions and restraints imposed by terrocrats.

Terrocrats (terrorist bureaucrats or coercive political agents) also use the "job"/"employment" illusion extensively to increase their power. In general, they succeed in dominating people by dictating in thousands of ways with a plethora of "laws and regulations" many aspects of "jobs" and "employment."

For many of us seeking greater freedom, one of the first practical steps we need to take might be to escape from the "job"/"employment" trap. To find out how you may be able to do this, subscribe to the Financial Independence List by sending a blank message to: [note - this list is now defunct]

 - -

The bottom line then is, a "job" is nothing more than a green permission slip to work. Until they have extracted what they want, then they issue a pink slip to stop work.Who has authority to decide that? The "minority of the opulent" claim to be so entitled. They claim that they by virtue of their status have the right to decide who will get to eat and who will get eaten. These sociopaths need to be quarantined for the good of humanity and all life on earth. They are nothing but parasitic, tyrannical terrorists whose ego has become pathological. Slavery is not an acceptable condition. They are not entitled to be the master class, lording it over all else.
"Superfluous Property is the Creature of Society. ***  When by virtue of the first Laws Part of the Society accumulated Wealth and grew Powerful, they enacted others more severe, and would protect their Property at the Expence of Humanity. This was abusing their Powers, and commencing a Tyranny."

"the Accumulation therefore of Property in such a Society, and its Security to Individuals in every Society must be an Effect of the Protection afforded to it by the joint Strength of the Society, in the Execution of its Laws; private Property therefore is a Creature of Society and is subject to the Calls of that Society whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing; its Contributions therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered as conferring a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honour and Power; but as the Return of an Obligation previously received or the Payment of a just Debt."
 - Benjamin Franklin

Genocide and ecocide being the fruit of their "free market" fallacy, we as a society must step up and put an end to their reign of terror. The ill-gotten wealth extracted from the producing class must be reclaimed and equitably redistributed and the rules they made that enabled such an unethical redistribution of wealth into the hands of the idle rich must be changed to prevent future harmful aberrations.

Tax the rich - "down to the last farthing!"


Remarks concerning the Savages of North America

Remarks concerning the Savages of North America

From Benjamin Franklin: Remarks Concerning the Savages of North America (unpublished)

Remarks concerning the Savages of North America

Savages we call them, because their Manners differ from ours, which we think the Perfection of Civility. They think the same of theirs.

Perhaps if we could examine the Manners of different Nations with Impartiality, we should find no People so rude as to be without Rules of Politeness, nor any so polite as not to have some Remains of Rudeness

The Indian Men when young are Hunters and Warriors; when old, Counsellors; for all their Government is by Counsel of the Sages; there is no Force there are no Prisons, no Officers to compel Obedience, or inflict Punishment.-Hence they generally study Oratory; the best Speaker having the most Influence. The Indian Women till the Ground, dress the Food, nurse and bring up the Children, & preserve & hand down to Posterity the Memory of public Transactions. These Employments of Men and Women are accounted natural & honorable, Having few artificial Wants, they have abundance of Leisure for Improvement by Conversation. Our laborious Manner of Life compar’d with theirs, they esteem slavish & base; and the Learning on which we value ourselves, they regard as frivolous & useless. An Instance of this occurr’d at the Treaty of Lancaster in Pensilvania, anno 1744, between the Government of Virginia and the Six Nations. After the principal Business was settled, the Commissioners from Virginia acquainted the Indians by a Speech, that there was at Williamsburg a College, with a Fund for Educating Indian youth; and that if the Six Nations would send down half a dozen of their young Lads to that College, the Government would take Care that they should be well provided for, and instructed in all the Learning of the White People. It is one of the Indian Rules of Politeness not to answer a public Proposition the same day that it is made; they think it would be treating it as a light matter, and that they show it Respect by taking time to consider it, as of a Matter important. They therefore deferr’d their Answer till the Day following; when their Speaker began by expressing their deep Sense of the Kindness of the Virginia Government in making them that Offer, for we know, says he, that you highly esteem the kind of Learning taught in those Colleges, and that the Maintenance of our young Men while with you, would be very expensive to you. We are convinc’d therefore that you mean to do us Good by your Proposal, and we thank you heartily. But you who are wise must know, that different Nations have different Conceptions of Things, and you will therefore not take it amiss if our Ideas of this kind of Education happen not to be the same with yours. We have had some Experience of it: Several of our young People were formerly brought up at the Colleges of the Northern Provinces; they were instructed in all your Sciences; but when they came back to us they were bad Runners ignorant of every means of living in the Woods, unable to bear either Cold or Hunger, knew neither how to build a Cabin, take a Deer or kill an Enemy, spoke our Language imperfectly, were therefore neither fit for Hunters Warriors, or Counsellors, they were totally good for nothing. We are however not the less oblig’d by your kind Offer tho’ we decline accepting it; and to show our grateful Sense of it, if the Gentlemen of Virginia will send us a Dozen of their Sons, we will take great Care of their Education, instruct them in all we know, and make Men of them.-

Having frequent Occasions to hold public Councils, they have acquired great Order and Decency in conducting them. The old Men sit in the foremost Ranks, the Warriors in the next, and the Women & Children in the hindmost. The Business of the Women is to take exact Notice of what passes, imprint it in their Memories, for they have no Writing, and communicate it to their Children. They are the Records of the Councils, and they preserve Traditions of the Stipulations in Treaties 100 Years back, which when we compare with our Writings we always find exact. He that would speak rises. The rest observe a profound Silence. When he has finish’d and sits down; they leave him 5 or 6 Minutes to recollect, that if he has omitted any thing he intended to say, or has any thing to add, he may rise again and deliver it. To interrupt another, even in common Conversation, is reckon’d highly indecent. How different this is, from the Conduct of a polite British House of Commons where scarce every person without some confusion, that makes the Speaker hoarse in calling to Order and how different from the Mode of Conversation in many polite Companies of Europe, where if you do not deliver your Sentence with great Rapidity, you are cut off in the middle of it by the Impatients Loquacity of those you converse with, and never suffer’d to finish it-

