What Nietzsche Said About the State
"There are still peoples and herds somewhere, but not with us, my
brothers: here there are states.
The state? What is that? Well then! Now open your ears, for now I shall
speak to you of the death of peoples.
The state is the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it lies, too; and
this lie creeps from its mouth; 'I, the state, am the people.'
It is a lie! It was creators who created peoples and hung a faith and a
love over them: thus they served life.
It is destroyers who set snares for many and call it the state: they hang
a sword and a hundred desires over them.
Where a people still exists, there the people do not understand the state
and hate it as the evil eye and sin against custom and law.
I offer you this sign: every people speaks its own language of good and
evil: its neighbor does not understand this language. It invented this
language for itself in custom and law.
But the state lies in all languages of good and evil; and whatever it says,
it lies - and whatever it has, it has stolen.
Everything about it is false; it bites with stolen teeth. Even its belly
is false.
Confusion of the language of good and evil; I offer you this sign of the
state. Truly, this sign indicates the will to death! Truly, it beckons
to the preachers of death!
Many too many are born: the state was invented for the superfluous!
Just see how it lures them, the many-too-many! How it devours them, and
chews them, and re-chews them!
... It would like to range heroes and honorable men about it, this new
idol! It likes to sun itself in the sunshine of good consciences - this
cold monster!
It will give you everything if you worship it, this new idol: thus it buys
for itself the luster of your virtues and the glance of your proud eyes.
It wants to use you to lure the many-too-many. Yes, a cunning device of
Hell has here been devised, a horse of death jingling with the trappings
of divine honors!
Yes, a death for many has here been devised that glorifies itself as life:
truly a heart-felt service to all preachers of death!
I call it the state where everyone, good and bad, is a poison-drinker:
the state where everyone, good and bad, loses himself: the state where
universal slow suicide is called - life."
Friedrich Nietzsche, 1884
Typically, in the history classes taught in the last generation in America, when Nietzsche is discussed, he is depicted as the forefather of Hitler's Nazi ideology. Nothing could be further from the truth. Nietzsche was probably the most penetrative philosopher and psychologist there has ever been. He saw right through the falsehoods on which the state rests. Fifty years before Hitler came to power he was already disgusted at what he saw happening in Germany. He predicted that Germany would suffer a horrible calamity. He was so disgusted that he renounced his German roots and became a Swiss citizen.
The Nazis did take some of Nietzsche's statements out of context and used them as slogans. But to teach that Nietzsche inspired the Nazis is pure brainwashing. Nietzsche clearly saw what a destructive disaster the state was and expressed his view in unequivocal terms. Maybe that is why government monopoly schools try so hard to discredit him.
Nietzsche was a most inspiring example of someone who devoted his life to questioning everything others didn't dare question. Freud said that Nietzsche was the most conscious person there had ever been, and that probably no future person would ever be as conscious. (Nietzsche wrote about the subconscious long before Freud and about the hierarchy of needs long before Maslow.)
Two Modes of Survival:
Working and Stealing
In Parliament of Whores, P.J. O'Rourke describes a town meeting
in "Blatherboro," New Hampshire. It is a little town whose inhabitants
are extraordinarily decent. The citizens are educated, sensible, and all
employed. In 1989 the town spent $21,000 on public assistance. All the
money was supplied by private charitable donations. But, writes O'Rourke:
"... [T]he result of the annual town meeting is always a stupid and expensive mess. Much of the stupidity is common to all government... Blatherboro has fifteen police officers - the same ratio of police to population as New York City. The annual Blatherboro police budget is $425,000. This in a town that, in 1989, had 520 crimes, of which 155 were minor incidents of teenage vandalism. The cost of police protection against the remaining 365 more or less serious malefactions was $1,164 each - more than the damage caused by any of them."
O'Rourke then describes the school system. The drop-out rate is around 36% - similar to the rates in most inner-city slums. Yet in Blatherboro they spend three times the national average per student. He describes other stupidities, like Blatherboro having to build a $6.2 million unnecessary water system in order to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1982. Failure to comply would have subjected the town to a fine of $25,000 per day.
