America's Democratic Scientific Socialism, Subversion!

Synopsis

THE PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN Age of Re-Enlightenment 3^rd Millennium

The Sovereign Citizens of America are endeavoring to Conserve the “original deal “of our Republic form of civil government, of incontrovertibly America’s Intellectual Founding Father, the founder of the “Original or Positive Classic Liberal Political Philosophy“, and the founder of Empiricism the first to formally expressed Empirical Analysis or the regular sequence theory of induction, or the Modern Scientific Method. The father of Empirical Epistemology or the Human Acquisition of Knowledge, The father of the Age of (Empirical) Enlightenment or The Age of (Empirical) Reason considered” the Intellectual Ruler of the World in the 18th century domestically, the English philosopher John Locke who was plagiarized in our Declaration of Independence in1776, and our Written Constitution and Bill of Rights, in 1789 by the newly Independent, Formally British American Colonist - Revolutionary Radical Right Wing Extremist - Founding Fathers. Whom made a 180 degree civil government movement from the negative left Totalitarian, Authoritarian form of government to the positive right Libertarian form government. They turned the World Right Side Up!

DIALECTIC MATERIALISM WITH REVISIONISM IS NOT A INTELLECTUAL REVELATION! IT’S A PSYCHOLOGICAL REVELATION!

American Civil Liberties Union: the Democratic Scientific Socialist Antithetical Constitutional Revisionist Unelected Shadow legislators.

Francis Bacon (1561 - 1626) , English philosopher and statesman, born at York House, in the Strand, London., Bacon’s philosophy emphasized the belief that truth is not derived from authority, and that knowledge is the fruit of experience. Bacon is generally credited with having contributed to logic the method known as ampliative inference, a technique of inductive reasoning. Previous logicians had practiced induction by simple enumeration, that is, drawing general conclusions from particular data. Bacon’s method was to infer by use of analogy, from the characteristics or properties of the larger group to which that datum belonged, leaving to later experience the correction of evident errors. Because it added significantly to the improvement of scientific hypotheses, this method was a fundamental advancement of the scientific method.

Bacon’s Novum Organum (New Instrument) was a contribution to science in that it successfully influenced the acceptance of accurate observation and experimentation in science. In it he maintained that all prejudices and preconceived attitudes, which he called idols, must be abandoned, whether they be the common property of the race due to common modes of thought (“ idols of the tribe “) , or the peculiar possession of the individual ( ´idols of the cave “ ) ; whether they arise from too great a dependence on language ( “ idols of the market place “ ) , or from tradition ( “ idols of the theater “ )

Antithetical or Neo-Liberalism Obscurantism has effectively rendered America’s Sovereign Citizens Intellectually Defenseless for 176 years! Since 1833. Without John Locke’s Works America has No Intellectual Founding Fundamental Principles and Constitutional Law!

(1632-1704), English philosopher, who founded the school of empiricism (q.v.) “a moderate and tolerant Protestant Christian“.

Locke was born in the village of Wrington, Somerset, on Aug. 29, 1632. He was educated at the Christ Church College at Oxford and lectured on Greek, rhetoric, and moral philosophy at Oxford from 1661 to 1664. In 1667 Locke began his association with the English statesman Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st earl of Shaftesbury, to whom Locke was friend, adviser, and physician. Shaftesbury secured for Locke a series of minor government appointments. In 1669, in one of his official capacities, Locke wrote a constitution for the proprietors of the Carolina Colony in North America, but it was never put into effect. In 1675, after the liberal Shaftesbury had fallen from favor, Locke went to France. In 1679 he returned to England, but in view of his opposition to the Roman Catholicism favored by the English monarchy at that time, he soon found it expedient to return to the Continent. From 1683 to 1688 he lived in Holland, and took a critical part in negotiating for the parliament, to have William and Mary’s assent to the Bill of Right, before they could be crowned! following the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 and the restoration of Protestantism to favor, Locke returned with the Queen’s party once more to England. The new king, William III, appointed Locke to the Board of Trade in 1696, a position from which he resigned because of ill health in 1700. He died in Oates on Oct. 28, 1704. Approximately 72 years before our Written Declaration of Independence, that our founding fathers plagiarized by using his and only his just grounds for violent revolution !

Empiricism.

Locke's empiricism emphasizes the importance of the experience of the senses in pursuit of knowledge rather than intuitive speculation or deduction. The empiricist doctrine was first expounded by the English philosopher and statesman Francis Bacon early in the 17th century, but Locke gave it systematic expression in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690). He regarded the

mind of a person at birth as a tabula ras a, a blank slate upon which experience imprinted knowledge, and did not believe in intuition or theories of innate conceptions. Locke also held that all persons are born good, independent, and equal. See Epistemology ; Philosophy : Modern Philosophy.

Political Theories.

Locke further held that revolution was not only a right but often an obligation, and he advocated a system of checks and balances in government, which was to comprise three branches, of which the legislative is more powerful than the executive or the judicial. He also believed in religious freedom and in the separation of church and state. See also Political Theory .

John Locke and His Influence

The empiricism of Locke was criticized from two different quarters, from followers who thought he had not gone far enough and from critics who thought he had gone too far. To some of his followers the Essay, although it seemed to point in the right direction, was not empirical enough. Locke had included a "rationalist" defense of moral truths and of the existence of God, for instance, claiming for them the kind of knowledge reserved for mathematics. He also, against empiricist principles, allowed that the mind was capable of forming abstract general ideas. To some of his empiricist successors this seemed to reinstate some of the metaphysical abstractions Locke's method and principles had managed to exclude. The Irish freethinker John Toland (1670–1722), for instance, attacked those mathematicians who turned to metaphysics in proposing such concepts as absolute space and time. For Toland the concept of a soul as an immaterial substance was another such untenable abstraction. Toland's radical interpretation of Locke brought out the natural association of empiricism with materialism. Locke sought to dissociate himself from Toland, but he was not entirely able to do so.

Locke was by some measures the most influential philosopher of the eighteenth century, at any rate in Britain and France. There was some controversy between those who supported an empiricism like Locke's and those who favored the more rationalist philosophies of Leibniz or the French priest Nicolas Malebranche (1638–1715). But for many the decision was not whether to be for or against Locke, but whether to support a more radical or a more conservative interpretation of his empiricism.

The more radical reading of Locke became very influential in France, where skepticism and materialism were attractive to a number of intellectuals or philosophes, as they were called. These included the aristocratic Voltaire (1694–1778), who was noted for his hostility to the ecclesiastical establishment and for his slogan Écrasez l'infâme! ('Crush the infamous thing!'). In his Lettres philosophiques (1734; Letters on the English) Voltaire praised the new experimental method of Bacon, Locke, and Newton. This English trio was also adulated by many of those involved in the Encyclopédie project. The chief editor, Denis Diderot (1713–1784), was a freethinking empiricist and materialist.

Most British philosophers who followed Locke sought to interpret or modify his philosophy so that it would be compatible with religious belief. This was true of the Irish clergyman George Berkeley (1685–1753), who argued, in effect, that a more consistent empiricism than Locke's would undermine materialism. Berkeley argued that there were no "abstract general ideas," as Locke had allowed, but that the ideas we have are always particular. The concept of "matter" was a scholastic abstraction that was not needed in order to make sense of our experience. Berkeley's conclusion that the only substances in the world were God and spirits like ourselves was generally thought to be unbelievable. His analysis of the mathematical sciences foreshadows the "instrumentalism" common in twentieth century philosophies of physics. He allowed abstractions like "force" and "gravity" into theoretical formulae that were useful for making predictions, even though he did not think it should be supposed that anything answering to these abstractions exists in reality.

Berkeley's philosophy of the mathematical sciences was hardly acknowledged in the eighteenth century. This is surprising in view of the complaint, commonly made against empiricism, that it fails to do justice to the mathematical sciences. On an empiricist account, mathematical truths are only truths about the necessary relations between our ideas and not substantial truths about the world. Empiricism seemed for this reason an unsuccessful philosophy. The great German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) accepted that our ideas arise in experience and that most of our knowledge is based on our senses. In his Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1781; Critique of pure reason), however, he argued that the truths of arithmetic and geometry were both necessary and substantial truths about the world, although empiricism cannot strictly allow them. Kant left a highly influential legacy of criticism of empiricism to subsequent philosophy..

CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES,

political and social concepts referring to guarantees of freedom, justice, and equality that a state may make to its citizens. Although the terms have no precise meaning in law and are sometimes used interchangeably, distinctions may be made. Civil rights is used to imply that the state has a positive role in ensuring all citizens equal protection under law and equal opportunity to exercise the privileges of citizenship and otherwise to participate fully in national life, regardless of race, religion, sex, or other characteristics unrelated to the worth of the individual. Civil liberties is used to refer to guarantees of freedom and speech, press, or religion; due process of law; and other limitations on the power of the state to restrain or dictate the actions of individuals. The two concepts of equality and liberty are overlapping and interacting; equality implies the ordering of liberty within society so that the freedom of one person does not infringe on the rights of others.

HISTORY

The concept that human beings have inalienable rights and liberties that cannot justly be violated by others or by the state, while a distinct idea, is linked to the history of democracy. It was first expressed by the philosophers of ancient Greece. Socrates, for example, chose to die rather than renounce the right to speak his mind in the search for wisdom. Somewhat later the Stoic philosophers formulated explicitly the doctrine of the rights of the individual ( see Stoicism ). Traces of libertarian doctrine appear in the Bible and in the writings of the Roman statesman Marcus Cicero and the Greek essayist Plutarch. Such ideas, however, did not gain a permanent place in the political structure of the Roman Empire and almost disappeared during medieval times.

Early Development.

Individual freedom can survive only under a system of law by which both the sovereign and the governed are bound. The idea of government limited by law received effective expression for the first time in the Magna Charta (1215), which checked the power of the English king. It did not stem from democratic or egalitarian beliefs; rather, it was a treaty between king and nobility that defined their relationship and laid the basis for the concept that the ruler was subject to the law rather than above it. The ideas of absolutism and divine right persisted, however, and the reigns of the Tudor and Stuart monarchs in England were marked by fierce conflicts between the Crown and Parliament.

On the European continent the struggle between authoritarian and libertarian principles developed around religious rather than secular issues. During the Reformation (q.v.) , freedom of religious belief and practice was a primary concern. Tolerance was rare; as late as 1612, Unitarians were burned as heretics in England ( see Unitarianism ). Not until the end of the 18th century did the ideals of religious toleration become established in Western civilization.

The Founding Fathers were all Informal not Formal Moral & Ethical and intellectual empirical abstract reasoning literate citizens.

EMPIRICISM,
in philosophy, doctrine that affirms that all knowledge is based on experience, and denies the possibility of spontaneous ideas or a priori thought. Until the 20th century the term empiricism was applied to the view held chiefly by the English philosophers of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Of these the English philosopher John Locke was the first to give it systematic expression, although his compatriot, the philosopher Francis Bacon, had anticipated some of its characteristic conclusions. The philosophy opposed to empiricism was rationalism (q.v.) , represented by such thinkers as the French philosopher Rene Descartes; the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza; the German philosophers Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Christian von Wolff; and the British philosophers George Berkeley, David Hume, and John Stuart Mill. Rationalists asserted that the mind was capable of recognizing reality by means of the reason, a faculty that existed independent of experience. Immanuel Kant, the great German philosopher, attempted a compromise between empiricism and rationalism, restricting knowledge to the domain of experience, and thus agreeing with the empiricists, but attributing to the mind a constructive function in building the raw materials of sensations into the systematic structure of experience. This structure could be known a priori without resorting to empirical methods, and in this respect Kant agreed with the rationalists.

The most successful empirical experiment in civil government

In the history of the world.