The Politeness of the Savages in Conversation is indeed carried to Excess, since it does not permit them to contradict or deny the Truth of what is asserted in their Presence; By this means they indeed avoid Disputes, but then it becomes difficult to know their Minds, or what Impression you make upon them. The Missionaries who have attempted to convert them to Christianity, all complain of this as one of the great difficulties of their Mission: The Indians hear with Patience the Truths of the Gospel explain’d to them, and give their usual Tokens of Assent & Approbation: You would think they were convinc’d. No such Matter. It is mere Civility. A Suedish Minister, having assembled the Chiefs of the Saquehanah Indians, made a Sermon to them, acquainting them with the principal historical Facts on which our Religion is founded, such as the Fall of our first Parents by eating an Apple; the Coming of Christ, to repair the Mischief; his Miracles & Suffering, &c. When he had finished, an Indian Orator stood up to thank him. What you have told us, says he, is all very good. It is indeed a bad Thing to eat Apples. It is better to make them all into Cyder. We are much oblig’d by your Kindness in coming so far to tell us these Things which you have heard from your Mothers; in return I will tell you some of those we have heard from ours. In the Beginning our Fathers had only the Flesh of Animals to subsist on, and if their Hunting was unsuccessful, they were starving. Two of our young Hunters having kill’d a Deer, made a Fire in the Woods to broil some Part of it. When they were about to satisfy their Hunger, they beheld a beautiful young Woman descend from the Clouds, and seat herself on that Hill which you see yonder among the blue Mountains. They said to each other, It is a Spirit that perhaps has smelt our broiling Venison & wishes to eat of it: Let us offer some to her. They presented her with the Tongue, She was pleas’d with the Taste of it, and said, Your Kindness shall be rewarded: Come to this Place after thirteen Moons, and you shall find something that will be of great Benefit in nourishing you and your Children to the latest Generations. They did so, and to their Surprise found Plants they had never seen before, but which from that antique time have been instantly cultivated among us to our great Advantage. Where her right Hand had touch’d the Ground they found Maize; Where her left hand had touch’d it, they found Kidney Beans, and where her Backside had rested on it, they found Tobacco.-The good Missionary disgusted with this idle Tale, said, What I delivered to you were sacred Truths, but what you tell me is mere Fable, Fiction and Falshood. The Indian offended, reply’d, My Brother, it seems your Friends have not done you Justice in your Education, they have not well instructed you in the Rules of common Civility. You saw that we who understand and practise those Rules, believ’d all your Stories: Why do you refuse to believe ours?- [interleaved is a sheet with no writing, but a sketch of what appears to be a hot air balloon]

When any of them come into our Towns, our People are apt to croud round them, gaze upon them, & incommode them where they desire to be private; this they esteem great Rudeness, the Effect of & Want of Instruction in the Rules of Civility & good Manners. We have, say they, as much Curiosity as you, and when you come into our Towns, we wish for Opportunities of looking at you; but for this purpose we hide our Selves behind Bushes where you are to pass, and never intrude ourselves into your Company.-

Their Manner of entring one anothers villages has likewise its Rules. It is reckon’d uncivil in travelling Strangers to enter a Village abruptly, without giving Notice of their Approach. Therefore as soon as they arrive within Hearing, they stop & hollow, remaining there till invited to enter. Two old Men usually come out to them, and lead them in. There is in every Village a vacant Dwelling called the Strangers House. Here they are plac’d, while the old Men go round from Hut to Hut, acquainting the Inhabitants that Strangers are arriv’d who are probably hungry & weary; and every one sends them what he can spare of Victuals & Skins to repose on. When the Strangers are refresh’d, Pipes & Tobacco are brought, and then, but not before, Conversation begins, with Enquiries who they are, whither bound, what News, &c. and it usually ends with Offers of Service if the Strangers have occasion of Guides or any Necessaries for continuing their Journey, and nothing is exacted for the Entertainment.

The same Hospitality esteem’d among them as a principal Virtue, is practic’d by private Persons, of which Conrad Weiser, our Interpreter gave me the following Instance. He had been naturaliz’d among the Six Nations, & spoke well the Mohock Language. In going thro’ the Indian Country to carry a Message from our Governor to the Council at Onondaga, he call’d at the Habitation of Canasetego an old Acquaintance, who embrac’d him, spread Furs for him to sit on, plaid before him some boil’d Beans & Venison, and mix’d some Rum & Water for his Drink. When he was well refresh’d, and had lit his Pipe, Canassetego began to converse with him, ask’d how he had fard the many Years since they had seen each other, whence he then came, what occasion’d the Journey, &c. &c. Conrad answer’d all his Questions, & when the Discourse began to flag, the Indian to continue it, said, Conrad, you have lived long among the white People and know something of their Customs. I have been sometimes at Albany, and have observed that once in Seven Days they shut up their Shops, and assemble all in the great House; tell me, what is it for? what do they do there?-They meet there, says Conrad, to hear and learn good Things. I do not doubt says the Indian, that they tell you so: They have told me the same; But I doubt the Truth of what they say, and I will tell you my Reasons. I was lately to Albany to sell my Skins, & buy Blankets, Knives, Powder &c Rum &c You know I us’d generally to deal with Hans Hanson, but I was a little inclin’d this time to try some other Merchant; however, I call’d first upon Hans, & ask’d him what he would give for Beaver. He said he could not give more than four Shillings a Pound; but says he I cannot talk on Business now; this is the Day when we meet together to learn good Things, and I am going to the Meeting. So I thought to my self, since we cannot do any Business to day, I may as well go to the Meeting too; and I went with him. There stood up a Man in Black, and began to talk to the People very angrily. I did not understand what he said; but perceiving that he look’d much at me, and at Hanson, I imagin’d he was angry at seeing me there, so I went out, sat down near the House, struck Fire and lit my Pipe, waiting till the Meeting should break up. I thought too that the Man had mention’d something of Beaver, & I suspected it might be the Subject of their Making. so when they came out, I accosted my Merchant, Well, Hans, says I, I hope you have agreed to give more than four Shillings a Pound. No, says he, I cannot give so much; I cannot give more than three shillings & sixpence. I then spoke to several other Dealers, but they all sung the same Song. Three & sixpence, Three & sixpence. This made it clear to me that my Suspicion was right; and that whatever they pretended of meeting to learn Good Things, the real purpose was to consult how to cheat Indians on the Price of Beaver. Consider but a little, Conrad, and you must be of my Opinion. If they met so often to learn Good Things, they would certainly have learnt some before this time. But they are still ignorant. You know our Practice. If a white Man in travelling thro’ our Country, enters one of our Cabins, we all treat him as I treat you; we dry him if he is wet, we warm him if he is cold, we give him Meat & Drinks that he may allay his Thirst and Hunger, and spread soft Furs for him to rest & sleep on: We demand nothing in return. But if I go into a white Man’s House at Albany, and ask for Victuals & Drink, they say, where is your Money? and if I have none; they say, Get out you Indian Dog. You see they have not yet learnt those little Good Things, that we need no Meetings to be instructed in, because our Mothers taught them to us when we were Children: And therefore, it is impossible their Meeting, Should be as they say, for any such purpose, or have any such Effect. They are only to contrive the Cheating of Indians in the Price of Beaver.-

Additional information on the culture clash:


The Creation of the Negro (Necro) - Origin of the term

The Creation of the Negro (Necro) - Origin of the term

The Creation of the Negro (Necro) by Dr. Na'im Akbar, Ph.D.

“Negro” is a very interesting word because, first of all, it comes form a Greek origin meaning something that is dead. Negro comes from the same origin as “necro” and “nekro.” In Greek there is no difference between these words. Some wise and devious white scholar knew what he was saying when he decided to call black people Negro (or necro). If the originator of this concept had been using the Latin or Spanish origin, as is often suggested, he would have called himself blanco, which means white. He did not call himself blanco; he called himself “white” and he called black people Negro, likely meaning necro. There is a semantic message hidden in this word and it seems that it might lie in its Greek origin intending to describe the Black person as a “dead substance.” The manifestation of the distorted African self found in the characteristics of the “Negro” is something that stands as a barrier to the real expression and real essence of the African person. The “necro” refers to a mentally, socially and culturally dead person.