Then came the great sewer debate. A golf-course developer had handled all the legal obstacles in order to build a golf course and a condominium complex. He had punctiliously met all the requirements of the Planning Board and other agencies - he obtained forty-seven permits from eleven different government agencies. Construction was already underway. But some of the townspeople wanted to "control growth." The last possible way to stop the development was to pass a local regulation requiring that any extension to the town's sewage system costing more than $50,000, would have to be approved by a special town meeting! O'Rourke continues:
"It was at this moment, in the middle of the Blatherboro sewer debate, that I achieved enlightenment about government... It wasn't mere disillusionment that I experienced. Government isn't a good way to solve problems; I already knew that. And I'd been to Washington and seen for myself that government is concerned mostly with self-perpetuation and is subject to fantastic ideas about its own capabilities. I understood that government is wasteful of the nation's resources, immune to common sense and subject to pressure from every half-organized bouquet of assholes. I had observed, in person, government solemnity in debate of ridiculous issues and frivolity in execution of serious duties. I was fully aware that government is distrustful and disrespectful toward average Americans while being easily gulled by Americans with money, influence, or fame. What I hadn't realized was government is morally wrong.
The whole idea of our government is this: If enough people get together and act in concert, they can take something and not pay for it. And here, in small-town New Hampshire, in this veritable world's capital of probity, we were about to commit just such a theft. If we could collect sufficient votes in favor of special town meetings about sewers, we could make a golf course and condominium complex disappear for free. We were going to use our suffrage to steal a fellow citizen's property rights. We weren't even going to take the manly risk of holding him up at gunpoint."
The first imperative of human behavior is: Survival or self-preservation. The second imperative is: Obtain the means for survival through the least effort. There are two basic ways to obtain the methods of survival: Working and Stealing. Working is called the economic method. Stealing is the political method.
We can distinguish three economic sectors: public, private, and free-market. The public sector or government essentially utilizes the political method or stealing to survive. Tax is essentially taking people's money by force - obtaining the means for survival at the point of a gun. Tax is essentially theft. People may be brainwashed through "compulsory state education" (discussed below) into believing that they "pay their taxes voluntarily," but this does not change the basic nature of a forced or compelled transaction.
Generally, people in the public sector specialize in producing words to brainwash their victims into submission. Their primary product is words. But their words are backed by guns. They tend to use words first and guns second. To them, the results they produce are irrelevant - as long as they can claim that their intentions are good.
The private sector utilizes mainly the economic method to obtain the means of survival. Generally, people in private-sector businesses work at providing valuable products and services in exchange for the means for survival. However, many private-sector businessmen are in league with politicians for special favors like licensing, government contracts and grants, and tariff protection. So the private sector is really a mixture of working and stealing. It is not unusual for private-sector businessmen to bribe public-sector lawmakers for favorable legislation - they call it special-interest "lobbying." The private sector also finances the public sector through collecting and paying taxes.
The free-market sector consists of real or true free enterprise. It is also called the "underground economy" or "black market." Voluntary exchange is the essence of the frae market. The free market utilizes the economic method to obtain the means for survival. Like the private sector, people in the free-market sector provide valuable products and services in exchange for the means for survival. The difference is that people in the free market do not kowtow to the public sector. In general they don't pay taxes. And they don't run to "big-daddy government" for special favors.
We could actually distinguish a fourth sector: that of private crime - the common criminal who obtains the means for survival through fraud, theft, and robbery. Or we could include the common criminal in the public sector, because basically his mode of operation is the same as that of the state - he uses words and guns to obtain the means for survival. In his book The State, Franz Oppenheimer says:
"The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from aboard. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors. No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner."