But not until another 40 years later around turn of the 19th to 20th century, that Formal Evolutionary Socialism was developed, Formal Dialectic Materialism - Revisionism was tested and proven successfully implemented in Germany with the system of replacing Positive Republics with Negative Democracies. By using the system of democratic scientific socialism that is gradual, incremental implementation by first forming its economical bureaucracy of social security with the same premise of growing with interest funds that are immediately raided to enlarge with more Anti-Capitalistic Entitlement bureaucracies perpetually funding itself until this symbiotic parasite kills its host victim. The first generation always accept without a vote for social security because human nature dictates its something for nothing, and they are lured into this National trap of a retirement without having had to pay into it! Which demonstrates that the Greatest Generation wasn’t so Great ! in Germany by the end of World War 1, in which 10 million German soldiers who were killed, and Germany was placed in debt for the distant future by their democratic socialist political leaders that became the wealthiest war machine industrial owners, that got Germany into the war to begin with, and then they capitulated to their enemies. at the Treaty of Versailles Which may sound familiar Korea, Vietnam, Iraq. until Adolph Hitler and the violent revolutionary labor party, national socialist or fascist pitted evil vs. evil against each other. and then in America Franklin D. Roosevelt directed implementation by Norman Thomas who led the socialist party U.S. from 1924 to 1968 and much of its economic program became law under the New Deal legislation. Then Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Clinton all continued contributing implementation until the present coup-d‘etat.. Unfortunately this state of the art evolved propaganda and political rhetoric instantaneous intellectual Antitheticalism Revisionism psychological warfare system creating a Cognitive Dissonance behavioral inverting re-education of each individual, has as it was intended, to overwhelmingly demonstrate that resistance is futile. It certainty is, if allowed to continue.! To date in 2009 its approximated that 200 million innocent human lives have been taken worldwide by this evil Intellectual antitheticalism ideology,

Federal Commandeering for forced racial integration.

STATE and local government PUBLIC EDUCATION .

Of which the cause and effect has just now been politically established, by electing a confessed socialist president of the United States of America. With the expectation of a growing Majority coming on line of Socialist Communist indoctrinated mind controlled electorate.

Psychological debilitating effect of a long train of antithetical empirical self evident fundamental foundational Moral & Ethical and Intellectual abstract reasoning literate propositions that has created a profound conflicting idea confusion to we the enemy!

con·fu·sion [k?n fy??’n]

1. bewilderment: the act of confusing somebody or something, or the state of being confused or perplexed

2. lack of clarity: misunderstanding of a situation or the facts

3. mistaking one for another: a failure to distinguish between people or things

4. disorder: a chaotic or disordered state

5. embarrassment: self-consciousness or embarrassment

6. disoriented state of mind: a psychological state in which somebody is disoriented and unable to think clearly

1. incompatible: not capable of being made to agree or coexist with something else

2. unresolvable: incapable of being resolved

3. implacable: determinedly hostile and unwilling to accept compromise

1. implacable person: somebody who is determinedly hostile or will not accept compromise

2. incompatible idea: any one of two or more ideas, beliefs, or principles that cannot be made to agree or coexist

Compounded, accumulated or intensified Cognitive Dissonance. By introducing antithetical, inverted or reversed Metaphysical Religion General Principals and their Particular Principles repeatedly over a long period of time creates a intensified psychological conflict in addition to Ontological Economic general principles and their particular principles of simultaneously held beliefs render the average person continually in a state of being Psychologically overwhelmed.

contradictory mental state: a state of psychological conflict or anxiety resulting from a contradiction between a person’s simultaneously held beliefs or attitudes

cognitive dissonance n (1957) : psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously

incongruous \(,)in-'kaen-gre-wes\ adj [LL incongruus, fr. L in- + congruus congruous] (1611) : lacking congruity: as
a : not harmonious : incompatible <~ colors>
b : not conforming : disagreeing <conduct ~ with principle>
c : inconsistent within itself <an ~ story>
d : lacking propriety : unsuitable <~ manners> _ incongruously adv _ incongruousness n

Sublimation (psychology), the transformation of emotions. subliminal \(,)se-'bli-me-n e l\ adj [ sub- + L limin-, limen threshold] (1886)

1 : inadequate to produce a sensation or a perception

2 : existing or functioning below the threshold of consciousness <the ~ mind> <~ advertising> _ subliminally adv

Sub·lim·i·nal [sub límmin’l]

adj

without awareness: entering, existing in, or affecting the mind without conscious awareness

We all now know that Acorn representatives have been convicted of voter fraud and the Justice Department is looking into it. and if the Stanley Kurtz report exposing that even more importantly as Sol Stern explains that Acorn is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s “New Left” with a “1960’s bred agenda of anti-capitalism “ to match. Acorn, says Stern , grew out of “one of the New Left ‘s silliest and most destructive groups , the National Welfare Rights Organization “. in the 1960’s NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare office’s.. The goal was to remove eligibility restrictions and thus effectively flood welfare roll’s with so many clients that the system would burst , the theory, explains Stern , was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force “a radical reconstruction of America’s “unjust capitalist economy”. which establishes the “ultimate objective intent “with the combined revelation of Barack Obama’s close mutually trusted relationship with Bill Ayers as a unrepentant subversive violent anti-American terrorist who at his own home started Barack Obama’s political career and entrusted him “to control million’s dollars of his grant Woods Fund of which a large amount went to Acorn of which obama was the national leadership trainer of coercive banking tactics and strategy, who instructed the same system as the earlier NWRO Anti-American welfare theory, to create a impossibly overburdened welfare housing that was politically intentionally connected to the capitalist free market housing lending system that would “absolutely force” a “radical reconstruction of Americas “unjust capitalist economy” This would isolate the true cause of the current economical disaster, as Obama ‘s campaign rhetoric blamed bush & wall street and waited for the liberal partisan dominant mass media master spin doctors to achieve the voter inverted perception that he would be the solution to effectively correct the problem, which obviously succeeded as indicated by a voter poll surge blaming the last 8 years of republican administration and wall street for his and his parties own subversively designed economic ultimate objective. Indeed the democratic party is already drafting a ”radically reconstructed Americas “just Socialist economy”

ironically we the American people & John McCain “didn’t get it “until now! Because it was clandestine! As a American citizen, I demand a bi-partisan investigation concerning high treason by economic subversion, for this vast left wing Anti-American conspiracy, that intentionally facilitated crimes against the innocent people of the United States. to implement a democratic scientific socialist economic and ideological coup-d‘etat.. In addition, what else would explain the initial exposure, huge massive enthusiastic welcome by the socialist Europeans? By this humble little community organizer?

WHAT KIND OF MAGIC IS THIS?

                VOODOO LOGIC = Voodoo ANTICONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY = VOODOO OBAMA!

The Current Constitutional Attorney, or International “Change Agent “President Elect has made the statement that the United States of America’s Constitution is Fundamentally Defective! “We the people” or “Operant Conditioning Victims”, ”Sovereign Citizens of the United State of America declare to the world that the Written Constitution of United States of America is Not Defective, and that Rather it is the Universal Suffrage Amendments to the Constitution that are Fundamentally Defective! And that they are Not Only Unconstitutional but rather Anti- Constitutional. That they intentionally serve to Anti-Constitutionally Disenfranchise the Incontrovertible Original Intent : informal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Literate Protestant Christian Male Sovereign Citizens that were 98 percent of the Political Electorate at the founding of our Nation. And are now 30 percent of the Political Electorate! And “Anti-Constitutionally” Subjetcated by a Intentionally Secularized Men & Woman Majority of 70 percent, informal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Illiterate, and Antithetically Literate Subjects of the State Citizens. Anti-Constitutionally Transforming 180 degrees from the Positive Right +X, +Y, +Z. to the Negative Left -X, -Y, -Z. our Written, Liberal Individual Right, democratic Representative, Legal Constitutional Republic form of Civil Government into its Negative Antithesis Unwritten , Liberal Government Right, Pure Democratic Representative Illegal Anti-Constitutional Democratic Form of Civil Government

It is our incontrovertible Contention that a informal World Intellectual System of Logic now Formalize and called Dialectic Materialism with its Formal System of Revisionism that allows Metaphysical and Ontological inversion of Empirical Self Evident Propositions, that Intentionally Creates a Psychological Conflict, of opposite beliefs, called Cognitive Dissonance. That we now Recognize as a World Psychological Warfare Instrument to confuse and Invert the Human Perceptual Reality, and Under the Influence of this Diabolically Ingenious System. World Governments have fallen in the 19^th and 20^th Century. And several hundred million innocent lives have been unjustly taken in the pursuit of a Evil Extreme Negative One World Order Domination by Democratic Scientific Socialism.

The Sovereign Citizens of the United States of America have been Kept in a Perpetual state of Defensive Posture for 176 years

Preoccupying our complete immediate attention, while democratic scientific socialist were implementing major changes domestically.

As with a personal computer that requires a Digital Operating System of Logic, or DOS. We all now know that all humans have a biological Super Computer that needs a Intellectual System of Logic to discern our Moral & Ethical and Intellectual abstract Reasoning literacy. At the founding of the United States of America the Intellectual System of the Protestant Christian Age of Enlightenment was Empirical Analysis, and Americans were 98 percent Protestant Christian and Accepted the Metaphysical or Irreducible Mysteries First Cause or Positive Reality + God Belief System or + Divine Operating System of + DOS +Logic, of which there is a Negative Antithesis of the First Cause belief System that is an Antithetical Ontological or Reducible Mysteries First Cause or Negative Reality antithetical or - god belief System of the antithetical or Biological Evolution - Divine Operating System of - Logic .or - DOS of - Logic. Dialectic Materialism - Revisionism. That induces a Psychological Conflict of opposite ideas or contradictions that create a human Psychological conflict condition called Cognitive Dissonance to challenge and reverse our human +DOS, +Logic into -DOS ,-Logic . Using the Democratic Scientific Socialism of gradual incremental implementation system of three steps forward and one step back

The Hate Crime Issue : America’s Metaphysical First Cause Protestant Christian God Justly Positively Hates Extreme Negative or Evil and all less Negative Evil elements of Bad potentials of human nature, and Justly Positively Loves Extreme Positive Divine and all less Positive Righteousness elements of Good potentials of human nature. Therefore you might say we are Just Positive Hate Mongers!

Therefore it follows that the complete history of Christianity is a history of Positive Warfare against Extreme Negative or Evil ! The first law of nature is Just Positive Self Preservation !

The Empirical Evidence Incontrovertibly Demonstrates that The United States America is Now a Anti-Constitutional Democratic Scientific Socialist State. Which is a 180 degree Civil Government Movement from the Positive Right to the Negative Left They have turned the World Upside Down! Or geometrically from a positive +X, +Y, +Z. right to left movement to a negative -X, -Y, -Z..

The Negative Antithesis of our Positive written Constitutional Republic form of Civil Government. The Democratic Scientific Socialist, Democratic Party has Anti-Constitutionally Forced through Universal Suffrage Political Enfranchisement legislation. Anti-Constitutionally politically Disenfranchising the Original Protestant Christian informal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Literate Men. Whom were Constitutionally Politically Enfranchised by 98 percent of the United States of America Politically Enfranchised Electorate. Now with a evolutionary socialist executive, legislative and judicial branch of our civil government in place. We expect a amendment to the U.S. Constitution Formally Transforming America into a Democratic Form of Civil Government to reconcile the obvious constitutional defect that we have already Formally Implemented Legislatively in 1964. When this occurs America will Formally Become a Democratic Scientific Socialist - Communist State. and you will have no unalienable rights. Slavery!