One of the ways that human beings are able to maintain a conception of themselves and maintain their mental life is through the maintenance of certain self-affirming institutions. People, therefore, have spiritual celebrations, rituals, memorials, museums, books, monuments and all kinds of things to reaffirm their group definition. They constantly reaffirm and celebrate what this inner core is all about. Europeans and all mentally alive people do it.

People of Western Culture repeatedly reaffirm the inner core of themselves as distinct individuals motivated by this sexual and aggressive drive that we discussed above. Their major holidays and monuments either commemorate a war or celebrate a day of significance by either symbolic or actual celebration of these carnal animal drives. The noblest of all their holidays – Christmas – is notorious for its drunkenness, high death rate, and adulterous office parties. Even Thanksgiving is commonly  depicted showing a Pilgrim with a musket in hand. America and Europe celebrate their violent tendencies and the heroism of effective killers in their history. The independence of America is commemorated by celebrating the American Revolution. Fireworks, dramatize “the rockets’ red flare and the bombs bursting in air.”

Such institutions reaffirm the basic mentality of the Caucasian. This stands in contrast to the preponderance of religious monuments and holidays found throughout the Asiatic and African world. We assume that such a warlike disposition is the basic nature of all people. It is important to understand that the Black American and other Blacks around the world have been subjected to the Caucasian institutions and their mentality. This subjugation accounts for most of the similarities between Western and African/Asiatic cultures in this respect. Indigenous people around the world find their highest celebrations to be of qualities of beauty and power in nature and in the celebration of spiritually accomplished human beings.

The slavery experience destroyed the Black Americans’ institutions; therefore, we lost those mechanisms for reaffirming this inner core of who and what we are. The disposition has remained, however. In any of those cultural forms that were adjudged innocuous and left intact, we can see evidence of that inner self-seeking expression. The prominence of traditional religious patterns despite the imposed images and concepts of European Christianity reflects the African person’s preoccupation and desire for the Divine.

The social life reflected in the song and dance of black culture show a yearning for togetherness instead of individuality, which is the prevailing ethos of the Western mentality. Surprisingly these African patterns have been maintained by the inert “Negro” (necro) who could only imitate and react but had lost the power to initiate. The activities of the real inner life were always limited because of the absence of cultural activities to stimulate the inner life of the African person. The real self-remained encapsulated in the “Negro” disposition that could only imitate the European American patterns that fed it. The real African self was made to seem as unnatural to Black people, as did our black skin; even when his latent disposition surfaced, the inert Negro attempted to counteract it.

The slavery experience was destructive to the historical identity of African people. The repeated separation of mothers and children and the loss of language, culture, and natural religion worked to depose the real African self. Another process that occurred in quieting the influence of the African self is similar to the hypnosis or trance induction that comes from hyper-stimulation. This means that if you put people under enough physiological stress, at the same time removing from them vehicles by which they can transcend those physical stresses, then those people are left psychologically vulnerable and exposed.

The slavery trauma was obviously such a hyper stimulating event. If you were suddenly exposed to excessively loud music and flashing lights, the hyper stimulation would soon dull your sensitivities until you entered a trance-like state. Excessive pain has been shown to result in coma or shock. Physiological psychologists have been able to show that hyper stimulation leads to hypnosis or a trancelike state. Such a trance-like state makes a person thoroughly suggestible to whatever kind of input happens to be present. The result is that the person is only able to react. The Negro has been a ble only to react. The Negro adopts the issues and behaviors fed to him by the world of his captors. Hypnotized by the trauma of slavery and the horrors of his neo-slavery experience, he is only able to react rather than being able to act in terms of his self-survival mechanism.

It is awareness of the inner self that makes people operate in their own self-interest. It is awareness and consciousness of this inner and extended self that transcends the individual ego. It is this inner being that reaches back to the very African essence of us that energizes and motivates the African person with self-preservative and self-maintaining activities. This “Negro” fabrication has made African people self-destructive. It has, in fact, made us contradict the realities of who we are. Black people have become much more interested in the survival of those enemy forces acting against us than we are in the survival of ourselves. Too often, we find ourselves much more oriented towards the physical and philosophical maintenance of an alien people than we are committed to the affirmation and expression of our true self. Because the authentic “Original Man” has been hypnotized by hyper stimulation, the Negro manifestation becomes thoroughly manipulable, conditionable, and responds  directly to whatever input happens to come in from without.

From the paper “African Roots of Black Personality” (1979), Concepts of African Personality, Akbar Papers in
African Psychology, pp. 99-104


Self-determination - Governance by consent

Governance by consent and other Indigenous life ways

Exceptional excerpts:
The consensus process:
"It is in the nature of traditional indigenous political systems that power is not centralized, that compliance with authority is not coerced but voluntary, and that decision-making requires consensus.  (In practice, these principles mean that contention is almost a natural state in indigenous politics!)  Because traditional systems are predicated on the ideal of harmony and the promotion of an egalitarian consensus though persuasion and debate, leaders must work through the diverse opinions and ideas that exist in any community; because there is both an inherent respect for the autonomy of the individual and a demand for general agreement, leadership is an exercise in patient persuasion. Thus active disagreement is a sign of health in a traditional system: it means the people are engaging their leaders and challenging them to prove the righteousness of their position.  It means that are making them accountable.  In an indigenous conception of accountability, then, the question 'Who do you answer to?' seems to have literal meaning."

From: Abuse of Power:
"One reason we have lost our way is that the materialistic mainstream value system has blinded us to the subtle beauty of indigenous systems founded on profound respect for balance. Without that respect, the system fails. We must reorient our societies to provide leaders with a basis for conduct rooted in indigenous culture, to restore--bring back to life--traditional political cultures by abandoning the structures imposed on us, and exorcising the attitudes, beliefs, and values that perpetuate our colonization"

From: Re-empowerment:
"The problem is that at present Native politics is still understood and practised in the context of the law as structured by the state. Within this context, the state has nothing to fear from Native leaders, for even if they succeed in achieving the goal of self-government, the basic power structure remains intact. From the perspective of the state, marginal losses of control are the trade-off for the ultimate preservation of the framework of dominance. ... We must deconstruct the notion of state power to allow people to see that the settler state has no right to determine indigenous futures."

From: 'Sovereignty'--An Inappropriate Concept:
"The concept of sovereignty as Native leaders have constructed it thus far is incompatible with traditional indigenous notions of power... In fact, most of the current generation of Native politicians see politics as a zero-sum contest for power--just the way non-indigenous politicians do.
There is real danger in the assumption that sovereignty is the appropriate model for indigenous governance. The Canadian scholars Menno Boldt and Tony Long have described that danger in the context of their work among the Blood and Peigan peoples:
'by adopting the European-Western ideology of sovereignty, the current generation of Indian leaders is buttressing the imposed alien authority structures within its communities, and is legitimizing the associated hierarchy comprised of indigenous political and bureaucratic elites. This endorsement of hierarchical authority and a ruling entity constitutes a complete rupture with traditional indigenous principles.'"