In addition to Franz Oppenheimer, I am also indebted to George Roche for my understanding of the origin of the state. Roche is the author of a brilliant book, America by the Throat: The Stranglehold of Federal Bureaucracy. Basically he describes bureaucracy as the organization of the political method. Roche answered the question for me: What fundamental of human nature - what basic impulse - gives rise to the state, that is, organized theft? He writes:
"... [T]he impulse toward bureaucratic growth is fueled by simple human greed. For this we turn again to the insights of Albert Jay Nock in his classic 1935 essay, Our Enemy, the State. This work developed the earlier sociological research of Franz Oppenheimer, who had observed that throughout history, without exception, "Wherever opportunity offers, and man possesses the power, he prefers political to economic means for the preservation of his life." Baldly stated, men would rather steal than earn a living if they have a way to do so easily.
From Herbert Spencer and Henry George, Nock had learned "the formula that man tends always to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion."
These two basic principles of behavior come together in an almost blinding insight about the human condition. Nock recalled that it occurred at a luncheon with his friend Edward Epstean, to whom his book was dedicated. He described the incident in his autobiography:
"I do not recall what subject was under discussion at the moment; but whatever it was, it led to Mr. Epstean's shaking a forefinger at me, and saying with great emphasis, "I tell you, if self-preservation is the first law of human conduct, exploitation is the second."
The remark instantly touched off a tremendous flashlight in my mind. I saw the generalization which had been staring me in the face for years... If this formula (of Spencer and George) were sound, as unquestionably it is, then certainly exploitation would be an inescapable corollary, because the easiest way to satisfy one's needs and desires is by exploitation...
In an essay which I published some time ago (Our Enemy, the State), having occasion to refer to this formula, I gave it the name of Epstean's law... Man tends always to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion."
Armed with this insight, Nock demolished all pretense that the state could ever become a benevolent institution or serve the interests of society. The State is the organization of the political means. Its sole purpose is the economic exploitation of one class by another. The State originated historically for purposes of exploitation, and exploitative it remains; it cannot change its nature."
We can also distinguish three classes of people: producers, professional parasites, and welfare recipients. In the public sector we find the professional parasites and welfare recipients. In the private sector we find a mixture of producers and professional parasites - the businessmen who run to "big-daddy government" for special favors. In the free market you generally have to produce products and services of value to survive - or obtain the means for survival through voluntary contributions.
Consider the possibility that by accident or design the HIV-AIDS hypothesis has become a "formula to steal." Activists and the media pressure governments to provide taxpayer money to solve the "AIDS problem." Billions are provided every year. More than 40,000 AIDS researchers receive the means for their survival this way. The manufacturer of AZT rakes in $350 million a year from AZT sales. Biotechnology companies do a roaring business in selling "AIDS test" kits. And latex companies sell more rubber gloves and condoms. The "AIDS problem" continues year after year. For the most part, nothing of value is being produced. The phalanx of vested interests will do everything to maintain the status quo.
Dr. Duesberg's funding is being cut off because he challenges the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. In his book Rethinking AIDS: The Tragic Cost of Premature Consensus, Robert Root-Bernstein writes that many of his colleagues privately agree with him that the hypothesis is wrong, but they refuse to say so in public because they fear losing their funding as well.
Government Hoaxes
Before I get back to the subject of AIDS, I want to briefly discuss the
most important government hoaxes in support of the subtitle of this report:
"Government lies about practically everything - why not also AIDS?"
Some of the hoaxes are specific to the U.S. Others also apply to most or
all other countries:
The "Free Compulsory State Education" Hoax
The desired end result of an education system might be described as people
who can competently read; write; count and calculate; think independently,
rationally, and creatively; speak in public; do research; apply common
sense to solve problems; conduct successful relationships; handle money;
and apply appropriate values, principles, and reason to make decisions.
The first thing you should know about "free compulsory state education" is that it is one of the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto.
People generally believe that children have to go to government schools to be educated. However, several authors claim that the state-education system is worse than useless - children would be better off if state education were abolished altogether. Parents should be free to educate their children as necessary. If schools are necessary, parents or businesses will pay entrepreneurs to create such schools.
State education is a hoax because - rather than focusing on teaching reading, writing, and the ability to think creatively, critically, and independently - the emphasis in state schools is on producing obedient conformists who can't think. In reality state education is a form of mind destruction. Many books exposing this mind destruction have been published. Some of their authors are: Samuel L. Blumenfeld, John Taylor Gatto, Paul Goodman, John Holt, Ivan Illich, Jonathan Kozol, Lewis J. Perelman, Neil Postman, Ayn Rand, William F. Rickenbacker, Phyllis Schlafly, and Charles Weingartner.
