The Competition

There is a deeper tug-of-war happening in Western society, and it isn't between liberals and conservatives or political parties. This is a battle over the sovereignty of mankind.

The Canadian election went off as planned. A normal “conservative” got beaten by his liberal counterpart. He stood, gave his concession speech, and all the hulabaloo was over in a few hours. No long-drawn-out American-style campaign, no billions of dollars spent on the win. It went just as every Western society has decided elections will go. It will feel dramatic and the people on the losing side will have just enough hope to keep the dream alive - but in the end, the machine will machine on. He could have been named Mitt, or Pierre, or Boris; the end was the conclusion that the apparatus wants. I feel for our society on a lot of levels. We root for a democratic process and representation. We write blogs about it, make movies venerating our past, and even hold celebrations about our independence. But the corn on the cob and hot dogs are the symbolism of what we really are. A processed people, set free every once in a while, to pretend we live in a free world. I’ve seen exactly one person in my life win a national office that wasn’t bent into the trajectory the permanent state wants.

Certainly, there is a lot of rhetoric and blustering around every campaign, including those that are not as theatrical or boisterous as those in the United States. In America, we use that division to raise a lot of money and get people to “get out and vote,” but sadly, there are very few “consequential” elections. That is the same everywhere across the West. Grand theater…zero difference in outcome.

In the book Notes From Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky, the main character is not a happy person. In his forties, he spends most of his time in his underground apartment, exuding his anger at the situation of the world. He dislikes nearly everything: women, more successful men, and the civilization itself. He’s been placed in this anger by what he sees around him. The decaying society that is more interested in its gluttony and self-anointing than being functional, charitable, or moral.

In a moment of discussion about this destructive, self-gratifying pathway of man, he says:

“What can be expected of man since he is a being endowed with strange qualities? Shower upon him every earthly blessing, drown him in a sea of happiness, so that nothing but bubbles of bliss can be seen on the surface; give him economic prosperity, such that he should have nothing else to do but sleep, eat cakes, and busy himself with the continuation of his species, and even then out of sheer ingratitude, sheer spite, man would play you some nasty trick. He would even risk his cakes and would deliberately desire the most fatal rubbish, the most uneconomical absurdity, simply to introduce into all this positive good sense his fatal fantastic element. It is just his fantastic dreams, his vulgar folly that he will desire to retain, simply in order to prove to himself—as though that were so necessary—that men still are men and not the keys of a piano, which the laws of nature threaten to control so completely that soon one will be able to desire nothing but by the calendar.”

Dostoevsky was writing this as a response to the Communist revolution in Russia. It was his literary way of pushing into an idea that we find ourselves in again. The place where those with uncalculable interest in the preservation of the status quo for money and power are using all of the tools at their disposal for the consolidation and management of humanity. There is a concerted effort amongst those who lead the financial institutions of the world to make life for the masses more complicated, constrained, and faux-comfortable than at any time in history. Their access to technology, unlimited money, and legal immunity make the moment tenuous. They desire a world filled with utopian outcomes, less rabble, no consequences for their actions, and no limits to their ability to consume and have anything they desire.

It all sounds very conspiratorial to be sure. So far-fetched that dismissing it and putting our heads down to get back to our mundane lives of work and indenturedness to our government’s taxes is the best, least controversial way to proceed.

A few raise their heads up, determined to prove that they are not the keys of a piano to be pressed and played for singular action, but most have decided that the chance to play some music is better than the consequences of proving a point. They march in duty to their workplaces, get their vaccines, sign the terms of service, and live entirely attached to the grid. They never protest the eye scanner at the airport or speak up against the bureaucracy; the embarrassment and outcome are too disruptive. They have a plane to catch, a license they need, or an app to fiddle with. Aquiescence is the symphony of the modern man.

For those who want to break free from their piano key life, the road is complicated. It is filled with roadblocks and impediments designed to frustrate and constrict dreamers into a compliant life. The system is created for the management of others by more sophisticated and expert-ey people. They are happy with the illusion that they must abide by, that we are a represented people, and that governments are by and for the citizens. But the powerful, money-driven globalist kings know that under the facade they have created, they need not abide by any of the false creations they allow. They will tolerate the odd political win here or there, they might even find some frustration in temporary political setbacks, but they know the long game is theirs for the taking. They will still live a comfortable and cushy life of ski chalets in Switzerland and beach homes in Saint-Jean-Cap-Ferrat.