From:  Self-conscious Traditionalism:
"The imposition of labels and definitions of identity on indigenous people has been a central feature of the colonization process from the start.  Thus another fundamental task facing Native communities is to overcome the racial, territorial and 'status' divisions that have become features of the political landscape.  Factions and conflicts based on divisions between 'status versus non-status', 'enrolled versus non-enrolled', or 'on-reserve versus urban' arise because our communities are still subject to outside controls.  The practice of dividing Native people according to their status in the colonial law opposes the basic tenets of all indigenous philosophies.  The extent to which these divisions continue to characterize Native communities indicates how deeply people have internalized the colonial mindset.

Who is indigenous?  To have any value in promoting recovery from colonialism, the answer to this question must respect the integrity of indigenous nations and their traditions, and must reject the divisive categories defined by the state.  Neither the cold linearity of blood quantum nor the tortured weakness of self-identification--both systems designed and currently validated by the state--can sustain indigenous nations.  When it comes to resolving questions of indigenous identity and determining membership, we ought to recognize the simple truth that indigenous nations are communities of human beings, and that as such they have the right to determine for themselves who they are.  So there are no theoretical restrictions to the collective definitions that may be put forward by individual communities.  The problem is that indigenous peoples are engaged with the state in a complex relationship in which there are varying degrees of interdependency at play, and history has created a range of definitions where formerly there were only those securely and collectively held by the communities themselves.  In the old days, having an identity crisis meant that you couldn't find the spirit or ancestor living inside you.  The strength of indigenous societies at the time, and the clarity of the cultural boundaries between them, meant that people didn't have to think about their group affiliation--much less whether or not they were truly 'Indian'.  But the breakdown of those traditional societies created in all Native people--even those consciously seeking recovery--many questions about belonging."

From "Peace, Power and Righteousness - an indigenous manifesto" by Taiaiake Alfred (1999)  - A revised 2nd edition was released in 2009. with more illuminated, evolved understanding.


Franklin on Property, unjust wars and enslavement of soldiers

Franklin on Property, unjust wars and enslavement of soldiers

Letter to Benjamin Vaughan (unpublished) - Passy,  March 1r. 1785

My dear Friend

Among the Pamphlets you lately sent me, was one intitled Thoughts on Executive Justice. In return for that I send you a French one on the same Subject, Observations concernant l’Execution de l’Article II de la Declaration sur le Vol. They are both address’d to the Judges, but written as you will see in a very different Spirit. The English Author is for hanging all Thieves. The Frenchman is for proportioning punishments to Offences.

If we really believe, as we profess to believe, that the Law of Moses was the Law of God, the Dictate of divine Wisdom infinitely superior to human, on what Principles do we ordain Death at the Punishment of an Offense, which according to that Law was to be punish’d by a Restitution of Fourfold? To put a Man to Death for an Offence which does not deserve Death, is it not Murder? And, as the French Writer says, Doit-on punir un délit contre la société, par un crime contre la nature?

Superfluous Property is the Creature of Society. Simple and mild Laws were sufficient to guard the Property that was merely necessary. The Savage’s Bow, his Hatchet, and his Coat of Skins, were sufficiently secured without Law by the Fear of personal Resentment and Retaliation. When by virtue of the first Laws Part of the Society accumulated Wealth and grew Powerful, they enacted others more severe, and would protect their Property at the Expence of Humanity. This was abusing their Powers, and commencing a Tyranny. If a Savage before he enter’d into Society had been told, Your Neighbour by this Means may become Owner of 100 Deer, but if your Brother, or your Son, or yourself, having no Deer of your own, and being hungry should kill one of them, an infamous Death must be the Consequence; he would probably have prefer’d his Liberty, and his common Right of killing any Deer, to all the Advantages of Society that might be propos’d to him.

That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape, than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approv’d, never that I know of controverted. Even the sanguinary Author of the Thoughts agrees to it page 163, adding well, that “the very Thought of injured Innocence, and much more that of suffering Innocence, must awaken all our tenderest and most compassionate Feelings, and at the same time raise our highest Indignation against the Instruments of it.” But, he adds, there is no Danger of either from a strict Adherence to the Laws.” Really? Is it then impossible to make an unjust Law? And if the Law it self be unjust, may it not be the very “Instrument” which ought to “raise the Author’s, and every body’s, highest Indignation.” I read in the last Newspaper from London, that a Woman is capitally convicted at the Old Bailey for privately stealing out of a Shop some Gause value 14 Shillings and threepence. Is there any Proportion between the Injury done by a Theft value 14s. 3d., and the Punishment of a human Creature by Death on a Gibbet? Might not that Woman by her Labour have made the Reparation ordain’d by God, in paying four-fold? Is not all Punishment inflicted beyond the Merit of the Offence, so much Punishment of Innocence? In this light, how vast is the annual Quantity of not only injured but suffering Innocence, in almost all the civilized States of Europe!

But it seems to have been thought that this kind of Innocence may be punish’d by way of preventing Crimes. I have read indeed of a cruel Turk in Barbary, who whenever he bought a new Christian Slave, ordered him immediately to be hung up by the Legs and to receive an 100 Blows of a Cudgel on the Soles of his Feet, that the severe Sense of the Punishment, and Fear of incurring it thereafter, might prevent the Faults that should merit it. Our Author himself would hardly approve entirely of this Turk’s Conduct in the Government of Slaves, and yet he appears to recommend something like it for the government of English Subjects, when he applauds, Page 105, the Reply of Judge Burnet to the convict Horsestealer, who being ask’d what he had to say why Judgment of Death should not pass against him, and answering that it was hard to hang a Man for only stealing a Horse, was told by the Judge, “Man thou are not to be hang’d only for stealing a Horse, but that Horses may not be stolen.” The Man’s Answer, if candidly examin’d, will I imagine, appear reasonable, as being founded on the Eternal Principle of Justice and Equity, that Punishments should be proportion’d to Offences: and the Judge’s Reply brutal and unreasonable; tho’ the Writer wishes all Judges to carry it with them whenever they go the Circuit, and to bear it in their Minds, as containing a wise Reason for all the penal Statutes which they are called upon to put in Execution: “it at once illustrates, says he, the true Grounds and Reasons of all capital Punishments whatsoever, namely, that every man’s Property as well as his Life, may be held sacred and inviolate.” Is there then no difference in Value between Property and Life? If I think it right that the Crime of Murder should be punished with Death, not only as an equal Punishment of the Crime, but to prevent other Murders, does it follow that I must approve of inflicting the same Punishment for a little Invasion of my Property by Theft? If I am not myself so barbarous, so bloody-minded and revengeful, as to kill a Fellow Creature for stealing from me 14s. 3d., how can I approve of a Law that does it? Montesquieu, who was himself a Judge, endeavours to impress other Maxims; he must have known what humane Judges feel on such occasions, and what the Effect of those Feelings; and so far from thinking severe and excessive Punishments prevent Crimes, he asserts, as quoted by our French Writer, page 4, that

“L’atrocité des loix en empêche l’execution.