It is because of the main result of state education - unthinking individuals - that the perpetrators of the AIDS hoax have been able to cash in to the tune of billions. Meanwhile the unthinking victims swallow hook, line, and sinker what they are fed by "authority" - and if they take AZT, they pay for their gullibility with their lives!
According to an article by John Taylor Gatto - author, educator, 1989-1991 New York City teacher of the year, and 1991 New York State teacher of the year - published in the Las Vegas Review-Journal on June 13, 1993 under the title "The Public School Nightmare," the American state education system was copied from the Prussian 19th century system with the objective to produce:
"1) Obedient soldiers to the army;
2) Obedient workers to the mines;
3) Well subordinated civil servants to government;
4) Well subordinated clerks to industry;
5) Citizens who thought alike about major issues.
... You need to know this because over the first 50 years of our school institution Prussian purpose - which was to create a form of state socialism - gradually forced out traditional American purpose, which in most minds was to prepare the individual to be self-reliant.
... Well-schooled children cannot think critically, cannot argue effectively.
One of the most interesting byproducts of Prussian schooling turned out to be the two most devastating wars of modern history. Erich Maria Remarque, in his classic "All Quiet on the Western Front" tells us that the First World War was caused by the tricks of schoolmasters, and the famous Protestant theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer said that the Second World War was the inevitable product of good schooling.
It's important to underline that Bonhoeffer meant that literally, not metaphorically - schooling after the Prussian fashion removes the ability of the mind to think for itself. It teaches people to wait for a teacher to tell them what to do and if what they have done is good or bad. Prussian teaching paralyzes the moral will as well as the intellect. It's true that sometimes well-schooled students sound smart, because they memorize many opinions of great thinkers, but they actually are badly damaged because their own ability to think is left rudimentary and undeveloped.
... [C]ompulsion schooling, a bad idea that had been around at least since Plato's "Republic," a bad idea that New England had tried to enforce in 1650 without any success, was finally rammed through the Massachusetts legislature in 1852. It was, of course, the famous "Know-Nothing" legislature that passed this law, a legislature that was the leading edge of a famous secret society which flourished at that time known as "The Order of the Star Spangled Banner," whose password was the simple sentence, "I know nothing" - hence the popular label attached to the secret society's political arm, "The American Party."
Over the next 50 years state after state followed suit, ending schools of choice and ceding the field to a new government monopoly. There was one powerful exception to this - the children who could afford to be privately educated.
It's important to note that the underlying premise of Prussian schooling is that the government is the true parent of children - the State is sovereign over the family. At the most extreme pole of this notion is the idea that biological parents are really the enemies of their own children, not to be trusted. You can see this philosophy at work in court decisions which rule that parents need not be told when schools dispense condoms to their children, or consulted when daughters seek abortion.
How did a Prussian system of dumbing children down take hold in American schools? ... Virtually every single one of the founders of American schooling had made the pilgrimage to Germany, and many of these men wrote widely circulated reports praising the Teutonic methods. Horace Mann's famous "7th Report" of 1844, still available in large freedomries, was perhaps the most important of these.
By 1889, a little more than 100 years ago, the crop was ready for harvest. In that year the U.S. Commissioner of Education, William Torrey Harris, assured a railroad magnate, Collis Huntington, that American schools were "scientifically designed" to prevent "over-education" from happening. The average American would be content with his humble role in life, said the commissioner, because he would not be tempted to think about any other role. My guess is that Harris meant he would not be able to think about any other role.
In 1896 the famous John Dewey, then at the University of Chicago, said that independent, self-reliant people were a counter-productive anachronism in the collective society of the future. In modern society, said Dewey, people would be defined by their associations - the groups they belonged to - not by their own individual accomplishments. In such a world people who read too well or too early are dangerous because they become privately empowered, they know too much, and know how to find out what they don't know by themselves, without consulting experts.