The Semantics of “we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal” proposition, has been intentionally inverted to reinterpret it to imply that “all men are born moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning literate equal’s“. This contradicts, the indubitably demonstrated empirical self evident proposition that John Locke expressed, which was that all men are created by God and that the son of God was the son of God at the instant or trillion trillionths of a second of his immaculate conception. As are humans human, with LIIBERAL HUMAN RIGHTS TO LIFE! But men “are born, good, independent, and equal” (biologically), That is that “all men are born moral & ethical and intellectually abstract reasoning illiterate” he regarded the mind of man at birth as tabla rasa, a blank slate upon which experience imprinted knowledge, a modern analogy would be a mind as a un-programmed biological super computer that processes one thousand trillion bits of information per second , that out performs all the cray computers connected together that can process ten trillion bits of information per second. All humans must be educated, programmed, indoctrinated in positive morals & ethics and intellectual abstract reasoning literacy, because an adult abstract reasoning illiterate is like a lion or tiger that has a mind incapable of learning abstract reasoning literate knowledge, and will kill you to eat you if wants to. without the potential of a conscience But illiterate humans without conscience but with the potential, are more dangerous and cunning. Therefore responsible citizens in a 98 percent majority Protestant Christian society Liberal Republic That accepts the personal responsibility of educating their children at least in informal moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning literate principles of common sense, responsible, independent citizen with a covenant with God and a social contract with each other. Protestant Christian men accept the responsibility and are obligated in a marriage as a covenant with God, the highest authority! to love honor & provide for his wife and their children, Also in this republic sufferance didn’t constitute grounds for political enfranchisement.! That serves only to disenfranchise the abstract reasoning literate Protestant Christian men, the original political electorate majority, by Christian and secular women’s suffrage to 50 percent, then down to 30 percent. by secular African universal. sufferance. By not only un-constitutional but anti-constitutionalism principles.

The All-inclusive: Immigration and Naturalization. Sworn under Oath, Upon a King James Version of the Holy Bible.

In America at the founding the Majority Religion was Protestant Christian, if you were not a Protestant Christian, but did agree to obey the King James Version of the Holy Bibles God limited human laws, with his liberal human rights. You would be endowed by this Creator with certain unalienable rights! But if you do not agree to obey these limited human laws with liberal human rights, you are not endowed by this Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The cause and effect of Americas Metaphysical foundational principles of the Protestant Christian Religion’s empirically demonstrated positive Moral & Ethical Abstract Reasoning Literacy has proven as Locke theorized to be exceedingly positive, and as he instructed is absolutely Essential as the First and most Critically Essential and most important element of Education to promote a society of mutually responsible, honest, self sufficient , that personally govern their own actions autonomously, that Earn their Personal Dignity, and peaceful coexistence and compatibility to free up a united effort for their Earned Economic Survival and then Earned Economic Prosperity with limited human laws and liberal human rights, and then intellectual abstract reasoning literacy is the less essential for technological innovations of Advancing the Science‘s, of the Arts, and literature, Advanced Education , industry, agriculture, etc…

All humans are born moral & ethically and intellectually abstract reasoningilliterate, and have in common a free will and free choice of our personal actions, if we are taught positive morals & ethics and intellectual abstract reasoning literate principles we are positive.

EMPIRICAL ANALOGICAL INFERENCE

Premise 1.

Positive

Thesis ::

Informal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Literate, Common Sense, Responsible ,Independent Productive Citizens.

Lead By:

Informal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Literate, Common Sense, Responsible ,Independent Productive Citizens.

Premise 2.

Negative

Antithesis :

Informal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Illiterate, Irresponsible, Illegitimate, Dependent, Non Productive & Counter Productive Citizens.

Lead By :

Formal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Literate Diabolically Ingenious leaders with a Antithetical inverted Totalitarian-

Authoritarian goal.

Which is the perfectly negative Antithesis of Liberal Republic positive thesis principles. When empirical analogical inference is applied. As demonstrated by the first treatises being the leftist totalitarian-authoritarian. That is a 180 degree transition from the right to the left and the second treatises being the libertarian Radical liberal 180 degree transition from the left to the right ,in the two treaties on civil government, the founding text on liberal political philosophy, which finds its intellectual origins in Locke’s liberal political thought empirical self evident proposition that was discovered by a religious not political proposition “yes you are the original positive liberals” of the Protestant Christian Gods limited human laws leave liberal human rights. In addition Locke teaches that in empirically analyzing the epistles of St. Paul that hundreds of eye witnesses swore testaments under his threat of death, as a official Christian persecutor of the Sanhedrin, that they personally witnessed miracles preformed by Jesus Christ, and that as of the late 17th century, eye witness testimony was just grounds for capital punishment. There is no other precedent in all of the annals of history with such indubitable evidence of actual miracles recorded, !This constitutes the only empirically analyzed World Religion that is empirically reasonable.

Note :on the quote that Machiavelli used in the Prince, and Locke used in his Two Treatise “Republic” form of civil government.

Quod si nihil cu potentiore juris humani relinquitur inopi, at ego ad Deos vindices humanae superbiae confugiam; et precabor ut iras

Suas vertant in eos, quibus non suae res, non alienae satis sint quorum Saevitiam non mors noxiorum exatiet; placari nequeant, nisi

hauriendum sanguinem laniandaque viscera nostra praebuerimus. Liv. Lib. Ix. c. i.

‘ But if, in dealing with the mighty, the weak are left no human rights, yet will I seek protection in the gods, who visit retribution on human pride. And I will beseech them that they turn their anger against those who are not content with their own, or with that of others, who will not be sated with the death of the guilty. They are not to be placated unless we yield to them our blood to drink and our entrails to tear out.

John Locke, The Two Treatises of Civil Government (Hollis ed.) [1689]

Second Treatise

Both of these below Constitutional Amendments are Empirically Demonstrated to be not only Un-Constitutional but Anti-Constitutional. that in all effect Transforms America’s Form of Civil Government from a Original Intent Positive Republic into a Negative Democracy. All under the Psychological warfare use of Dialectic Materialism - Revisionism Propaganda Psychological operant conditioning conflict of beliefs effect of cognitive dissonance of the masses of citizens. That is called brain washing the masses. Secular Men and Woman or Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Illiterate’s can not be Politically Enfranchised to Disenfranchise Literate Men! If this occurs it is just grounds for Violent Revolution, not only as a right, but as an obligation! As John Locke Clearly Demonstrates.

U.S. Constitution: Nineteenth Amendment

Nineteenth Amendment - Women's Suffrage Rights

Section 1. The right of the citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

U.S. Constitution: Fifteenth Amendment

Fifteenth Amendment - Right of Citizens to Vote

Section. 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Republic vs. Democracy?

Wall Builders

David Barton

We have grown accustomed to hearing that we are a democracy; such was never the intent. The form of government entrusted to us by our Founders was a republic, not a democracy.¹ Our Founders had an opportunity to establish a democracy in America and chose not to. In fact, the Founders made clear that we were not, and were never to become, a democracy:

Many Americans today seem to be unable to define the difference between the two, but there is a difference, a big difference. That difference rests in the source of authority.

A pure democracy operates by direct majority vote of the people. When an issue is to be decided, the entire population votes on it; the majority wins and rules. A republic differs in that the general population elects representatives who then pass laws to govern the nation. A democracy is the rule by majority feeling (what the Founders described as a "mobocracy" ¹²); a republic is rule by law. If the source of law for a democracy is the popular feeling of the people, then what is the source of law for the American republic? According to Founder Noah Webster:

The transcendent values of Biblical natural law were the foundation of the American republic. Consider the stability this provides: in our republic, murder will always be a crime, for it is always a crime according to the Word of God. however, in a democracy, if majority of the people decide that murder is no longer a crime, murder will no longer be a crime.

America's immutable principles of right and wrong were not based on the rapidly fluctuating feelings and emotions of the people but rather on what Montesquieu identified as the "principles that do not change."¹⁴ Benjamin Rush similarly observed:

In the American republic, the "principles which did not change" and which were "certain and universal in their operation upon all the members of the community" were the principles of Biblical natural law. In fact, so firmly were these principles ensconced in the American republic that early law books taught that government was free to set its own policy only if God had not ruled in an area. For example, Blackstone's Commentaries explained:

The Founders echoed that theme:

The Founders understood that Biblical values formed the basis of the republic and that the republic would be destroyed if the people's knowledge of those values should ever be lost.

A republic is the highest form of government devised by man, but it also requires the greatest amount of human care and maintenance. If neglected, it can deteriorate into a variety of lesser forms, including a democracy (a government conducted by popular feeling); anarchy (a system in which each person determines his own rules and standards); oligarchy (a government run by a small council or a group of elite individuals): or dictatorship (a government run by a single individual). As John Adams explained:

Understanding the foundation of the American republic is a vital key toward protecting it.

They that Control the Perception, Controls the Public Opinion, which Controls the Political Vote, which Controls the Political Reality!

I must Concur with God that Humans are Biologically Miraculous Creatures, that Only when and if , we ever realize, we all only lack Empirically Demonstrated Positive Programming in Formal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Empirically Demonstrated Positive Abstract Reasoning Literate Principles into each and everyone of our own personal Biological Super Computers , we humans would then and only then be united in a Truly Utopian World! Progressing in unison in a Positive Direction for a more perfect human, earthly Reality. Or a Positive “One World Order”

Maximus Publius

For a Complete Empirical Analysis of the Demonstrated Intellectual Origins of United States of America and it’s Opposite ! the Ominous Specter of Evolutionary Communist Socialism by the Democratic Scientific Socialism systematic 3 step issue inversion,

the Structural Design of DIALECTIC MATERIALISM and Functioning Mechanics of Formal REVISIONISM, and Formal Psychological

The empiricism of Locke was criticized from two different quarters, from followers who thought he had not gone far enough and from critics who thought he had gone too far. To some of his followers the Essay, although it seemed to point in the right direction, was not empirical enough. Locke had included a "rationalist" defense of moral truths and of the existence of God, for instance, claiming for them the kind of knowledge reserved for mathematics. He also, against empiricist principles, allowed that the mind was capable of forming abstract general ideas. To some of his empiricist successors this seemed to reinstate some of the metaphysical abstractions Locke's method and principles had managed to exclude. The Irish freethinker John Toland (1670–1722), for instance, attacked those mathematicians who turned to metaphysics in proposing such concepts as absolute space and time. For Toland the concept of a soul as an immaterial substance was another such untenable abstraction. Toland's radical interpretation of Locke brought out the natural association of empiricism with materialism. Locke sought to dissociate himself from Toland, but he was not entirely able to do so.

Locke was by some measures the most influential philosopher of the eighteenth century, at any rate in Britain and France. There was some controversy between those who supported an empiricism like Locke's and those who favored the more rationalist philosophies of Leibniz or the French priest Nicolas Malebranche (1638–1715). But for many the decision was not whether to be for or against Locke, but whether to support a more radical or a more conservative interpretation of his empiricism.

The more radical reading of Locke became very influential in France, where skepticism and materialism were attractive to a number of intellectuals or philosophes, as they were called. These included the aristocratic Voltaire (1694–1778), who was noted for his hostility to the ecclesiastical establishment and for his slogan Écrasez l'infâme! ('Crush the infamous thing!'). In his Lettres philosophiques (1734; Letters on the English) Voltaire praised the new experimental method of Bacon, Locke, and Newton. This English trio was also adulated by many of those involved in the Encyclopédie project. The chief editor, Denis Diderot (1713–1784), was a freethinking empiricist and materialist.

Most British philosophers who followed Locke sought to interpret or modify his philosophy so that it would be compatible with religious belief. This was true of the Irish clergyman George Berkeley (1685–1753), who argued, in effect, that a more consistent empiricism than Locke's would undermine materialism. Berkeley argued that there were no "abstract general ideas," as Locke had allowed, but that the ideas we have are always particular. The concept of "matter" was a scholastic abstraction that was not needed in order to make sense of our experience. Berkeley's conclusion that the only substances in the world were God and spirits like ourselves was generally thought to be unbelievable. His analysis of the mathematical sciences foreshadows the "instrumentalism" common in twentieth century philosophies of physics. He allowed abstractions like "force" and "gravity" into theoretical formulae that were useful for making predictions, even though he did not think it should be supposed that anything answering to these abstractions exists in reality.