“Lorsque la peine est sans mesure, on est souvent obligé de lui préférer l’impunité.

“La Cause de tous les relâchemens, vient de l’impunité des crimes, et non de la moderation des peines.”

It is said by those who know Europe generally, that there are more Thefts committed and punish’d annually in England, than in all the other Nations put together. If this be so, there must be a Cause or Causes, for such Depravity in our common People. May not one be, the Deficiency of Justice and Morality in our national Government, manifested in our oppressive Conduct to Subjects, and unjust Wars on our Neighbours. View the long-persisted-in unjust monopolizing Treatment of Ireland at length acknowledged! View the plundering Government exercis’d by our Merchants in the Indies! The confiscating War made upon the American Colonies; and to say nothing of those upon France and Spain, view the late War upon Holland, which was seen by impartial Europe in no other Light than that of a War of Rapine and Pillage, the Hopes of an immense and easy Prey being its only apparent and probably its true and real Motive and Encouragement. Justice is as strictly due between neighbour Nations as between neighbour Citizens.

A Highwayman is as much a Robber when he plunders in a Gang, as when single; and a Nation that makes an unjust War is only a great Gang.

After employing your People in robbing the Dutch, is it strange that being put out of that Employ by the Peace, they should continue robbing, and rob one another? Piraterie, as the French call it, or Privateering, is the universal Bent of the English Nation at home and abroad, where ever settled. No less that 700 Privateers were, it is said, commission’d in the last War! These were fitted out by Merchants to prey upon other Merchants who had never done them any Injury. Is there probably any one of those privateering Merchants of London, who were so ready to rob the Merchants of Amsterdam, that would not as readily plunder another London Merchant of the next Street, if he could do it with the same Impunity? The Avidity, the alieni appetens, is the same, it is Fear alone of the Gallows that makes the Difference. How then can a Nation which among the honestest of its People has so many Thieves by Inclination and whose Government encourag’d and commission’d no less than 700 Gangs of Robbers; how can such a Nation have the Face to condemn the Crime in Individuals; and hang up 20 of them in a Morning. It naturally puts one in Mind of a Newgate Anecdote. One of the Prisoners complain’d that in the Night somebody had taken his Buckles out of his Shoes. What the Devil, says another, have we then Thieves among us? It must not be suffer’d. Let us search out the Rogue, and pump him to death.

There is however one late Instance of an English Merchant who will not profit by such ill-gotten Gains. He was it seems part Owner of a Ship which the other Owners thought fit to employ as a Letter of Marque, and which took a Number of French Prizes. The Booty being shar’d, he has now an Agent here, enquiring by an Advertisement in the Gazette, for those who suffer’d the Loss, in order to make them, as far as in him lies, Restitution. This consiencious Man is a Quaker. The Scotch Presbyterians were formerly as tender, for there is still extant an Ordinance of the Town Council of Edinburgh, made soon after the Reformation, forbidding “the purchase of Prize Goods under Pain of losing the Freedom of the Burgh for ever, with other Punishment at the will of the Magistrate, the Practice of making Prizes being contrary to good Conscience and the Rule of treating Christian Brethren as we would wish to be treated: and such Goods are not to be sold by any godly Men within this Burgh.” The Race of these godly Men in Scotland is probably extinct, or their Principles abandoned, since as far as that Nation had a Hand in promoting the War against the Colonies, Prizes and Confiscations are believ’d to have been a considerable Motive.

It has been for some time a generally receiv’d Opinion, that a military Man is not to enquire whether a War be just or unjust; he is to execute his Orders. All Princes who are dispos’d to become Tyrants must probably approve of this Opinion, and be willing to establish it. But is it not a dangerous one? since, on that Principle, if the Tyrant commands his Army to attack and destroy, not only an unoffending Neighbour Nation, but even his own Subjects, the Army is bound to obey. A Negro Slave in our Colonies, being commanded by his Master to rob or murder a Neighbour, or do any other immoral Act, may refuse, and the Magistrate will protect him in his Refusal. The Slavery then of a Soldier is worse than that of a Negro! A consciencious Officer, if not restrain’d by the Apprehension of its being imputed to another Cause, may indeed resign; rather than be employ’d in an unjust War; but the private Men are Slaves for Life, and they are perhaps incapable of judging for themselves. We can only lament their Fate; and still more that of a Sailor, who is often dragg’d by Force from his honest Occupation, and compell’d to imbrue his Hands in perhaps innocent Blood. But methinks it well behoves Merchants, Men more enlightened by their Education, and perfectly free from any such Force or Obligation, to consider well of the Justice of a War, before they voluntarily engage a Gang of Ruffians to attack their Fellow Merchants of a neighbouring Nation, to plunder them of their Property, and perhaps ruin them and their Families, if they yield it, or to wound, main and murder them if they endeavour to defend it. Yet these Things are done by Christian Merchants, whether a War be just or unjust; and it can hardly be just on both sides. They are done by English and American Merchants, who nevertheless complain of private Thefts, and hang by Dozens the Thieves they have taught by their own Example.

It is high time for the sake of Humanity that a Stop be put to this Enormity. The United States of America, tho’ better situated than any European Nation, to make Profit by Privateering, (most of the Trade of Europe with the West Indies passing before their Doors,) are, as far as in them lies, endeavouring to abolish the Practice, by offering in all their Treaties with other Powers, an Article engaging solemnly that in Case of future War no Privateers shall be commission’d on either Side, and that unarm’d Merchant Ships on both sides shall pursue their Voyages unmolested. This will be a happy Improvement of the Law of Nations. The Humane and the Just cannot but wish general Success to the Proposition.

With unchangeable Esteem and Affection, I am, my dear Friend Ever yours

Benjamin Franklin


How the CONstitution was the enabling act for the 1% "minority of the opulent"

MADison called out by Ben Franklin on plans to enable unjust privileges for the 1%

How the CONstitution was the enabling act for the 1% "minority of the opulent".

Note Madison's remarks: " had been observed (by Mr. Pinckney) we had not among us those hereditary distinctions of rank which were a great source of the contests in the ancient governments as well as the modern States of Europe...We cannot, however, be regarded even at this time as one homogeneous mass....In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce.  An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings.  These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former."

"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages.  The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections? and, unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government?  In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure.  An agrarian law would soon take place.  If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation.  Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other.  They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.  The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and, to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered."

For a more thorough analysis of MADison's CON scheme see:
Toward an American Revolution
Exposing the Constitution and other Illusions by Jerry Fresia
Chapter 3: The Constitution: Resurrection of An Imperial System
Go to for the whole book online....

Summary of MADison's plot:

" “Hence it is that the two Branches should be elected by Persons differently qualified; and in short, that, as far as possible, they should be made to represent different Interests.”

