: tena's note: THIS IS IT! THIS EXPLAINS IT ALL, MAKES EACH OF
: US RESPONSIBLE (AS WE ARE!) AND TELLS US HOW TO FIX IT!
Hi, tena -
Thanks for this. :)
It's utterly true that each one "is responsible" - but not for another's choices or actions (except for one's own kids up till about the age of 12).
It would make no sense if we were. (If I'm responsible for Charlie-over-there, what happens to Charlie's being responsible for himself?)
The writer you've quoted (apparently Eric Hufschmid, since the text is from erichufschmid.net) raises some good and thought-provoking points. And what he wrote is clever. :)
In the part following what you quoted, he goes on to say:
The USA needs an updated Constitution that is better suited for our era. For example, Jefferson never considered the effect TV has on people, so he never bothered to deal with issue of a small group of people controlling all TV news. And Jefferson never knew that the process of running for government office would become expensive and ridiculous by the 20th century.
After an improved Constitution is developed, we need a group of military people to take the role of George Washington and fight our current government. They would have to conquer America without any concern with what the Sheeple have to say about it.
I have some problems with that. :)
First: I can't find anything wrong with the actual, original Constitution, or at least nothing so wrong that we need to start disassembling it and "making it better."
But, that's the actual, original Constitution I'm talking about. The Constitution they're typically showing us these days is not that one, but is the corporation's Constitution, and the corporation has _legally_ tinkered with it and modified it for its own "internal use" purposes.
The corporation (Corp US) didn't much care for the original Constitution's 13th Amendment, the one about "titles of nobility", etc. - so Corp US simply left it out of _their_ Constitution and renumbered a few other Amendments so there would be no gap in the numbering.
Then they tacked-on the 16th Amendment and the 17th (which is unConstitutional relative to the actual and original Constitution but is legal-enough when 'adopted' by the corporation for its own use).
The writer says: "...Jefferson never knew that the process of running for government office would become expensive and ridiculous by the 20th century." He's misstated something, there. The expensive and ridiculous process is "running for CORPORATE office." We haven't seen anyone run for GOVERNMENT office in quite some time, now. :)
"Registered voters" get the privilege and joy of voting for corporate office-holders - who then fulfill their corporate duty by doing what's deemed best for the 'stockholders', not the voters.
If we got the corporation out of the way, there's no reason running for GOVERNMENT office would have to be expensive and ridiculous. :) It's expensive so that only "well supported corporate candidates" will be in the running, I s'pect. It's the same idea as requiring millions of dollars to get FDA approval on a new prescription medicine (drug) - only corporations with really deep pockets and a patentable idea will be "in the running" while things are configured that way.
So, let's ignore the "we need a new Constitution" bit, for now. The writer then says: "...we need a group of military people to take the role of George Washington and fight our current government. They would have to conquer America without any concern with what the Sheeple have to say about it."
I do wish folks would discontinue using the obnoxious term, "sheeple"; those are my friends, family, and neighbors being referred to - they are "the American people", thank you very much :). I think use of the term "sheeple" _feeds_ elitism in the world, and thus is inherently self-defeating. (Apparently Hufschmid might agree with me. He says on another of his pages, "Insults are a sign of desperation, not intelligence.")
Certainly I can imagine, along with the writer, a situation in which a military "George Washington" could be required in order to halt the deceptions and set things back again on their proper track.
But, what if all that's required is to again "seat some human beings in the presently vacant government positions", including Govt-US Senators and President...? Suppose the "George Washington" we're in need of is the presidential one, not the military one?
If that were done, would the _military_ then "stand and deliver" on behalf of the de jure government in America, and simply leave the de facto Corp-US 'government' high and dry...?
Maybe so, maybe so... :)
The writer concludes with:
The 9-11 attack shows that when a nation allows everybody to vote, they end up with a nation that is so corrupt that buildings can be blown up in front of their faces, and that moon landings can be faked.
Uh, there's something to what he's saying - but I do think he's improperly concluded what is cause and what is effect, here.
"...allows everybody to vote" describes part of how "democracy" works, which of course is not what Govt-US is but _is_ what Corp-US is.
I might agree with him that democracy does tend readily toward "corruption". As many have noted, democracy usually goes awry as soon as the majority of voters realize they can vote for their own benefits, etc., and allow greed and covetousness to begin to drive their voting.
But at the same time, what is it that 'steers' a country or any group of co-creating human beings? It's "the leadership", isn't it? The example being lived by "the brightest and best" in positions of leadership, the ones who are in-commonly visible to every member of the co-creating group? The "power of the bully pulpit," among others.
I'm not saying the leadership individuals are _responsible_ for choices made by their fellow human beings.
But I am saying that the idea "democracy always means the people will vote for greedy and covetous reasons" NEED NOT BE TRUE. :)
In human nature, folks do tend to rise only to the level of expectation - and folks in leadership positions can raise the level of expectation, by "living in integrity" themselves.
Here's the trick: SOMEONE HAS TO START DOING IT and not waiting for everyone else to 'go first'. :) It's "As ye give, so also shall ye receive." Not, "Wait till you've received a lot, and then consider giving a little." :)
Let's be for-giving, then.
--hobie
Serving Freedom
and Liberty