Berkeley's philosophy of the mathematical sciences was hardly acknowledged in the eighteenth century. This is surprising in view of the complaint, commonly made against empiricism, that it fails to do justice to the mathematical sciences. On an empiricist account, mathematical truths are only truths about the necessary relations between our ideas and not substantial truths about the world. Empiricism seemed for this reason an unsuccessful philosophy. The great German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) accepted that our ideas arise in experience and that most of our knowledge is based on our senses. In his Kritik der reinen Vernunft (1781; Critique of pure reason), however, he argued that the truths of arithmetic and geometry were both necessary and substantial truths about the world, although empiricism cannot strictly allow them. Kant left a highly influential legacy of criticism of empiricism to subsequent philosophy..

CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES,

political and social concepts referring to guarantees of freedom, justice, and equality that a state may make to its citizens. Although the terms have no precise meaning in law and are sometimes used interchangeably, distinctions may be made. Civil rights is used to imply that the state has a positive role in ensuring all citizens equal protection under law and equal opportunity to exercise the privileges of citizenship and otherwise to participate fully in national life, regardless of race, religion, sex, or other characteristics unrelated to the worth of the individual. Civil liberties is used to refer to guarantees of freedom and speech, press, or religion; due process of law; and other limitations on the power of the state to restrain or dictate the actions of individuals. The two concepts of equality and liberty are overlapping and interacting; equality implies the ordering of liberty within society so that the freedom of one person does not infringe on the rights of others.

HISTORY

The concept that human beings have inalienable rights and liberties that cannot justly be violated by others or by the state, while a distinct idea, is linked to the history of democracy. It was first expressed by the philosophers of ancient Greece. Socrates, for example, chose to die rather than renounce the right to speak his mind in the search for wisdom. Somewhat later the Stoic philosophers formulated explicitly the doctrine of the rights of the individual ( see Stoicism ). Traces of libertarian doctrine appear in the Bible and in the writings of the Roman statesman Marcus Cicero and the Greek essayist Plutarch. Such ideas, however, did not gain a permanent place in the political structure of the Roman Empire and almost disappeared during medieval times.

Early Development.

Individual freedom can survive only under a system of law by which both the sovereign and the governed are bound. The idea of government limited by law received effective expression for the first time in the Magna Charta (1215), which checked the power of the English king. It did not stem from democratic or egalitarian beliefs; rather, it was a treaty between king and nobility that defined their relationship and laid the basis for the concept that the ruler was subject to the law rather than above it. The ideas of absolutism and divine right persisted, however, and the reigns of the Tudor and Stuart monarchs in England were marked by fierce conflicts between the Crown and Parliament.

On the European continent the struggle between authoritarian and libertarian principles developed around religious rather than secular issues. During the Reformation (q.v.) , freedom of religious belief and practice was a primary concern. Tolerance was rare; as late as 1612, Unitarians were burned as heretics in England ( see Unitarianism ). Not until the end of the 18th century did the ideals of religious toleration become established in Western civilization.

As a result of the English, American, and French revolutions, libertarian ideals were embodied in the structure of national governments. In England, the struggle between Parliament and the absolutist Stuarts culminated in the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688. King James II was expelled, and the new king, William III, gave royal assent (1689) to the Declaration of Rights guaranteeing constitutional government. Subsequently, the monarch's prerogatives were limited by statute and custom. The constitutional system is described in the writings of the English philosopher John Locke, which profoundly influenced the leaders of the American colonies. The only defense of our Constitutional Republic, can be exclusively found in the works of John Locke.

The Founding Fathers were all Informal not Formal Moral & Ethical and intellectual empirical abstract reasoning literate citizens.

EMPIRICISM,
in philosophy, doctrine that affirms that all knowledge is based on experience, and denies the possibility of spontaneous ideas or a priori thought. Until the 20th century the term empiricism was applied to the view held chiefly by the English philosophers of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries. Of these the English philosopher John Locke was the first to give it systematic expression, although his compatriot, the philosopher Francis Bacon, had anticipated some of its characteristic conclusions. The philosophy opposed to empiricism was rationalism (q.v.) , represented by such thinkers as the French philosopher Rene Descartes; the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza; the German philosophers Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and Christian von Wolff; and the British philosophers George Berkeley, David Hume, and John Stuart Mill. Rationalists asserted that the mind was capable of recognizing reality by means of the reason, a faculty that existed independent of experience. Immanuel Kant, the great German philosopher, attempted a compromise between empiricism and rationalism, restricting knowledge to the domain of experience, and thus agreeing with the empiricists, but attributing to the mind a constructive function in building the raw materials of sensations into the systematic structure of experience. This structure could be known a priori without resorting to empirical methods, and in this respect Kant agreed with the rationalists.
In recent years the term empiricism has taken on a more flexible meaning, and now is used in connection with any philosophical system that finds all of its materials in experience. In the U.S., William James called his own philosophy radical empiricism, and John Dewey coined the term immediate empiricism for his view of experience. The term empirical laws is applied to those laws that express relationships observed to subsist among phenomena, without implying the explanation or cause of the phenomena.
See also Philosophy: Modern Philosophy: Mechanism and Materialism .

This chain of fundamental social contract elements or empirical self-evident propositions (1) The Law of Nature is the Law of Reason or the Natural Law – Analogical Inference – Positive Thesis, Negative Antithesis. (2) The Majority Religion should be High Law in that country and the Protestant Christian; God Has limited human laws and liberal human rights. (3) These laws and rights are converted from religious to a secular artifice. Of a natures god with natures god limited human laws and liberal human rights. (4) Then secular limited civil laws and liberal civil rights. Neither of the secular natures god laws and rights or secular civil laws and rights can contradict the Religious High Laws and rights. Doing so would constitute just grounds for violent revolution. As not only a right but also an obligation.

The All-inclusive: Immigration and Naturalization. Sworn under Oath, Upon a King James Version of the Holy Bible.

In America at the founding the Majority Religion was Protestant Christian, if you were not a Protestant Christian, but did agree to obey the King James Version of the Holy Bibles God limited human laws, with his liberal human rights. You would be endowed by this Creator with certain unalienable rights! But if you do not agree to obey these limited human laws with liberal human rights, you are not endowed by this Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Our nation was founded on the principles that the religious majority should be the God principles that most people obey without government coercion, in America the population was 98 percent Protestant Christian and Protestant Christian Men Accept as a personal individual and family, God’s limited human law governance the Responsibility as a Covenant with God, to Love & Protect and Provide housing, clothing, food and Education for his Wife and Children, and their Christian Society. by the king James version of the holy bible religion who’s God has limited human laws and that which was left were liberal human rights , a Secular Artifice of a natures god with identical limited human laws with liberal human rights is created in the event that government Declares War on the Citizens, in which the Citizens not only have the Right , but the Obligation to withdraw their trust and tear down and replace it with the Original form of civil government and from this we derive our limited civil laws with liberal civil rights. this constitutes indubitable demonstrated empirical self evident propositions. Empirically Demonstrated on the Novum Organum 3^rd Millennium, descriptive, demonstrative geometrical sphere - Human Geometrical Perceptual Reality Orientation Instrument or the Empirical Geometrical Human Compass.

Adults without at least moral & ethical abstract reasoning literacy are dangerous like lions & tigers who are not biologically capable or lack the human faculties for abstract reasoning literacy, the law of Nature is the law of Reason, the only law that all men have the potential to share. And Where there are no laws there are no rights!

Adult’s with only Intellectual abstract reasoning literacy are subject to be Evil Geniuses.

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS - WORLD INTELLECTUAL SYSTEM OF LOGIC.

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS STRUCTUAL DESIGN AND FUNCTIONING MECHANICS AND INVERSION TO TEST ORIENTATION.

hypothesis \hi-'pae-the-ses\ n, pl -eses \-,sez\ [Gk, fr. hypotithenai to put under, suppose, fr. hypo- + tithenai to put _ more at do ] (ca. 1656)
1
a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument
b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement syn hypothesis, theory, law mean a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature. hypothesis implies insufficient evidence to provide more than a tentative explanation <a hypothesis explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs>. theory implies a greater range of evidence and greater likelihood of truth <the theory of evolution>. law implies a statement of order and relation in nature that has been found to be invariable under the same conditions <the law of gravitation>.

What is now known as classical or traditional logic was first formulated by Aristotle, who developed rules for correct syllogistic reasoning. A syllogism is an argument made up of statements in one of four forms: "All A's are B's" (universal affirmative), "No A's are B's" (universal negative), "Some A's are B's" (particular affirmative), or "Some A's are not B's" (particular negative). The letters stand for common nouns, such as "dog," "four-footed animal," "living thing," which are called the terms of the syllogism. A well-formed syllogism consists of two premises and a conclusion, each premise having one term in common with the conclusion and one in common with the other premise. In classical logic, rules are formulated by which all well-formed syllogisms are identified as valid or invalid forms of argument. (An Empirical Analysis can be formulated from a syllogism by validating not only the form, but by also validating the content of the premises and conclusion, and their orientation geometrically.) for a (Deduced) Empirical Self Evident Proposition supported by Empirical Evidence.

Premise 1. Premise 2.

Positive Negative

Thesis +X, +Y, +Z. Thesis -X, -Y, -Z.

All Moral Literate Men are Good. All Moral illiterate Men are Good.

Premise 2. Premise 1. + Conclusion : All Moral Literate Men are Good.

Negative Positive

Antithesis -X, -Y, -Z. Antithesis +X, +Y, +Z.

All Moral illiterate Men are Bad. All Moral Literate Men are Bad.

EMPIRICAL ANALOGICAL INFERENCE

Premise 1.

Positive

Thesis ::+X, +Y, +Z.

Informal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Literate, Common Sense, Responsible ,Independent Productive Citizens.

Lead By:

Informal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Literate, Common Sense, Responsible ,Independent Productive Citizens.

Premise 2.

Negative

Antithesis :-X, -Y, -Z.

Informal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Illiterate, Irresponsible, Illegitimate, Dependent, Non Productive & Counter Productive Citizens.

Lead By :

Formal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Literate Diabolically Ingenious leaders with a Antithetical inverted Totalitarian - Authoritarian goal. illiberal Radical Leftwing Extremist

1. Protestant Christian Individually Autonomously Self Governed Obligated by a Covenant with God. and his Ten Commandments

2. Protestant Christian Family Obligation by a Covenant with God.

3. Protestant Christian Society Obligation by a Covenant with God.

4. The Law of Nature, is the law of reason or the Natural Law, The King James Version of The Holy Bibles Religious Gods Limited Individual Human Laws & Liberal Individual Human Rights are Converted into a Natures God that is the secular artifice with Natural Law with a Natures God Limited Individual Human Laws & Liberal Individual Human Rights.

5. The secular artifice of Natures Gods Limited Individual Human Laws & Liberal Individual Human Rights are Converted into a Limited Individual Civil Laws & Liberal individual Civil Rights. With a Reciprocal Social Contract with each other.

THE ABSENSE OF EMPIRICAL EPISTOMOLOGY, All Men are born moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Illiterate..

SOCIALIST ECONOMIC ANTITHETICALISM

The Socialist Economic System is deliberately antithetical to the Capitalist Economic System, and “entitlement programs” have a anti-Capitalist effect of under minding the free market price competition of proven capitalism principles, with mandates and regulation and red tape the medical industry justifies higher prices and charges and inflated rates that the free market could not justify, creating an artificial inflation, ultimately because the taxpayer have to pay whatever it is! Thereby destroying the capitalist free market principles systematically. Social Security depends on a defect in irresponsible “human nature“, that being the irresistible temptation of “something for nothing“ for the first recipients that “pay nothing into the system“. And then Socialist extend entitlements supposedly free benefits into medical care and then medic aid and then prescription drug and now Universal Medicine, in addition to welfare payments and now welfare housing and then welfare homes and subsidized higher education. And business loans to Preferred Citizen status to the irresponsible dependent subject citizens of the state secular men and woman and minorities . In fact creating a class of “Privileged Citizens“. All counter Capitalist economics. That Steal from the middle class responsible independent productive citizens honestly earned profits to subsidize the nonproductive and counter productive subjects of the state This is 21^st Century Economic Slavery. .