“Under this Reasoning I would establish a Legislature of two Houses. The Upper should represent the Property; the lower the Population of the State. The upper should be chosen by Freemen possessing in Lands and Houses one thousand Pounds, the lower by all such as had resided four Years in the Country and paid Taxes. The first should be chosen for four, the last for two Years; They should in Authority be coequal.” [But they aren't. Examine all the special powers granted only to the Senate, i.e. approval of treaties, executive appointments, attorneys and judges.]

Benjamin Franklin's expose' of the unjust design of MADison's scam:

"Several Questions may arise upon this Proposition. 1st. What is the Proportion of Freemen possessing Lands and Houses of one thousand Pounds Value compared to that of Freemen whose Possessions are inferior? Are they as one to ten? [10%] Are they even as one to twenty? [5%] I should doubt whether they are as one to fifty [2%]. If this [1-2%] Minority is to chuse a Body expresly to controul that which is to be chosen by the great Majority of the Freemen, what have this great Majority done to forfeit so great a Portion of their Right in Elections? Why is this Power of Controul, contrary to the Spirit of all Democracies, to be vested in a [1%] Minority, instead of a Majority? Then is it intended or is it not that the Rich should have a Vote in the Choice of Members for the lower House, while those of inferior Property are deprived of the Right of voting for Members of the upper House? And why should the upper House, chosen by a Minority have equal Power with the lower, chosen by a Majority? Is it supposed that Wisdom is the necessary Concomitant of Riches, and that one Man worth a thousand Pound must have as much Wisdom as twenty, who have each only 999?

And why is Property to be represented at all? Suppose one of our Indian Nations should now agree to form a civil Society, each Individual would bring into the Stock of the Society little more Property than his Gun and his Blanket; for at present he has no other; we know that when one of them has attempted to keep a few Swine, he has not been able to maintain a Property in them, his Neighbours thinking they have a Right to kill and eat them whenever they want Provision; it being one of their Maxims, that Hunting is free for all; the Accumulation therefore of Property in such a Society, and its Security to Individuals in every Society must be an Effect of the Protection afforded to it by the joint Strength of the Society, in the Execution of its Laws; private Property therefore is a Creature of Society and is subject to the Calls of that Society whenever its Necessities shall require it, even to its last Farthing; its Contributions therefore to the public Exigencies are not to be considered as conferring a Benefit on the Public, entitling the Contributors to the Distinctions of Honour and Power; but as the Return of an Obligation previously received or the Payment of a just Debt. The Combinations of Civil Society are not like those of a Set of Merchants who club their Property in different Proportions for Building and Freighting a Ship, and may therefore have some Right to vote in the Disposition of the Voyage in a greater or less Degree according to their respective Contributions; but the important Ends of Civil Society are the personal Securities of Life and Liberty; these remain the same in every Member of the Society, and the poorest continues to have an equal Claim to them with the most opulent, whatever Difference Time, Chance or Industry may occasion in their Circumstances. On these Considerations I am sorry to see the Signs this Paper I have been considering affords of a Disposition among some of our People to commence an Aristocracy, by giving the Rich a Predominancy in Government, a Choice peculiar to themselves in one half the Legislature, to be proudly called the upper House, and the other Branch chosen by the Majority of the People degraded by the Denomination of the lower, and giving to this upper House a Permanency of four Years, and but two to the lower. I hope therefore that our Representatives in the Convention will not hastily go into these Innovations, but take the Advice of the Prophet, “Stand firmly [crossed out?] in the old Ways, view the ancient Paths, consider them well, and be not among those that are given to Change.”
 -- Benjamin Franklin


Foundation of Freedom of the 'Founding Fathers'

What inspired the thoughts of freedom and liberty, living without a king? Did this novel idea spring from European minds, or was it stimulated by observing Indian communities and their 'masterlessness'?

Is it mere coincidence that both the French revolution and the American revolution occurred well after spanish, english, french, dutch and other European colonialists visited a world so 'new' to them?

"That, on the principle of a communion of property, small societies may exist in habits of virtue, order, industry, and peace, and consequently in a state of as much happiness as Heaven has been pleased to deal out to imperfect humanity, I can readily conceive, and indeed, have seen its proofs in various small societies which have been constituted on that principle. But I do not feel authorized to conclude from these that an extended society, like that of the United States or of an individual State, could be governed happily on the same principle." --Thomas Jefferson to Cornelius Camden Blatchly, 1822. ME 15:399

'I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere' - Thomas Jefferson


Industrial Ruling Class founded in the impoverishment of others

Industrial Ruling Class founded in the impoverishment of others - Benjamin Franklin

"A people spread thro’ the whole tract of country on this side the Mississipi, and secured by Canada in our hands [versus the French], would probably for some centuries find employment in agriculture, and thereby free us at home effectually from our fears of American manufactures. Unprejudic’d men well know that all the penal and prohibitory laws that ever were thought on, will not be sufficient to prevent manufactures in a country whose inhabitants surpass the number that can subsist by the husbandry of it. That this will be the case in America soon, if our people remain confined within the mountains, and almost as soon should it be unsafe for them to live beyond, tho’ the country be ceded to us, no man acquainted with political and commercial history can doubt. ...

Manufactures (wage workers) are founded in poverty.

It is the multitude of poor without land in a country, and who must work for others at low wages or starve, that enables undertakers to carry on a manufacture, and afford it cheap enough to prevent the importation of the same kind from abroad, and to bear the expence of its own exportation.

But no man who can have a piece of land of his own, sufficient by his labour to subsist his family in plenty, is poor enough to be a manufacturer and work for a master.

Hence while there is land enough in America for our people, there can never be manufactures to any amount or value. It is a striking observation of a very able pen, that the natural livelihood of the thin inhabitants of a forest country, is hunting; that of a greater number, pasturage; that of a middling population, agriculture; and that of the greatest, manufactures; which last must subsist the bulk of the people in a full country, or they must be subsisted by charity, or perish." - Benjamin Franklin


Discussion: How to lawfully confront and overcome the slave master

As a little background, many years ago after I became disillusioned with the 'great American system', my late brother-in-law gifted me with a book by Gerry Spence, entitled From Freedom to Slavery-The Rebirth of Tyranny in America []. That tome was an eyeopener for me, helping me to understand much. A few years later Gerry released a sequel of sorts, GIVE ME LIBERTY!-Freeing Ourselves in the 21st Century [] which added to my increasing clarity of the situation common people face under the current hegemony.

For those unfamiliar with Spence, he was a “country lawyer”, one of the most effective ethical litigators of our time, always fighting for the little guy against the predatory beast (at least after his awakening and personal epiphany). This biographical information from his webpage is worth repeating:

Gerry Spence, born, reared and educated in Wyoming, is recognized nationwide for his powerful courtroom victories. He graduated cum laude from the University of Wyoming Law School in 1952, and has spent his lifetime representing the poor, the injured, the forgotten and the damned against what he calls "the new slave master," a combine of mammoth corporations and gargantuan government. He has tried and won many nationally known cases, including the Karen Silkwood case, (a movie was made of the case with Meryl Streep and Cher,) the defense of Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, the defense of Imelda Marcos, the case against “Penthouse Magazine” for Miss Wyoming and the murder defenses of Ed Cantrell and Sandy Jones.