They live by the Chinese proverb: “Whether we walk quickly or slowly, the road remains the same.”

Independent Spirit

The Declaration of Independence was the first and most impacting document of divorce by nation states. It was the first time that people exerted some internal form of rebellion against their fated lives. When Jefferson asserted that all men are created equal, he was placing his index finger on the chest of the King in an act of defiance. Kings in Jefferson’s society were created differently and by God himself. The divine imprint of God, ordained for leadership and a life of luxury, was bestowed upon special people. Jefferson was telling the King and his supporters to take that fundamentally faulty premise and go to Hell. The Declaration was the internal spirit of humanity finally breaking free of the piano key life. Jefferson and the founders were the result of multiple generations being left alone by the Empire. They knew the taste of freedom and liberty, and when they became the servants of the king by tax or edict, their response was to be expected. They were free men. The idea of a sovereign edict maker was detached from their reality. They were tilling up the frontier and learning to survive. No king could speak their well-being into existence. They knew it was a false premise. They were independent, and they decided that the battle for their own liberty was worth it.

They seceded from the motherland and forged a new path. Their era’s tug-of-war was decided on the battlefields of Virginia and New York. They were willing to exercise their philosophy and will it into a new way of living. Independence was the only way for their moment.

We are faced with a similar choice today. Our world is filled with kings who don’t wear crowns, but believe themselves to be ordained. The moment we are in is again a time for choosing. Shall we be our own sovereigns, or shall we be imprisoned in soft, tyrannical pleasure?

Secession’s Bad Name

Perhaps you have heard of a small conflict in the 1860s in the United States called the Civil War? The history around it is clouded and generally dumbed down for the most succinct and palatable way to justify the killing of 750,000 soldiers and untold civilians. We are spoon-fed, in the industrialized version of education in America, that it was about “freeing the slaves” and “keeping the Union together.” All partially true, but incomplete in the full telling of the story. The true history is more complicated than that. In order to understand it fully, it must be understood that the Union was a compact among individual states that joined together for mutual benefits of trade, defense, and monetary value consistency. The Union, via the Constitution, was formed by states that decided to create it. The Union did not create the states. This is critical to understand because what happened after the Civil War was a revision of this truth. Daniel Webster had popularized the idea that the Union was first and the States were second, but he was wrong in every aspect of that. The States had come together at the Constitutional Convention to revise the Articles of Confederation. Instead, they decided to scrap it and start over, giving us the current Constitution we supposedly live under. It was understood that the states could leave the Union should the federal government become oppressive. In fact, three states, Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island, all included language in their ratification documents that explicitly named that right..

"We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation will enable us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will: that therefore no right of any denomination can be cancelled abridged restrained or modified by the Congress by the Senate or House of Representatives acting in any Capacity by the President or any department or Officer of the United States except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes..."

There were several movements early on in the country that suggested that separation was preferable to the Union. During the Alien and Sedition Acts, which led to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. The two documents suggested that if the Union could not address the issues of state sovereignty, then nullification of the laws and even secession were the rights of the states. Jefferson, in Resolution 1 of his articles for Kentucky, minced no words about the rights of the states:

"That the several states composing the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimitedsubmission to their general government; but that by compact under the style and title of a Constitution for theUnited States and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes,delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving each state to itself, the residuary mass of right totheir own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its actsare unauthoritative, void, and of no force: That to this compact each state acceded as a state, and is an integralparty, its co-states forming as to itself, the other party: That the government created by this compact was notmade the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made itsdiscretion and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that as in all other cases of compact amongparties having no common Judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of infractions as of themode and measure of redress."

But this wasn’t exclusive to the Southerners. During the War of 1812, and the dominance of the Southern leadership in government, Radical Federalists, such as Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, speculated about a separate New England confederacy, especially if the war continued to harm the region. Pickering and others believed New England might fare better as an independent entity aligned with British interests. They proposed a removal of the 3/5ths clause in the Constitution to constrain Southern dominance in Congress and the presidency. This was discussed at the Hartford Convention in 1814, and while secession was ultimately rejected, it was a point of discussion that had serious merit.