Dewey said the great mistake of traditional pedagogy was to make reading and writing constitute the bulk of early schoolwork. He advocated that the phonics method of teaching reading be abandoned and replaced by the whole word method, not because the latter was more efficient (he admitted it was less efficient) but because independent thinkers are produced by hard books, thinkers who cannot be socialized very easily. By socialization Dewey meant a program of social objectives administered by the best social thinkers in government. This was a giant step on the road to state socialism, the form pioneered in Prussia, and it is a vision radically disconnected from the American past, its historic hopes and dreams.
Dewey's former professor and close friend, G. Stanley Hall, said this at about the same time. "Reading should no longer be a fetish. Little attention should be paid to reading." Hall was one of the three men most responsible for building a gigantic administrative infrastructure over the classroom. How enormous that structure really became can only be understood by comparisons: New York State, for instance, employs more school administrators than all of the European Economic Community nations combined.
... Bertrand Russell once observed that American schooling was among the most radical experiments in human history, that America was deliberately denying its children the tools of critical thinking. When you want to teach children to think, you begin by treating them seriously when they are little, giving them responsibilities, talking to them candidly, providing privacy and solitude for them, making them readers and thinkers of significant thoughts from the beginning. There is no evidence that has been a State purpose since the start of compulsion schooling.
When Fredrich Froebel, the inventor of kindergarten in 19th century Germany, fashioned his idea he did not have a "garden for children" in mind, but a metaphor of teachers as gardeners and children as the vegetables. Kindergarten was created to be a way to break the influence of mothers on their children.
... A movement as visibly destructive to individuality, family and community as government-system schooling has been might be expected to collapse in the face of its dismal record, coupled with an increasingly aggressive shakedown of the taxpayer, but this has not happened. The explanation is largely found in the transformation of schooling from a simple service to families and towns to an enormous, centralized corporate enterprise.
While this development has had a markedly adverse effect on people, and on our democratic traditions, it has made schooling the single largest employer in the United States, and the largest grantor of contracts, next to the Defense Department. Both of these low-visibility phenomena provide monopoly schooling with powerful political friends, publicists, advocates and other useful allies. This is large part of the explanation why no amount of failure ever changes things in schools. School people are in a position to outlast any storm and to keep short-attention-span public scrutiny thoroughly confused.
An overview of the short history of this institution reveals a pattern marked by intervals of public outrage, followed by enlargement of the monopoly in every case.
After nearly 30 years spent inside a number of public schools, some considered good and some bad, I [Gatto] feel certain that management cannot clean its own house.
... Violence, narcotic addictions, divorce, alcoholism, loneliness... all these are but tangible measures of a poverty in education. Surely schools, as the institutions monopolizing the daytimes of childhood, can be called to account for this." [emphasis added]
In another article Gatto confesses to being "the 7-lesson schoolteacher." To keep his job as a teacher he is compelled to teach the seven lessons:
According to Gatto, these are the consequences of the seven lessons:
Gatto says it takes about 100 hours for most children to learn the three
Rs (reading, writing, and arithmetic). He also says:
"After years of wrestling with the obstacles that stand between children
and education I came to believe that government monopoly schools, compulsion
and all, are structurally unreformable. They cannot function if their central
myths are abandoned, so no amount of tinkering will correct what is wrong,
although the danger is that tinkering can make these places more cosmetic.
They are corrupt: like a rotten pear they have lost integrity and cannot
be made whole."
(John Taylor Gatto's two books, The Exhausted School and Dumbing Us Down, are available via mail-order, postpaid at $12.50 each, by writing to 235 W. 76th Street, New York, NY 10023, USA.)
It is quite reasonable for the average person to accept the "HIV causes AIDS" story. With a few exceptions, we have consistently been fed the same story by the media, government officials, and health professionals. But what about scientists and physicians? They know the mechanism of vaccination. They know that the presence of antibodies invariably indicates immunity: the immune system has successfully neutralized the microbe and rendered it harmless. They know about Koch's postulates and that HIV doesn't satisfy any of the criteria for an infectious agent. They must realize that a hypothesis which in nine years has yielded no results might be suspect.