The government run entitlement programs such as Medicare & Medicaid serve only to undermine the consumer prices in a free market medical industry by, paying higher prices for services than the free market would charge simply because the government use’s the tax payers unlimited resources to drive the prices up, such as $10.00 for a aspirin! In addition to bureaucratic red tape , therefore if the government entitlement programs were removed the consumer would dictate the free market prices, and the medical industry would return to competition and prices would return to lower reasonable prices, if complete socialized medicine is put in place, without a competitive free market, the prices will increase until the system completely fails! And this is what the democratic scientific socialist want! So as to implement a complete socialist economic system.

Two Sorts of Knowledge’ ( Journal, 26 June 1681) John Locke.

There are two sorts of knowledge in the world general and particular, founded upon two different principles: I.e. true ideas, and matter of fact, or history. All general knowledge is founded only upon true ideas; and so far as we have these we are capable of demonstration, or certain knowledge. For he that has the true idea of a triangle or circle is capable of knowing any demonstration concerning these figures; but if he have not the true ideas of a scalenon, he cannot know anything concerning a scalenon, though he may have some confused or imperfect opinion concerning a scalenon, upon a confused or imperfect idea of it; or when he believes what he hath heard others say concerning a scalenon, he may have some uncertain opinion concerning its properties, but this is belief and not knowledge. Upon the same reason, he that has a true idea of God, of himself as his creature, or the relation he stands in to God and his fellow creatures, and of justice, goodness, law, happiness, etc., is capable of knowing moral things, or having a demonstrative certainty in them.

The first and great step, therefore, to knowledge is to get the mind furnished with true ideas, which the mind being capable of having of moral things as well as figures, I cannot but think morality as well as mathematics capable of demonstration,

NOVUM ORGANUM

3^rd Millennium

THE HUMAN PERCEPTUAL REALITY ORIENTATION - GEOMETRICAL INSTRUMENT.

Descriptive Demonstrative Geometry Instrument.

"Therefore do not fear them, 'For there is nothing covered that will not be revealed, and hidden that will not be known." - Matthew 10:26

POSITIVE EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS - WORLD INTELLECTUAL SYSTEM OF LOGIC.

The Novum Organum 3^rd Millennium provides a tool to lock Positive Thesis and Negative Antithesis into a 3D Geometrical Sphere Because it appears that the human mind has difficulty perceiving global shifting of positive and negative orientation cognition.

THE HUMAN PERCEPTUAL Copyright 2009 Judson Rainey

REALITY ORIENTATION

GEOMETRICAL INSTRUMENT.

+X,+Y,+Z. Three Positive Prime Elements - The top, front, right octant is complete positive or 100 percent Positive - Right.

-X, -Y, -Z. Three Negative Prime Elements - The bottom, back, left octant is complete negative or 100 percent Negative - wrong.

HUMAN PERCEPTUAL

REALITY GEOMETRICAL Copyright 2009 Judson Rainey

ORIENTATION INSTRUMENT

The intellectual origins of the right is 2/3 positive elements or Right. The top, front, right octant is complete positive or absolute right.

The intellectual origin of the left is 2/3 negative elements or Wrong. The bottom, back, left octant is complete negative or absolute wrong.

HUMAN PERCEPTUAL

REALITY GEOMETRICAL Copyright 2009 Judson Rainey

ORIENTATION INSTRUMENT

The intellectual origins of the right is 2/3 positive elements or Right. The top, front, right octant is complete positive or complete right.

The intellectual origin of the left is 2/3 negative elements or Wrong. The bottom, back, left octant is complete negative or complete wrong.

Located: Top, Front, Right. Reciprocal Octant of Large Geometrical Sphere,

Contains 3 Prime Elements, +X, +Y, +Z..

100% Extreme Positive: Metaphysics – First Cause, Irreducible Mysteries.

Extreme Positive Divine Protestant Christianity – God.

First Half Extreme Positive Thesis of the Decalogue. Extreme Divine Protestant Christianity – God.

(Positive Thesis God’s Law’s between God and Man)

God‘s Law‘s between Man and Man or Limited Human Law‘s and that which is left are Liberal Human Right‘s.

10. Extreme Positive Divine Protestant Christianity – God.

9. Extreme Honest

8. Extreme Good

7. Extreme Right

6. Extreme Just

5. Extreme Moral

4. Extreme Progressive

3. Extreme Liberal

2. Extreme Humanitarian

1. Extreme Literate

Propositions that are above or in accordance to reason.

Located: Top, Front, Right. Reciprocal Octant Small Geometrical Sphere,

Contains 3 Prime Elements, +X, +Y, +Z.

100% Positive : Ontology – First Cause, Reducible Mysteries.

Second Half Positive Thesis of the Decalogue.

Positive Thesis: Natures God‘s Law‘s between Man and Man or Limited Human Law‘s and that which is left are Liberal Human Right‘s.

10. Divine Natures god

9. Honest Independent, Responsible, Productive Sovereign Citizens

8. Good (formal or informal positive moral, ethical and basic intellectual abstract reasoning literates)

7. Right

6. Just

5. Moral

4. Progressive

3 Liberal

2.Humanitarian

1. Literate

0. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- X

1. Illiterate

2. Inhumanitarian

3. Illiberal

4. Regressive

5. Immoral

6. Unjust

7. Wrong

8. Bad (formal or informal negative moral, ethical and basic intellectual abstract reasoning illiterates)

9. Dishonest dependent, irresponsible, Unproductive and Counter Productive Subject Citizens

10. Evil - Anti-Natures god

Negative Antithesis: Natures Gods Law‘s between Man and Man or Liberal Human Law‘s and that which is left are Limited Human Right‘s.

Second Half Negative Antithesis of the Decalogue.

100% Negative : Ontology – First Cause, Reducible Mysteries.

Contains 3 Prime Elements, -X, -Y, -Z.

Located : Bottom, Back, Left. Reciprocal Octant Small Geometrical Sphere,

Propositions that are below or not in accordance with reason

1. Extreme Illiterate

2. Extreme Inhumanitarian

3. Extreme Illiberal

4. Extreme Regressive

5. Extreme Immoral

6. Extreme Unjust

7. Extreme Wrong

8. Extreme Bad

9. Extreme Dishonest

10. Extreme Evil Anti-Christ – Anti-God, Devil

(Negative Antithesis God’s Law’s between God and Man)

First Half Extreme Negative Antithesis of the Decalogue.

Negative Antithesis: Natures Gods Law‘s between Man and Man or Liberal Human Law‘s and that which is left are Limited Human Right‘s.

Extreme Negative Evil Protestant Christianity – Devil

100% Extreme Negative Metaphysics – First Cause – Irreducible Mysteries.

Contains 3 Prime Elements, -X, -Y, -Z.

Located: Bottom, Back, Left. Reciprocal Octant of Large Geometrical Sphere

Copyright 2009 Judson Rainey

EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS STRUCTUAL DESIGN AND FUNCTIONING MECHANICS AND INVERSION TO TEST ORIENTATION.

d i s c e r n m e n t \ d-i-'s-c-e-r-n-m-e-n-t, -'zern-\ n (1586)

1 : the quality of being able to grasp and comprehend what is obscure : skill in discerning

2 : an act of discerning syn discernment, discrimination, perception, penetration, insight, acumen mean a power to see what is not evident to the average mind. discernment stresses accuracy (as in reading character or motives or appreciating art) <the discernment to know true friends>. discrimination stresses the power to distinguish and select what is true or appropriate or excellent <the discrimination that develops through listening to a lot of great music>. perception implies quick and often sympathetic discernment (as of shades of feeling) <a novelist of keen perception into human motives>. penetration implies a searching mind that goes beyond what is obvious or superficial <lacks the penetration to see the scorn beneath their friendly smiles>. insight suggests depth of discernment coupled with understanding sympathy <a documentary providing insight into the plight of the homeless>. acumen implies characteristic penetration combined with keen practical judgment <a director of reliable box-office acumen >.

EMPIRICAL ANALOGICAL INFERENCE

CITIZEN CONTENT OF CHARACTER

Premise 1.

Positive Thesis: +X, +Y, +Z.

As informal moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning literate, common sense, personally responsible, productive, honorable legitimate, independent citizens. That practices pragmatic discernment or just discrimination, between extreme positive-positive and negative-extreme negative, and the analogical inference of extreme positive God - positive good character and negative bad character, extreme negative Evil.

Premise 2.

Negative thesis:: -X, -Y, -Z.

As informal moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning illiterate, personally irresponsible, unproductive and counter-productive, dishonorable illegitimate dependent citizens.

African slaves with a complete recorded history of informal moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning illiteracy, have been

empirically demonstrated to be a tribal people in a constant state of tribal warfare for three thousand years by first killing & enslaving each others tribes, then in the 16th century upon the arrival of white Portuguese, the tribes began selling the defeated and enslaved enemy tribes into world slavery, making money selling their enemies made better sense than killing and cannibalizing or enslaving them, ironically you may have sold your neighbor one day and then another neighbor sold you the next, naturally civilized people considered Africans biologically human but morally & ethically and intellectually abstract reasoning illiterate Sub-Human because of their savage human behavior. and in 1612 the first African slaves arrived in the British American colonies where their average life expectancy quadrupled, and indentured white slavery stopped. Then it was two hundred and eighty years, before the American civil war, ended African slavery in America, but the emancipation proclamation did not alter fact that they and were and still are informal moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning illiterates, and not until the 1960’s, that the democratic scientific socialist inverted the worlds most advanced positive civil rights, with legislation, and forced integration in education, did Africans began to speak with understandable American English, and not African slang and did learn basic intellectual abstract reasoning literacy, but they adamantly irrationally deny the empirical evidence reality that they perpetuated their own self inflicted human condition. An predominantly unjustly absolutely hate all white people! the irresponsible illegitimacy rate of 80 percent of Africans in America is the empirical evidence that they are not moral & ethical abstract reasoning literates who were unjustly politically enfranchised with the universal suffrage principle that is empirically demonstrated as a negative proposition. And they are the racial bigots, unjustly racially prejudiced against all white informal moral & ethical and intellectual abstract literate Sovereign Citizen’s of the original deal of a liberal Republic. That they still unjustly blame for their own self inflicted historical human condition.

Unfortunately Christian’s have Failed their Stewardship and have been too Tolerant, because if you tolerate small deviation’s by design from the truth, eventually you will be living an 180 degree inverted or reversed reality from where you started. That is what has happened to the entire world ! By the application of Dialectic Materialism - Revisionism - psychological cognitive dissonance or brain washing.

98 percent of Americans were informal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Empirical Abstract Reasoning Literate at the founding, Africans have a complete history of informal moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning illiteracy, and it is an intellectual antithetical proposition that Americans that use pragmatic discernment or just discrimination, prejudice, are white illiterate unjustly prejudiced, racist bigots. This is obviously a inverted perception of the empirical reality. Its obviously empirically demonstrated that Africans are the mass of black illiterate unjustly prejudiced, racist bigots that have been unjustly politically enfranchised by inverted Liberals evolutionary socialist by using Dialectical Materialism - Revisionism inverted legislation and they have voted repeatedly for their masters for political office, with the promise of “keep your eye on the prize” as if the “America Dream” is a game to be won , not and opportunity to be Honestly Earned. What Africans have done to America, empirically constitutes and extreme unjust Hate Crime.

The concept of Hate Crimes by Christian Americans is also inverted perception of the empirical reality, Christians justly hate the extreme negative of our extreme positive thesis of God, the extreme negative of Evil or Devil and all lesser negatives such as bad human conduct.