Jefferson was willing, although out of power, to see the states that wanted to disband the compact be able to do so peacefully and without punitive consequences.

“If any state in the Union will declare that it prefers separation... to a continuance in union... I have no hesitation in saying, 'let us separate.’”

Even during the Civil War, while Abraham Lincoln made public his desire to see the Union held together as a primary justification for war, he more than happily allowed and encouraged the secession of West Virginia from Virginia. It became a state in the midst of heavy rhetoric presented as the cause for war, but its departure from Virginia suited the needs of Lincoln and was thus tolerated and codified.

When the war ended and Lincoln was assassinated, the Republicans in Congress made sure that they would never face that battle again. Secession became a dirty word, and the South was punished immeasurably for having “caused the war” due to their separation. It has left the conversation entirely in the United States and is a non-starter for most when it is suggested as a possibility for diminishing the power of the Federal Government.

In the world we live in, the United States IS, and that means that the states are only a layer of governance whose primary responsibility is to the Union. Everything in our system is designed to perpetuate the central government, and to suggest that the states are the power centers who bestow cooperative power to the federal government is heresy.

Mr. Global

I’ve read no Chinese science fiction - Tucker Carlson

There was a profound discussion on the Tucker Carlson show this week with Catherine Austin Fitts. She is a heroine to many within the human independence movement and has spent the last 20 years breaking down what is happening within the global financial system. If you haven’t heard her before, she sounds like an absolute crazy person. Her discussions are fantastical and border on science fiction style discussions about underground cities and allocated capital controlled by a committee. What she says seems impossible to be true. Representative government is the window dressing to placate the people, but behind the scenes and in the underground bunkers, the global financiers are building a world they will survive in, and the rest of us will be left to suffer under it. They are working to create a centralized world that runs on digital currency and limited life patterns. They operate the world as risk managers, intent on making sure that the human spirit of freedom is diminished. Wild card moments are supposed to be squashed, and their control over capital and human labor drives their decision-making.

She discusses how the system of financing changed, necessarily for the globalists, after the government shutdown in 1995. That moment was too complex and spontaneous for those in charge of the wealth of the world, and they decided to extract themselves from that risk. They wanted to be certain that their control of the capital would never be subjected to that kind of “out-of-their-hands” exposure.

I remember the budget battle. In fact, I was in New York on top of the original World Trade Center that Christmastide because it was the only way to see the Statue of Liberty. The Republicans had stood firm in their battle with Clinton, and the government was shut down two times that winter. Once in November for 6 days, and the second in December for 21 days. The battle was over disagreements about funding levels and policy riders, affecting about 800,000 federal workers. The second and longer shutdown involved similar issues, furloughing around 284,000 workers and partially affecting others. What it meant for the globalists was that their source of funding was hamstrung by the US government. Politics was too risky to deal with, and they began to exit the system. The tradeoff for the politicians losing their control, seemingly, was unlimited debt and no ability to ever call the debt notes by either foreign governments or the Federal Reserve.

From that moment on, any remaining tie to the old America and representative government was on its way out.

I think most of us refuse to believe or choose to ignore that any of this might be possible because we would never think of doing it to our neighbors. We can’t imagine ever taking advantage of someone, confiscating their wealth or labor, and leaving them in poverty for our own benefit. Mr. Global, as Ms. Fitts describes this cabal of financial monsters, has no ethics relatable to our own. Whoever this powerful group of money-driven people is seems to have no regard for the trail of people it is leaving in its wake. It may be that they are driven by risk management to such a degree that they see humanity as a variable too great to be trusted with any moment. It could be that their drive for power and need for money is so large that they have abandoned any tie to ethics or spirituality so that they are not bothered by such simpleton concepts as conscience or ethics. It may be a combination of both. Regardless of their motivation, the people of the planet, and particularly those of us in Western societies, sense and feel that something is terribly wrong within the matrix. We work harder than ever for money that buys less than is comprehensible, and we find ourselves sicker, fatter, and more taken advantage of than at any time in modern history.