Why doesn't a significant portion of the 40,000 AIDS researchers and millions of health professionals around the world question the HIV-AIDS hypothesis? Could a major reason be that "compulsory state education" has destroyed their ability for critical and independent thought?
The Federal Jurisdiction Hoax
Two clauses in the U. S. Constitution define federal jurisdiction:
(a) Article I, Section 8, Clause 17: "The Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, and other needful buildings... "
(b) Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2: "The Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States... "
I've got news for you, folks: The territorial and legislative jurisdiction of the U.S. Congress extends to the ten square miles of Washington DC, military installations where States have explicitly ceded authority to the federal government, and U.S. Territories such as Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. In general, the U.S. federal government has no jurisdiction in the 50 States.
Practically everything the federal government does in the 50 States is unconstitutional, fraudulent, and criminal - and a hoax. This issue has been extensively researched by attorney Larry Becraft. His legal opinion is included in Report #TL08: Federal Jurisdiction. You can read more about this in the excellent book The Federal Zone by Mitch Modeleski - see Report #TL02: Freedom Technology Resource Guide, entry under "Account for Better Citizenship."
In terms of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. federal government has no jurisdiction to get involved in education or health. It is a principle of the U.S. Constitution that the federal government has only those powers specifically delegated to it by the Constitution. This means that the federal government has no business getting involved with "AIDS" in the first place.
The IRS (U.S. Internal Revenue Service) Hoax
The IRS has no income tax jurisdiction in the 50 States. If you consult
Section 3121(e) of the Internal Revenue Code, you will find this substantiated.
Federal jurisdiction "includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth
of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa." If
you research the legal meaning of the word "include" you will
find that in the above context, jurisdiction is limited to the areas specified.
Until 1959, Hawaii and Alaska were U.S. Territories, subject to federal jurisdiction. In Section 3121(e) of the Internal Revenue Code, you will also find the amendments reflecting the removal from federal jurisdiction, for IRS purposes, of Hawaii and Alaska when they became States.
There are many other reasons for claiming that most of what (if not everything) the IRS does is a hoax. These issues are dealt with in my book The Economic Rape of America: What You Can Do About It and also in the reports: #TL16: Tax Education for Everyone, #TL16A: The Best Kept Secrets of the IRS, #TL16B: Sample Correspondence to Beat the IRS, and #TL16C: U.S. Tax Abatement Services.
One of the main purposes of the IRS is to terrorize and control people. Because of their weak legal position, they have to terrorize people to make them pay. From a government point of view, the "AIDS scare" is perfect, because it can also be used to terrorize and control people.
The Government Paper Money Hoax
The framers of the U.S. Constitution understood that throughout history
and in every country where unbacked government paper money has been issued,
it has essentially been a hoax to separate people from their wealth. Historically,
government paper money has always eventually dropped in value to zero.
To imagine that the same won't happen in the U.S. is naive.
That is why our founding fathers wrote in the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 8, Clause 5: "Congress shall have the power to coin money" and in Article I, Section 10: "No State shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts." Congress has never been granted the power to print money. And paper money is specifically prohibited to the 50 States.
The "federal reserve note" in your pocket is really counterfeit - a hoax. This issue is covered in detail in my book The Economic Rape of America: What You Can Do About It and in Reports #TL18: Why You Need Gold and Silver and #TL17A: Dismantling the U.S. Federal Reserve System.
The Trial by Jury Hoax
Lysander Spooner was, in my opinion, one of the greatest lawyers in history.
He campaigned for the abolition of slavery. He started his own private
post office and became known as the "father of cheap postage"
in America. The federal government unconstitutionally shut down his post
office because they didn't like the competition.
Spooner is also famous for his book An Essay on Trial by Jury. The U.S. Constitution guarantees trial by jury. Trial by jury means the jury has the right and the duty to judge both the facts and the law. If a juror judges, in his or her opinion, that a law is bad then that juror has the duty to find a defendant not guilty when accused of breaking that law. The juror should say, "Not guilty it is a bad law."