Our nation was founded on the principles that in any particular country, the religious majority should be god principles that most people obey without government coercion, in America the population was 98 percent protestant Christian and protestant Christian men accept the responsibility & covenant with god to love & protect and provide housing, clothing, food and education for his wife and children by the king James version of the holy bible religious who’s god has limited human laws and that which was left were liberal human rights , a secular artifice of a natures god with identical limited human laws with liberal human rights is created in the event that government declares war on the citizens, in which the citizens not only have the right , but the obligation to withdraw their trust and tear down and replace it with the original form of civil government and from this we derive our limited civil laws with liberal civil rights. this constitutes indubitable demonstrated empirical self evident propositions. LOCKE states that Where there are no Laws, there are no Rights! You Earn your Rights, by Obeying the Laws! If you Reject the Laws, you Reject your Rights!

“Redistribution of Wealth” steal from the rich and give to the poor “Metaphor” vs. Locke’s labor theory of property is demonstrated valid in that an individual who takes from nature that which is common property of all, and by his own honest labor makes and honest profit is entitled to his honest profit and it is the duty of civil government to protect his property which is the positive thesis of capitalist economic theory as opposed by the negative antithesis of socialist communist obviously unjust “redistribution of wealth” economic theory,

To demonstrate the design to invert the perception of empirically demonstrated reality, you only have to use the example of the evolutionary socialist in their stating that they are like Robin Hood they steal from the rich to give to the poor! The legend of Robin Hood was that he was an English Saxon nobleman in Saxon England and Richard the lion heart was their king, who was captured while on crusade and held for ransom. his brother a Frenchman Norman prince John invaded England and removed the kings regent friend Long Shanks from his stewardship and seized the realm and began enslaving the peasants and over taxing and oppressing and killing the Saxon peasants, supposedly to pay the ransom to release his brother Richard the lion heart , robin hood faced off prince john in the great hall and called him and any Saxon nobleman followers traitors, that’s when lady Marian said that he spoke treason! And Robin Hood said fluently! When dealing with traitors! Then he told prince John that he only intended to buy his way to the throne of his brother and that he would organize the Saxon people and take a life for a life of these invading unjust French Norman tyrannical mortal enemies. The moral of the legend was that Robin Hood was retrieving stolen property from lying, murdering, and thieving invading Frenchman Norman mortal enemies and returned it to feed and protect Saxon peasant victims and to pay the ransom to free their king Richard the lionheart..

Therefore to compare, where the unproductive and counterproductive dependent subjects of the state moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning illiterate citizens unjustly politically enfranchised so they can knowingly form coalitions to elect representatives to tax the honestly earned property of the productive independent middle-class income and struggling to become middle class income sovereign citizens. And for it to be called with the analogical inference stealing from the unjust “middle class” supposedly robber baron wealthy rich to give to the illiterate unproductive & counterproductive poor deserving masses is outrageous! It is tyranny! And sovereign citizens should be righteously indignant against this form of despotic abomination. Of a inverted perception of empirical reality!

America has experienced one revisionist inverted constitutional interpretation after another for one hundred years, our Constitution was put in written form so it could not be arbitrarily changed. But simply because there was no evidence found in our known founding fathers writings to establish a correct interpretation of our fundamental principles, the revisionist systematically inverted constitutional interpretations, and then later more by revisionist Judicial Activism. All of this is not only unconstitutional, but Anti-constitutional!

Note: In light of the World Intellectual System of Empirical Analysis - empirical self evident propositions, which our system of Republic form of civil government were constructed, was covertly exchanged for a inverted empirical analysis conclusion, delivered with Classic Rationalism argumentation. A Complete Review of all Amendments are now essential

A Positive CHANGE is absolutely essential! Now we can even demand a Constitutional Convention! due to the resent re-enlightenment of the empirically demonstrated literary evidence that was intentionally obscured by Sovereign Citizens mortal enemies, that insisted that our British colonist founding fathers developed our fundamental founding principles of which evidence is no where to be found , but are located in Americas one plagiarized “Intellectual Founding Father” British Philosopher John Locke who was considered the Intellectual Ruler of the World in the 18th century in the British American colonies, because he defeated Aristotle’s system of logic: the system of logic developed by Aristotle, based on the kind of reasoning (syllogism) that reaches a conclusion from two independent statements with a common factor ‘And with his long chain of Empirical Self evident Propositions, in his Second Treatise of civil government concerning our American fundamental principles and the choices are to restore the 300 year old empirically demonstrated valid fundamental principles of a liberal individual right, democratic representative Liberal Republic.. “The Original Deal” where the citizens are sovereign and the state is the servant of the people. The first and most successful Empirical Experiment in civil government in the history of the World.! Or finish implementing the 150 year old Evolutionary Communist-Socialism with it’s Revisionist empirically demonstrated inverted fundamental principles using Democratic Scientific Socialism of a liberal individual right, complete or Pure Democratic representative, Liberal Democracy . “New Deal”. That simply reverses the original deal concept with the inverted proposition of the state is sovereign and the citizens are servants of the state. Or a replacement of a Metaphysical :“irreducible mystery “ God belief system with a reasonable leap of faith with a moral & ethical limited Human laws with liberal human rights, with a Ontological : “reducible mystery” Biological Evolution demigod belief system with a galactic leap of faith with liberal human laws with limited human rights.,

THE DEMONSTRATED MYTH OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION

There are about 20 million and one, species cataloged by science and the theory of biological evolution initially used invalid paleontological evidence in sequence proving the concept of transitional links between each species, which would be today approximately 20 million links . After about 150 years of emphasizing the link between man and ape! we find that not one! empirically demonstrated missing link has been discovered and proven! In modern science the laws of probability, demands a certain percentage of evidence !, its understood that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence! But complete absence of evidence, dictates that after 150 years of aggressive investigation with absolute zero results constitutes not only a invalid theory but and invalid conjecture and invalid concept and a intentional misrepresentation to specifically replace a proven Metaphysical principle of God with a intentional misrepresentation of a ontological Biological Evolutional god. Being indoctrinated to your children as a proven law !

SOME THOUGHTS CONCERNING EDUCATION by JOHN LOCKE.

In educating children Locke teaches that Shame of doing amiss and deserving chastisement is the only true restraint belonging to virtue.- I think better than beating; for it is shame of the fault and disgrace that attends it that they should stand in fear of rather than pain.

“UNJUSTLY SCIENTIFICALLY SHAMING AND THREATENING AMERICA INTO SUBMMISION “

America has been unjustly the focus of a extensive psychological warfare campaign, of inverting the perception of the empirical reality by the “New Deal” democratic scientific socialist that have commandeered and dominated the mass media, news papers, T.V., cable, internet , radio and movie production, public education system. and in a backward negatively Progressive step by step issue by issue method they have with the evolutionary socialism system developed by Eduard Bernstein the father of formal Revisionism that empirically analyses each issue and establishes a positive thesis conclusion empirical self evident proposition and its negative antithesis conclusion empirical self evident proposition by comparative analysis. Then inverts the positive thesis conclusion empirical self evident proposition, with a negative thesis conclusion empirical self evident proposition thereby then, using the classic rationalism formal philosophical polemic’s that provide no evidence, but does empirically demonstrate a perception of a truth, that is actually a lie, in its consistency in argumentation, especially when repeated over and over again, by those that appear to represent the objective intellectual consensus of educators, and mass media experts! to deliver a inverted perception of the empirical reality, that is that “good is good” and “bad is bad” replaced with “good is bad and bad is good” such issues as a negative thesis that heterosexuals are homo-phobic, when the empirical demonstrated truth is obviously demonstrated that a positive thesis that homosexuals are hetero-phobic! With a irrational hatred & denial of the their own biological reality, and the natural selection of heterosexual biological procreation of their species. And this system is scientifically applied 24/7/365 for the last 100 years, in a national domestic propaganda program to “Unjustly Shame America into Submission“. Creating a national public psychological environment of the psychological need of each individual to prove that they are not, as constantly and consistently accused of being, with a inverted perception of a historical heritage that being a mass of illiterate low life, white trash despicable obviously unjust racist bigots! The perfectly inverted perception of empirical reality! Hence the guilt complex of the white electorate victims of this evil system, that will now do their grand humanitarian duty as a badge of honor, in a electoral betrayal of the Sovereign Citizens of America.

Its Imperative that “we the people,” Acknowledge! that a Domestic Intellectual STATE of WAR against We the People, from within and by our own government was initiated in 1860 The North had a Population of 22 million people, and the South had a Population of 9 Million people and the North with its two thirds majority of the total electorate vote, Under the influence of informal Revisionism, Psychological Cognitive Dissonance, Elected Abraham Lincoln President thereby breaking the Social, States and Federal, and individual Compact with the South, who were Extremely instrumental in winning the Revolutionary War , and by Abraham Lincoln not only un-constitutionally but anti-constitutionally establishing the Executive branch of the federal government in being Supreme over the legislature and by Subverting the rights of All of the Individual States individual Supremacy, Unjustly Declaring War on Them. And became the first World Leader to embrace Communism of his friend Horris Greeley whom was instrumental in his presidential nomination and encouragement of the emancipation proclamation, and Karl Marx who’s congratulations letter, and tenants of Communist Socialism he employed, and he Empirically as Demonstrated emphatically did not have the Moral High Ground! In Fact it was High Treason! And he should have been tried and executed for his High crimes against all of Humanity! by We The People! Instead of John Wilkes Booth having to take his Patriotic Duty Seriously! There is no middle ground here, Ether Lincoln is God! or he will live in Just Infamy in Hell for Eternity, he was self educated and obviously never studied John Lockes Works’

And then Formally in the 1930’s with the F.D.R. who will live in Just Infamy in Hell for Eternity! With his

Socialist Communist Economic system implemented, that it was not only un-Constitutional but anti-Constitutional, in addition to having our Original World Intellectual System of Empirical Analysis or Modern Scientific Method of Positive Thesis and Negative Antithesis, Analogical Inference discerned with the Empirical Conclusion of Empirical Self Evident Truth Propositions, was covertly replaced with the Dialectic Materialism - Revisionism to implement democratic scientific socialism.

Inverting the Perception of Positive Empirical Reality! By First Establishing its own Economic Operation Revenue Source of Social Security. And then more Anti-Capitalist Entitlement programs, as a Symbiotic Parasite that perpetually feeds on its ultimately intentionally murdered Host Victims! Until they need you no longer! And if they are in political position, Don’t be surprised if they will Formally justify having you declared “The Hate Criminals of the World“, and use your own military to attack you and kill you! to remove every last vestige of the Evil in the World! Then they will Proclaim, their Just One World Order to the World! By this Communist Socialist Leviathan.

Nationally Establish the Dominant Mass Media, with a Perception of Intellectual Positive Objective Observation discerned Hypotheses, but actually a Negative Subjective Observation Consensus, for Mass Negative Indoctrination. to

Disenfranchise the Informal Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Literate Christian Men, By Enfranchising Illiterate Secular Woman, and Illiterate Black Men & Woman.

Federally Commandeered the Positive Public Education and replaced it with Dominant Mass Negative Propaganda indoctrination.

Establish Negative Entitlement Programs that are a detriment to Free Market Capitalism, such as Medicare and Medicaid and as Socialized Medicine that steals the tax payers money to intentionally pay inflated prices such as $10.00 for a Aspirin, that promotes and encourages the free market to gouge the tax payer on one hand, while justifying higher and higher prices, removing the free market effect of competition. And the proposed National Socialized Medicine will only exasperate the cost, while bankrupting the American People once and for all!

Generally speaking:

Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm.

Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation.

Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a fixed or medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.

The typical elements of a cause of action for defamation are:

A false and defamatory statement concerning another;

The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party;

If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and

Damage to the plaintiff.

Within the context of defamation law, a statement is considered to have been "published" when it is made to a third party, meaning somebody other than the plaintiff in the malpractice action. The reference to "publication" refers to this communication to a third party, regardless of the means of communication, and does not mean that the defamatory statement has to be in print.

Damages in defamation actions are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff. Depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction, a plaintiff may be able to sustain a defamation action on the basis of mental anguish, even in the absence of any other claim of harm or damage.