In 2008 in a politically charged case brought by the Justice Department in Michigan against attorney Geoffrey Fieger, Spence won complete acquittals for his client on a ten-count indictment alleging federal campaign contribution violations, conspiracy and obstruction of justice.

Spence represented Brandon Mayfield, a modest Oregon attorney, against the United States in which Spence was instrumental in obtaining a federal court to hold the Patriot Act unconstitutional. He has tried numerous other important criminal and civil trials. He has never lost a criminal case either as a prosecutor or a defense attorney. He has not lost a civil case since 1969. He has had more multi-million dollar verdicts without an intervening loss than any lawyer in America.

Over the years, after reading some of his books and other writings and listening to some talks and interviews, I had occasion to share a few emails with Gerry and joined his email list once he started that. A couple weeks ago I got an email from Gerry announcing his latest blog, on the topic Speaking to Each Other as Slaves. As serendipity had its way, it was posted twice and Gerry didn't remove the duplicate before others had already started commenting, so the identical blog is posted twice with different reader comments for each:

At the end of the blog, Gerry invited a brainstorming session:

Now, dear friends, I am seeking a dialogue. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on how to lawfully confront and overcome the slave master and to provide liberty and justice for all, as is the promise of our constitution. Give this careful consideration in your concise responses here. Let us speak to each other out of our caring, with at least as much caring as we would offer a captured bird in a cage with a broken wing who is yet able to sing.

I immediately began working on my comments, but they were never approved to be added to those of others who also commented. Was it because my words were not concise or caring enough? Or perhaps because I dug deeper and questioned the premise of his call to action? Perhaps I was too damn pessimistic! So far I am in the dark. Since my comments weren't allowed to be added to the fray on his blog, I'll leave them here, somewhat edited and expanded as food for thought and hopefully dialog.

I first complimented Gerry for this latest “superb essay. It is the cream. Wado (Thank you)”. [Then the fun begins:]

As to his invitation to imagine "how to lawfully confront and overcome the slave master and to provide liberty and justice for all, as is the promise of our constitution", I think that will be a most difficult task, made more so by the constraint of being "lawful", when experience and reality tell us he who hath the gold, maketh the rules. Freedom, even seeking freedom from servitude and slavery to them is by definition, their definition, illegal.

In my (not so) humble opinion, providing "liberty and justice for all" is not the promise of the CONstitution, it is the propaganda of the CONstitution; it is the snare that traps us into blind obedience to the masters. We have been conned since infancy with incessant messages that the government is great, the government is pure, the government is here to help us, that it is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. That deception, that lie, is so immense we have a difficult time accepting the fact we have been tricked, too embarrassed to admit to ourselves, others and especially our children that we have been stung, hoodwinked, that we were the victims, the marks in the sting. So by our silence we cooperate with perpetuating the oppression on to the backs of our grandchildren.

Cooperate. Co-operate. As long as we co-operate, we are ourselves OPERATING the institutions that enslave us. It becomes self-inflicted, self-enforced slavery. We might engage in protest, even "illegal" civil disobedience occasionally, only to realize they have taken even that and turned it into a "law and order" profit center. No, non-cooperation has to go far beyond sit-ins, teach-ins, marches and protests. To quote John Trudell (Co-Optation, 1987), "Pretending civil disobedience by cooperating could be aiding and abetting enslavement".

The CONstitution is held up (by the master's propaganda) as the gold standard of democracy. More lies our teachers told us. See also: Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong
At findbook:

The truth can be seen more through the candid comments of MADison of the secret proceedings in which the scheme was being crafted. MADison was terrified of democracy so drafted the 'supreme law' to prevent it.

Stepping back a pace, the early colonies formed a federation modeled on the advanced social structure of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois). After the so-called revolution against England, the colonies formed a union under the Articles of Confederation, notably with a unicameral legislative body. The provisions of that agreement allowed too much independence and not enough due respect to the ruling class rights to extricate wealth and redistribute it to themselves. These were not well served by a system of equity and social justice. they yearned for the good old days living the lives of idleness they had become accustomed to under the multi-level management of England's caste system.

MADison, as principle architect of the CONstitutional scheme, reveals his intent on reinstating the British system of hierarchical domination, to serve the interests of the landLORDS. To quote him:

"There will be particularly the distinction of rich & poor. It was true as had been observed (by Mr. Pinckney) we had not among us those hereditary distinctions of rank which were a great source of the contests in the ancient governments as well as the modern States of Europe...We cannot, however, be regarded even at this time as one homogeneous mass....In framing a system which we wish to last for ages, we should not lose sight of the changes which ages will produce. An increase of population will of necessity increase the proportion of those who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings. These may in time outnumber those who are placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former."

As can be seen from these statements, MADison was terrified of equality and democracy, since if that were to be effected, there could be no over-privileged class.

"The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge of the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections? and, unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The Senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and, to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability. Various have been the propositions; but my opinion is, the longer they continue in office, the better will these views be answered."
Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787, TUESDAY JUNE 26TH

I stumbled on this ~1750's quote from Benjamin Franklin just last week:

Manufactures are founded in poverty. It is the multitude of poor without land in a country, and who must work for others at low wages or starve, that enables undertakers to carry on a manufacture, and afford it cheap enough to prevent the importation of the same kind from abroad, and to bear the expence of its own exportation. But no man who can have a piece of land of his own, sufficient by his labour to subsist his family in plenty, is poor enough to be a manufacturer [a producer/production worker] and work for a master [as a wage slave].

Thus Franklin shows as did MADison that social injustice was a byproduct of the economic class system. MADison created a system of “checks and balances” to enable, protect and preserve such an unjust class divide, its foundation being bicameral legislature created under the CONstitution.

One would think that union of people would be served by a common law-making body. If the people are united, why would they need a divided legislature?

As MADison candidly admitted above, it was divided to preserve the caste system, the class divide between the haves and the havenots. The British system of royal domination had to be reinstated with a House for Commons and a House for Lords (with veto power over the voice of the commoners). The House of Commons was repainted as the House of Representatives and the House of Lords as the Senate, putting a Greco-Roman face on this subterfuge. Under MADison's scheme, how was the Senate to be the primary tool to "to protect the minority of the opulent against the [will of the] majority"? This was the REAL "check and balance". We are taught that we have a wonderful system of checks and balances, passed off as one branch of the government checking the others. What is masked by this deception is the diverse interests represented by those un-democratic bodies. We are never taught what is being balanced and who is doing the checking. MADison admitted it. The ultra rich "opulent minority" was to have a "checking" veto power over the will of the majority who might dare seek to balance and level life's bounty. MADison was for "just us" not justice.