Many of us want off the ride. We find it torturous to be on, and we fear for the future of our children because of how out of our hands all of it feels. We work for money they control, are taxed by governments they decide upon, consume goods that are designed for efficiency, not health or wellbeing, and find ourselves unable to escape the lingering feeling that we are pawns in a system much more nefarious than we can imagine. They control all of it, so even if we wanted off, where could we go to escape it?

The Real Fight

Peaceful secession and nullification are the only means of returning to a system of government that respects rather than destroys individual liberty. - Thomas DiLorenzo

Donald Trump was elected despite all of the efforts of the media and the global control mechanisms. While I am not certain he will have the say over the machine as the people hope he will, the moment is damaging to the globalist financial monster because if he isn’t in control, the masses will know it. President Trump is the first person in my memory to attempt to call out the system for what it is and seemingly be interested in dismantling it for good. If he is unable to succeed, the show is over, and the people will know that they have no say in the process. Representative government will be shown for what many of us believe it to be…a farce of unimaginable proportions.

As monies have been intermittently shut off during the first hundred days of the Trump administration, the real trickle-down, socialist style economics of the governmental spine of funding has made its way into the American business landscape. There are laments in small businesses about how projects have disappeared and grants are frozen, so they have lost giant swaths of income. It is breaking apart the illusion that we are some kind of pure capitalist country for many who are being affected. It is demonstrating with painful precision that everything we believe to be true about our society is false. We are the subjects and servants of a leviathan creature designed to harm us if we ever dare leave the plantation.

What will that mean for the future? It is hard to see anything but a major crash or contented people who acquiesce to a life of slavery. There is no soft way to land this plane. The intertwining of all of the financial systems with the theater governments and the vast number of people who benefit from the way the system runs leaves a very troubled moment for the human who wants to exercise their natural inclinations towards freedom and liberty. We stand at another Declaration-style moment, and the jury is out as to our response this time. The men and women of 1776 decided that decentralizing from the East India Company and the King was the only way to live an honest and integrity-filled life. There were more at that time too who stood to benefit from keeping the system as it was than the ones who were pursuing rebellion; just as it seems it is today. The mercantile interests of the bankers and businesses then were no less burdensome than the ones we face now. I would imagine that if one were to ask Jefferson or Adams what they believed they were facing, they would describe it as an impossible moment, uncertain of the outcome, and failure would ruin their existence. We are in exactly the same place. The consolidators want a worldwide empire with diminished risk and filled with rewards for them. The people, overwhelmingly, continue to seek a breaking apart.

In Canada’s election, the rural West voted in large numbers to change the Trudeauian course of their nation. They were overwhelmed by the cities and those who stand to benefit from keeping the system intact as it stands today. The question now is, how hard is anyone willing to fight to preserve fifty stars, or a Maple Leaf on a flag? If there are no mutual benefits to being warring factions within the boundaries of the country, shouldn’t we then ask about the effectiveness and necessity of boundaries that force that friction upon the people?

Does coastal California want to be subjected to a smaller, independent government or disband the globalist system that many of them survive upon? It appears not. Does rural Colorado want to be subjected to whatever policies are forced upon them by a majority, most of whom depend upon the backbone of money doled out by the government? It seems they do not. But why are they forced to stay together? What mutual benefit do they gain, besides the right to call themselves Canadians or Americans or Californians? It seems like a very heavy lift for such a little reward.

So what motivates this staying together besides the desire of the powerful to disallow the risk? It seems that the fight is not actually between Republicans and Democrats or Liberals and Conservatives. They have found their way into their smaller boundaries and like-minded neighborhoods, all without any coercion by mandate or governmental force. There are peaceful ways to get smaller and not be in a perpetual battle over ideas or funding, or ways of living. But the consolidators will do everything in their power to keep the machine together. They depend upon the extraction of capital and human labor to keep their lives comfortable and working. They cannot have the puzzle they have nearly completed dashed into a thousand separate pieces upon the floor below.

So we will be in a struggle until one philosophy prevails. They have all of the tools, all of the money, and all of the institutions, but if we believe in the fundamentals of natural law, we have something far more valuable:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.