While actions for defamation arose from common law traditions, most jurisdictions have passed statutes which modify the common law definitions of defamation, libel and slander. These statutes may change the elements of the cause of action, limit the circumstances under which an action may be filed, or modify the available defenses to an action for defamation. Some statutes even require that the defendant be given the opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.

Ruby Ridge: The Justice Report

By James Bovard

This case began after Randy Weaver was entrapped, as an Idaho jury concluded, by an undercover Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agent to sell him sawed-off shotguns.

While federal officials have claimed that the violent confrontation between the Weavers and the government began when the Weavers ambushed federal marshals, the report tells a very different story. A team of six U.S. marshals, split into two groups, trespassed onto Mr. Weaver's land on Aug. 21, 1992. One of the marshals threw rocks at the Weaver's cabin to see how much noise was required to agitate the Weaver's dogs. A few minutes later, Randy Weaver, Kevin Harris, and 13-year-old Sammy Weaver came out of the cabin and began following their dogs. Three U.S. marshals were soon tearing through the woods.

At one point, U.S. Marshal Larry Cooper "told the others that it was ['expletive deleted'] for them to continue running and that he did not want to 'run down the trail and get shot in the back.' He urged them to take up defensive positions. The others agreed.... William Degan ... took a position behind a stump...."

As Sammy Weaver and Kevin Harris came upon the marshals, gunfire erupted. Sammy was shot in the back and killed while running away from the scene (probably by Marshal Cooper, according to the report), and Marshal Degan was killed by Mr. Harris. The jury concluded that Mr. Harris's action was legitimate self-defense; the Justice report concluded it was impossible to know who shot first.

Several places in the report deal with the possibility of a government coverup. After the firefight between the marshals and the Weavers and Mr. Harris, the surviving marshals were taken away to rest and recuperate. The report observed, "We question the wisdom of keeping the marshals together at the condominium for several hours, while awaiting interviews with the FBI. Isolating them in that manner created the appearance and generated allegations that they were fabricating stories and colluding to cover up the true circumstances of the shootings."

After the death of the U.S. marshal, the FBI was called in. A source of continuing fierce debate across America is: Did the FBI set out to apprehend and arrest Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris -- or simply to kill them? Unfortunately, the evidence from the Justice Department report is damning in the extreme on this count.

The report noted, "We have been told by observers on the scene that law enforcement personnel made statements that the matter would be handled quickly and that the situation would be 'taken down hard and fast.' " The FBI issued Rules of Engagement that declared that its snipers "can and should" use deadly force against armed males outside the cabin.

The report noted that a member of an FBI SWAT team from Denver "remembered the Rules of Engagement as 'if you see 'em, shoot 'em.' " The task force report noted, "since those Rules which contained 'should' remained in force at the crisis scene for days after the August 22 shooting, it is inconceivable to us that FBI Headquarters remained ignorant of the exact wording of the Rules of Engagement during that entire period."

The report concluded that the FBI Rules of Engagement at Ruby Ridge flagrantly violated the U.S. Constitution: "The Constitution allows no person to become 'fair game' for deadly force without law enforcement evaluating the threat that person poses, even when, as occurred here, the evaluation must be made in a split second." The report portrays the rules of engagement as practically a license to kill: "The Constitution places the decision on whether to use deadly force on the individual agent; the Rules attempted to usurp this responsibility."

FBI headquarters rejected an initial operation plan because there was no provision to even attempt to negotiate the surrender of the suspects. The plan was revised to include a negotiation provision -- but subsequent FBI action made that provision a nullity. FBI snipers took their positions around the Weaver cabin a few minutes after 5 p.m. on Aug. 22. Within an hour, every adult in the cabin was either dead or severely wounded -- even though they had not fired a shot at any FBI agent.

Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and 16-year-old Sara Weaver stepped out of the cabin a few minutes before 6 p.m. to go to the shed where Sammy's body lay. FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Randy Weaver in the back. As Randy Weaver, Mr. Harris, and Sara Weaver struggled to get back into the cabin, Vicki Weaver stood in the cabin doorway holding a baby. Agent Horiuchi fired again; his bullet passed through a window in the door, hit Vicki Weaver in the head, killing her instantly, and then hit Mr. Harris in the chest.

At the subsequent trial, the government claimed that Messrs. Weaver and Harris were shot because they had threatened to shoot at a helicopter containing FBI officials. Because of insufficient evidence, the federal judge threw out the charge that Messrs. Weaver and Harris threatened the helicopter. The Justice report noted, "The SIOC [Strategic Information and Operations Center at FBI headquarters] Log indicates that shots were fired during the events of August 22.... We have found no evidence during this inquiry that shots fired at any helicopter during the Ruby Ridge crisis. The erroneous entry was never corrected." (The Idaho jury found Messrs. Weaver and Harris innocent on almost all charges.)

The Justice Department task force expressed grave doubts about the wisdom of the FBI strategy: "From information received at the Marshals Service, FBI management had reason to believe that the Weaver/Harris group would respond to a helicopter in the vicinity of the cabin by coming outside with firearms. Notwithstanding this knowledge, they placed sniper/observers on the adjacent mountainside with instructions that they could and should shoot armed members of the group, if they came out of the cabin. Their use of the helicopter near the cabin invited an accusation that the helicopter was intentionally used to draw the Weaver group out of the cabin."

The task force was extremely critical of Agent Horiuchi's second shot: "Since the exchange of gunfire [the previous day], no one at the cabin had fired a shot. Indeed, they had not even returned fire in response to Horiuchi's first shot. Furthermore, at the time of the second shot, Harris and others outside the cabin were retreating, not attacking. They were not retreating to an area where they would present a danger to the public at large...."

Regarding Agent Horiuchi's killing of Vicki Weaver, the task force concluded, "[B]y fixing his cross hairs on the door when he believed someone was behind it, he placed the children and Vicki Weaver at risk, in violation of even the special Rules of Engagement.... In our opinion he needlessly and unjustifiably endangered the persons whom he thought might be behind the door."

The Justice Department task force was especially appalled that the adults were gunned down before receiving any warning or demand to surrender: "While the operational plan included a provision for a surrender demand, that demand was not made until after the shootings.... The lack of a planned 'call out' as the sniper/observers deployed is significant because the Weavers were known to leave the cabin armed when vehicles or airplanes approached. The absence of such a plan subjected the Government to charges that it was setting Weaver up for attack."

f the Intellectual Consensus of “We The People” can be established, and only if the goal of Completely Restoring our Original Written Constitution of a Liberal Individual Right, democratic representative, Republic form of civil government. Interpreted as it was constructed with a Empirical Analysis - World Intellectual System of Formal moral & ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Literacy, with Empirical Self Evident Truth Propositions. Articulated by our intentionally Obscured Intellectual Founding Father, our British Religious and Political Philosopher John Locke. .

Suffrage principle:

In the British American colonies they were the most literate complete population that the world has ever seen, ,the majority religion was 98 percent protestant Christian and in it the man accepts the responsibility for the protection of the wife and children as a covenant with God. and a social compact with each other, in addition to being educated in informal moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning literate, common sense, personally responsible, productive, honorable, legitimate, independent citizens that due to their biological strength are obligated to be conscripted or drafted into a defensive military force to protect America from enemies.

Woman’s suffrage: Christian woman were already created equal to men, as many believe the better half of one complete pro-creative human in the sight of God. And did not need political enfranchisement. so obviously this was a secular movement for secular woman that have no covenant with the protestant Christian god, therefore, they reject the limited human laws, but they demand the liberal human rights and they are not endowed by this creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In addition to the biological strength insufficiency of the essential conscription element. Which only achieved dividing into half to conquer, the informal moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning literate original majority of 98 percent of the political electorate. Then with universal suffrage with a African male & female informal moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning illiterate anti-constitutional political enfranchisement. That politically completely disenfranchised the informal moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning literate original majority down to 30 percent of the political electorate. Note: secular woman have premeditatively murdered 50 million innocent unborn children, As a last option contraception for their own irresponsible promiscuous sexual behavior.

WHERE THERE ARE NO LAWS, THERE ARE NO RIGHTS! “YOU EARN YOUR RIGHTS“, BY OBEYING THE LAWS! AND IF YOU REJECT THE LAWS, YOU REJECT YOUR RIGHTS !

Liberalism:

Early Development

Individual freedom can survive only under a system of law by which both the sovereign and the governed are bound. The idea of government limited by law received effective expression for the first time in the Magna Charta (1215), which checked the power of the English king, It did not stem from democratic or egalitarian beliefs; rather , it was a treaty between king and nobility that defined their relationship and laid the basis for the concept that the ruler was subject to the law rather than above it. The ideas of absolutism and divine right persisted, however, and the reigns of the Tudor and Stuart monarchs in England were marked by fierce conflicts between the Crown and Parliament.

On the European continent the struggle between authoritarian and libertarian principles developed around religious rather than secular issues. During the Reformation, freedom of religious belief and practice was a primary concern. Toleration was rare; as late as 1612, Unitarians were burned as heretics in England, Not until the end of the 18^th century did the ideals of religious toleration become established in Western civilization.

As a result of the English, American, and French revolutions, Libertarian ideals were embodied in the structure of national governments. In England, the struggle between Parliament and the absolutist Stuarts culminated in the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688, King James ll was expelled, and the new king, William lll, gave royal assent (1689) To the Declaration of Rights guaranteeing constitutional government. Subsequently, the monarch’s prerogatives were limited by statute and custom. The constitutional system is described in the writings of the English philosopher John Locke, which profoundly influenced the leaders of the American colonies.

Modern Liberalism.

In England in the 17^th century, during the Great Rebellion, Englishmen in the New Model Army of Parliament began to debate liberal ideas concerning extension of suffrage, parliamentary rule, the responsibilities of government, and freedom of conscience, The controversies of this period produced one of the classics of liberal thinking, Areopagitica (1644), a treatise by the poet and prose writer John Milton in which he advocated freedom of thought and expression. One of the opponents of liberal thinking, the philosopher Thomas Hobbes, contributed significantly to liberal theory, although he favored strong and even unrestrained government, He argued that the sole test of government was its effectiveness rather than its basis in religion or tradition, Hobbes pragmatic view of government. Which stressed the equality of individuals, opened the way to free criticism of government and the right to revolution, ideas that Hobbes himself opposed.

An influential early liberal was the English philosopher John Locke, In his political writings, which deeply influenced the framers of the U.S. Constitution, he argued for popular sovereignty, the right of rebellion against oppression, and toleration of religious minorities, According to the thought of locke and his many followers, the state exist not to promote peoples spiritual salvation, but to serve its citizens and to guarantee their life, liberty, and property under a constitution.

Much of Locke’s philosophy is reflected in writings of the Anglo-American political philosopher and writer Thomas Paine, who argued that a belief in divine order was all the religion that need be demanded of free people. Thomas Jefferson also echoed Locke in the Declaration of Independence and in later pronouncements defending revolutions, attacking paternalistic government, and upholding free expression of unpopular opinions.

In France, Locke’s philosophy was taken over by the leaders of the French Enlightenment, notably by the author and philosopher Voltaire. He insisted that the state should be supreme over the church and demanded universal religious toleration, abolition of censorship, lenient punishment of criminals, and a strong state acting only under general rules of law against forces obstructive of social progress and individual liberty. For Voltaire as for the French philosopher and dramatist Denis Diderot, the state is a machine for the creation of happiness and a positive instrument designed to check a strong nobility and a strong church, the two forces they considered most uncompromisingly dedicated to the conservation of old institutions.

20^th Century U.S.

Socialism,

Comparison with Communism.