The original scheme denied selection of the Senate and the presidency to the common people. The white male commoners who were allowed to vote could only be trusted to select the members of the House of Representatives, the body of which was the only democratically proportioned branch of this proposed government. As today, the President was not to be selected by any popular vote but by a vetting "electoral college" beholding to no one save the political machines, controlled by the rich. Madison had originally proposed that only the rich, those with at least one thousand pounds sterling silver, could vote for selection of Senators. When Ben Franklin argued eloquently against such an injustice, that was amended to mask the ultimate goal. To hide the fact that MADison was reinstating the House of Lords, that obvious wealth restriction gave way to having Senators to be chosen by state-level political institutions (again, controlled by the ultra-rich) instead of a direct vote of the people.

Now we have to look at this system of "checks and balances" in a different light. It is not simply about the superficial differences of the separation of powers between different functions of the government but rather is founded upon the different classes those power structures were created to serve.

If we accept for the sake of discussion that the House of Representatives, being in proportion to the population, is relatively democratic and assume they are true representatives of the interests of their constituencies (therefore not beholding to corporate interests), then we have to look at how the will of the majority they are supposed to represent gets marginalized. As MADison planned, the House of Lords under the facade of the Senate moniker becomes the primary paralyzing neutralizer.

So the first level of check by the ultra rich lies with the Senate power to veto any proposal issuing from the House of Representatives of the commoners "who will labor under all the hardships of life, and secretly sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings." If by chance some legislative enactment of social justice gets past the Senate, then it faces the backup veto power of the president, again being vetted and selected by mechanisms serving the interests of that "opulent minority" instead of society as a whole.

Starting with the understanding then that both the presidency and the Senate are by design intended to serve the interests of the rich, it gets a little more intriguing when one investigates the special powers granted to the Senate and office of president and barred to the House of Representatives representing the common folk.

Focus on two things. Treaties (international law) and appointments of federal attorneys and judges. The president acts and the Senate confirms. Commoners have no say.

Treaties are deemed, by the CONstitution, to be the supreme law of the land. These are created to serve corporate interests which is why the common people were to have no voice in the matter. The President proposes, the Senate confirms. The House of Representatives of the commoners has no legal authority to be involved in the process.

After making the law, then comes the arbiters. The President appoints the Attorney General and his assistant attorneys. The Senate confirms. The President appoints federal judges and the Senate confirms. the President appoints Justices to the Supreme Court and the Senate confirms. The deciders are selected by the "opulent minority" camp. Commoners have no say.

It's then seen to be a triple-level veto power that has been created, granting special 'legal authority' to the ultra-rich "opulent minority" class of landlords, with the financial means to be the investors and employers that assert mastery over our lives.

Further reference:
Toward an American Revolution
Exposing the Constitution and other Illusions
by Jerry Fresia
Chapter 3 - The Constitution: Resurrection of An Imperial System
Go to for the whole book online....

Let's examine one item, Social Security. The ultra-rich have been bristling under it and trying to kill it since it was created. The people wouldn't stand for that. So a long-term "final solution" was embarked upon. Now we hear the "entitlement" of Social Security benefits will bankrupt the nation. “The fund is in peril”. Is that true? And if so why and how did it get that way? Simple. Cut the funding. But Social Security is funded by a tax on income earned by workers. The funding is automatic. But that depends on the largess of the plant managers and plantation masters to approve jobs. Without permission to work (jobs), there is no payroll to tax for funding Social Security. So make some new treaties, some new international law. The President and the Senate conspire to eliminate "trade barriers", reduce or eliminate import duties. Grant special "favored nation" status to enable "free enterprise". Enact international "free trade" agreements, such as NAFTA. The end result of which is opportunities to work ("jobs") are exported. Without sufficient domestic job opportunities, the taxable base of employee wages is reduced thereby effectively de-funding Social Security. These "free trade" laws are at the root of the "financial quagmire" of Social Security funding. The CONstitution confers such matters of law to the propertied class. Their financial interests are paramount and to be protected. That is the law.

So, what are we to do about this?

Can't we turn to the courts for justice? It should be obvious by now whose interest the courts serve. Consider the Supreme Court's selection of President in 2000 [subject of yet another book co-written by Gerry] and now the infamous decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, "legalizing" unlimited corporate "donations" to politicians.

So we must rise up and vote them out right?

"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years." - Lysander Spooner

"To vote is to abdicate. To name one or several masters for a short or long period means renouncing one’s own sovereignty. Whether he becomes absolute monarch, constitutional prince or a simple elected representative bearing a small portion of royalty, the candidate you raise to the throne or the chair will be your superior. You name men who are above laws, since they write them and their mission is to make you obey." - Elisée Reclus (1885)

"Through obedience one develops the reflex of submission." - unknown

Living under their rules, within their laws, is not the solution, it is the problem. If we were able to game the system and start effecting some semblance of social justice, they merely marshal their forces for...

"When change threatens to rule, then the rules are changed." -- Michael Parenti

If living "lawfully" under their rules is not a viable option, what is?

"I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere." - Thomas Jefferson

We must effect the inalienable right of self-determination, the right to government by consent, not within their tyrannical system of corrupt laws, but by any means necessary.

Their Declaration of Independence speaks to this much more than the CONstitution, which has no legal or ethical foundation.

"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:

"We, the people of the United States (that is, the people then existing in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

It is plain, in the first place, that this language, as an agreement, purports to be only what it at most really was, viz., a contract between the people then existing; and, of necessity, binding, as a contract, only upon those then existing. In the second place, the language neither expresses nor implies that they had any right or power, to bind their "posterity" to live under it. It does not say that their "posterity" will, shall, or must live under it. It only says, in effect, that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove useful to their posterity, as well as to themselves, by promoting their union, safety, tranquility, liberty, etc."

*** 58 pages snipped ***

"Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
- Lysander Spooner [1870]

If we put our minds to it, perhaps one day we might be as free as a bird. Imagine, we might be accorded animal rights. That would be a big step up from our current condition of enslavement.

"Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children."
 - Tatanka Iyotake (Sitting Bull) - Hunkpapa Lakota

Let us stop operating their system, their institutions. Stop co-OPERATING for them.

"If every human being woke up tomorrow morning and said: 'Alright, I will not enable what I know to be the lie all day today, it would change. It could not function. If every human being got up tomorrow and said: 'I will not enable it, I will not participate in the lie today, it would change."- John Trudell

General Strike.
Prepare to be free.
Dare to be free.
Be Idle No More!

Sundancer Sitting Bull was many things to many people. A strongheart leader, a protector. A medicine man. Talking with Sitting Bull's great-grandson, he revealed that Sitting Bull was most proud of being a Sundancer. "Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children." I have long cherished these words by Tatanka Iyotake (aka Sitting Bull). But I lacked understanding. I was satisfied that he meant we were to be good critical thinkers, always focusing on how our decisions would affect the faceless whose time would come seven generations ahead. Recently, I received a teaching of humility. That we as individuals do not have the answers we need. That no one is a "know it all". Realizing and accepting this, we gather to listen to one another, to share our own experiences and observations and it is from this collective process that the best path can be chosen. And this teaching was there all along, had I not been oblivious to it. "Let us... ...put our minds TOGETHER..."

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?