It is a basic principle of the American political system that the individual is senior to the government. Politicians are supposed to be servants of the people, not masters. Congress may pass a law, the President may sign a law, but the individual juror has the power and the duty to effectively veto bad laws by saying, "Not guilty it is a bad law." This is the most important of the "checks and balances" in the American political system.
When a judge instructs a jury to judge only the facts and to strictly apply the law as specified by the judge, then that judge is misinforming the jury and violating his or her oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Practically all jury trials in the U.S. are unconstitutional hoaxes. You can read more about this in my book The Economic Rape of America: What You Can Do About It. There is also an organization that campaigns for restoring proper jury trials: Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA) - See Report #TL02: Freedom Technology Resource Guide.
The "Oaths by Government Officials to Uphold the Constitution"
Hoax
The U.S. Constitution stipulates that all government officials must swear
an oath to uphold the Constitution. I don't know what percentage actually
swear the required oaths. For those who don't swear their oaths, everything
they do in performing their jobs is fraudulent (including collecting pay).
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anyone has to swear an oath to uphold the Constitution as "interpreted" by the Supreme Court. Of course, the Supreme Court judges themselves swear oaths to uphold the Constitution. This means that whenever their "interpretations" of the Constitution differ from the intent of its framers, they violate their oaths.
Let us take anti-drug laws as an example. Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it say anything about drugs. the Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." It is a principle of the Constitution that the federal government only has those powers explicitly delegated to it by the Constitution. No power has been delegated to the federal government to do anything about drugs. This means that all the federal anti-drug laws are unconstitutional - a hoax. The pretended "war on drugs" is a hoax.
The pretended "war on drugs" is also a hoax for the same reason that practically all other government programs are: they are boondoggles designed to produce the opposite result from that proclaimed. They are designed to make the problem worse in order to serve as a justification for demanding more tax money and increasing their bureaucratic empires to "solve the problem."
Individuals have the constitutional right to produce, trade, or consume drugs. Any government official who interferes with this right violates his or her oath to uphold the Constitution.
In 1919 the U.S. Constitution was amended with the Eighteenth Amendment to prohibit the drug alcohol. In 1933 prohibition was repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment. In those days our "political masters" had a little more respect for the Constitution (the senior law of the land). Nowadays our "political masters" have practically no respect for the Constitution. People in general are too brainwashed to notice that for drugs to be prohibited, the Constitution needs to be amended.
(I strongly advocate that you have nothing or as little as possible to do with drugs - "legal" or "illegal." I suggest you reduce their intake or eliminate them altogether. Drugs are most likely the major causes of the diseases defined as "AIDS.")
The "U.S. Constitution" Hoax
Lysander Spooner also demolished the idea that the pretended "U.S.
Constitution" has any validity or legality whatsoever. It was never
signed by anyone in a way that made it a valid or legal contract. Difficult
as it may be to confront, the entire U.S. Government since its inception
has been a fraud and a hoax. You can read all about this in Report #TL07:
The Constitution of No Authority.
As far as I know, the government of every other country in the world is also based on a pretended "constitution" which has no legal validity. In other words, they are all frauds and hoaxes. The people who masquerade as "Presidents," "Kings," "Queens," "Prime Ministers," etc. are all liars and imposters - whether they realize it or not.
Some readers may wonder why in one breath I accuse our "political masters" of not respecting the U.S. Constitution, and in the next breath I say that the pretended "U.S. Constitution" is a hoax. Well, our "political masters" swore an oath (at least, they were supposed to) to uphold the Constitution. Therefore we can claim it is a contract they are bound by. But most readers have not entered into such a contract, therefore are not bound by it. From their point of view it is a hoax. (The intent of the framers, by the way, was that the Constitution was a limitation on the power of government - not an instrument to be used by bureaucrats to lord it over the people.)
The "Government is Necessary" Hoax
People often debate or argue about the "role of government."
But there is a basic argument that is almost always overlooked. It is a
very simple argument. It goes like this:
Disclaimer - Copyright - Contact
Online: buildfreedom.org | terrorcrat.com / terroristbureaucrat.com