The terms socialism and communism were once used interchangeably. Today however, communism designates those theories and movements that, in accordance with one view of the teaching of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, advocate the abolition of capitalism and all private profit, by means of violent revolution if necessary. Marx organized the International Workman’s Association, or First International; when this congress met at Geneva in 1866, it was the first international forum for the promulgation of Communist doctrine. This doctrine was later explained by Lenin, who defined a socialist society as one in which the workers, free from capitalist exploitation, receive the full product of their labor. Most socialist deny the claim of Communist to have achieved socialism in the USSR, which they regard as an authoritarian tyranny. But after World War ll, many Communist-Led political parties in the Soviet sphere of influence still used the designation socialist in their names. In East Germany, for example, the name adopted by the merged Communist and Social Democratic parties was the Socialist Unity party. The modern socialist movement, as distinguished from communism, had its origin largely in revisionist movement of the 19^th century. The worsening condition of the proletariat, or workers, and the class war predicted by Marx for Western Europe had not come about. Many socialist thinkers began to doubt the indispensability of revolution and to revise other basic tenets of Marxism, Led by the German writer Eduard Bernstein, they declared that socialism could be attained by reformist, parliamentary, and evolutionary methods, including the support of the bourgeoisie.

Moderate Socialism.

Such a view was held by the founders of the Fabian Society, organized in 1884 by British social reformers Sidney and Beatrice Webb and their associates. The Fabians in turn helped to form the British Independent Labor party in 1893; it became affiliated with the newly organized Labor party in 1906. In the U.S. a Socialist Labor party was founded in 1877. This party, small as it was, became fragmented in the 1890s. In 1901 a moderate faction of the party under Morris Hillquit (1869 -1933) joined with the and Social Democratic party of Eugene V. Debs the Christian Socialist of George D. Herron (1862-1925) to form the Socialist party.

The moderate, or revisionist, type of socialism found its clearest expression in the organization in Paris in 1889 of the Second International. This body differed from the First International in that it was merely a coordinator of the activities of its affiliated political parties and trade unions. The Second International also diverged in ideology; a majority of its members, led by Eduard Bernstein, were revisionist. The left-wing minority was led by Lenin and the German revolutionist Rosa Luxemburg; a third element, Marxist but opposed to Linen, was led by the German theorist Karl Kautsky. The Second International declared its opposition to the preparations for war being made by most European governments.

Berstein was born into a Jewish family that had come to the capital of Prussia from Danzig. His father was a railroad engineer, and his uncle Aaron Berstein was the editor of the Berliner Volks-Zeitung, a newspaper widely read in progressive working-class circles. It was thus not surprising that at a young age Eduard shared the aspirations of many educated Germans for national unity and democracy. Of an engaging and candid disposition, he retained the goodwill of his superiors when in 1872, as a young bank clerk, he announced that he had joined the Socialist Democratic Party. The turbulent years after Prussia’s 1871 defeat of France also contributed to the formation of his political beliefs. Yet the ever-genial Berstein tended to be attracted more to socialism of an under dogmatic. Pragmatic kind than to radical Marxism. He preferred the democratic and pacifist Social Democrats to the somewhat authoritarian Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein (“General German workers’ Association”).

In joining the party, he became associated with the German socialist organ, Die Zukunft (“The Future”). The economic crisis of 1873, which continued into the 1890s, reinforced his belief in the fragility of capitalism. it was however, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s anti-socialist laws that finally impelled him toward a more radical position. Exiled from Germany, he immigrated to Switzerland, abandoning the “ethical socialism” of Karl Hochberg, the wealthy patron of Die Zukunft. With Marx’s consent, he became the editor of the Zurich edition of Der Sozialdemokrat, a periodical that was the rallying center of the underground socialist party. Expelled from Switzerland at the request of Bismarck in 1888. Bernstein continued the publication of the periodical in London. There he became a close friend of Friedrich Engels, Marx’s collaborator and patron, and also came to know intimately the leaders of the influential Fabian Society, which advocated a gradualist development of socialism. Berstein set forth his revised views in a series of articles and in a letter to the Socialist Democratic Party meeting at Stuttgart in 1898. in the following year he published Die Voraussetzungen des Sozilismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie (“The Postulates of Socialism and the lessons of Social Democracy”; Eng. Trans., Evolutionary Socialism).

He also believed that the concentration of productive industry was not taking place in all fields as thoroughly or as fast as Marx had predicted. Citing such reforms as factory legislation and the freeing of labor unions from legal restrictions, he pointed out that, under pressure from the socialist movement, a reaction had set in against the exploitive inclinations of capital. Thus he argued, the prospects for lasting success lay in steady advance rather than violent upheaval.

In 1902 Berstein was elected a member of the Reichstag, or Parliament, to which he was reelected several times. He remained a member of the Reichstag up to 1928. Eventually revisionism became Social Democratic ideology, while the dogmatic Marxism of the socialist theoretician Karl Kautsky and the eclectic Marxism of the German labor leader August Bebel faded into the background. Berstein, however, who was opposed to violence between nations as well as between classes, lent his voice to that of the left to fight against militarism. During World War l, although a leading member of his party’s right wing, he sided with the Independent Socialist (Unabhangige Soziademocratische Partei Deutschlands; USPD) to protest his party’s support of the war. As soon as peace was restored, however, he returned to his old party and opposed those who wanted to transform the political revolution of November 1918 into a social revolution. He believed that the establishment of the parliamentary republic opened the way to uninterrupted progress, and after the war he served as secretary of state for economy and finance in 1919.

Social Democracy had finally become the great popular and reformist movement he had desired for more than 20 years, and, as an adviser respected by his party, he inspired much of its program. If he helped to discourage the Germans from following the Russian example of 1917, he could not dissuade them from imitating the Italian fascist model of 1922. He regarded the bloody outrages of the Nazis and their predecessors as the thoughtless actions of unbalanced minds; he was unable to comprehend the nature of National Socialism and remained powerless to prevent its seizure of power. Less than six weeks after his death, the democratic state on which he had set all his hopes was to give way to the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

Rise of the Left Wing.

When World War l began in 1914, modern European socialist leaders supported their respective governments. Leaders of the Socialist party in the U.S. and of the Labor party of Great Britain did not. Spokespersons for the left wing, led by Lenin, Labeled the war an imperialist struggle and urged the workers of the world to convert the war into a proletarian revolution or to turn the imperialist war into a class war. This ideological conflict resulted in the collapse of the Second International. Revived after World War l, it was never again important.

Despite the decline of the Second International, socialist parties made substantial gains during the years following World War l and during World War ll. In Great Britain, the labor party under Ramsay Macdonald was in power for ten months in 1924 and again from 1929 to 1931, but it lacked parliamentary majorities and accomplished little. In Australia the Labor party held office from 1929 to 1932, from 1941 to 1949, and from 1972 to 1975. The Labor government of New Zealand, elected in 1935, remained in power until 1949. In Scandinavia, candidates of the Social Democratic parties of Denmark, Norway, and Sweden were elected to high positions early in the 1920s; these parties subsequently became dominant in Scandinavia.

Socialism Verses Fascism.

During the 1920s and 30s socialist and Communist parties were in continuous conflict. One point of contention was the question of support for the USSR. Socialist castigated Communist as agents of the Soviet Union and traitors to their own countries. Also during the 20s and 30s, Fascist regimes in Germany and Italy caused both socialist and Communist to develop new tactics. Attempts were made in several countries to form a wall in the 1936 elections. Failure of the Communist and the Socialist of Germany to unite is regarded as one cause of the success of the National Socialist. The fragile alliance that was achieved between socialist and communist in some countries during this ‘Popular Front” period was destroyed in 1939 by the conclusion of a nonaggression pact between Germany and the USSR. Socialist condemned this act as a demonstration of the community of interest between two totalitarian governments. In August 1939, Germany invaded Poland, precipitating World War ll, and socialist in the Allied countries immediately expressed full support for their governments.

After World War ll.

The period following World War ll was also marked by intensification of conflict between socialist and Communist. Socialists approved such measures, initiated in the U.S. and supported by the governments of Western European Recovery Program and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, declaring that the former would stem the tide of totalitarian communism by raising living standards and that the later would achieve the same end by strengthening Western Europe militarily. Communist denounced these measures as imperialist preparations for war against the USSR.

Socialist political parties have suffered occasional setbacks in elections in those countries in which they form half of the two-party system, as in New Zealand in 1975) (they had been in power from 1957 to 1960 and from 1972 to 1975 and in Great Britain in 1979) (after five years in powers). Nonetheless, extensive and fundamental parts of the socialist program are permanent features of contemporary economic and social life.

Political Science.

Academic discipline, the focus of which is the systematic study of government in the largest sense, encompassing the origins of political regimes; their structures, functions, and institutions; all the ways in which governments discover and deal with socio-economic problems from dog licensing to diplomacy; and the interactions of groups and individuals that play a part in establishing, maintaining, and changing governments.

Nature of the Discipline.

Political science usually is viewed as one of the social sciences, which also include anthropology, economics, history, psychology, and sociology. Its relationship to these disciplines can be seen from two perspectives. Some say that political science occupies a central position because the human and social concerns of the other social sciences must take place within-and be affected by the political beliefs, practices, and authority that exist everywhere. The opposite view is that political science is the “handmaiden” of the other social sciences because it depends on them for its concepts, methods, and understandings. Whichever side one takes, it remains true that throughout the nearly 100 year history of political science as an academic field, first one and then another of the other social sciences has been seen as the key to comprehension of political matters. The precursors of political science were concerned with the attainment and securing of ideal ends. Questions about the best form of government are now widely considered outside the scope of the discipline, which is regarded as being concerned not with what ought to be but, rather, with what actually is. Although the question of the ideal usually is placed in the field of political philosophy, some scholars argue that because value questions are implicit in all political inquiry, they need to be squarely faced. Today most published research and formal study in political science deal primarily with tangible topics such as political campaigns and elections, the legislative process, executive power, administrative regulations, tax and welfare policies, international relations, comparative politics, judicial decision making, and the actions and effects of groups involved in business, labor, agriculture, religion, ethic culture, the military, and the media.

Early History.

Strong interest in the nature of the state, its organs of control, and the place of the citizenry within its boundaries existed as far back as ancient Greece. Most scholars would agree that Aristotle was the earliest forerunner of the political scientist. Among other things, his treatment of types of regimes in his Politics presaged countless efforts to classify forms of government and has remained a major influence on the discipline. Plato’s Republic, with its theoretical development of a utopia, or perfect city, was another important early work. Over the centuries, other classics of the field were written by the Roman statesman Cicero, by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, by the Italian statesman Niccolo Machiavelli, by the British philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, by the French writers Jean Jacques Rousseau and the Baron de Montesquieu, and by the German philosophers Immanuel Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, and Karl Marx. The Federalist (1787-88), a series of essays, most of them by the American statesman Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, is a classic of early U.S. political thought, Almost all of these authors dealt with the possibility that a society could provide the conditions for a equality, liberty, and the promotion of human excellence.

Development in the U.S.

As an academic discipline, political science is a part of higher education curricula all over the world, although it is more prevalent in the U.S., these scholars worked to turn the study of government away from what they saw as sterile preoccupation with documents in archives and toward the political activities of actual human beings in everyday life. The fact that real power was frequently quite different from the formal authority set down in written constitutions and of governments could be gained only through study of actual process of politics, using careful methods to observe, gather, organize, and explain the facts.

The successes achieved in the natural sciences led many political scientist to the belief that in time, if they borrowed the orderly analysis and methodology of physics, chemistry, and biology, and if they, too developed explanatory theories, the study of government and politics could become as much a scientific endeavor as were the established laboratory sciences. In their efforts to achieve this scientific credibility. These scholars allied themselves primarily with researchers in the fields of sociology and psychology. From sociologist they borrowed statistical methods of collecting and analyzing data on people’s political behavior. From psychologist they took definitions, propositions, and concepts to help in understanding why human beings act in certain ways. History was used as a source of facts to be analyzed by the political scientist. Economics also was relegated to a supplementary position, although the economist’ ability to collect quantifiable data became the envy of many students of politics. As a result of these borrowings from other social sciences, political science came to be seen as an important field in its own right; no longer was it considered merely and adjunct to the fields of moral philosophy, law, political economy, or history.

Proposed this System intended as a Spiral upward Refinement Empirical Analysis

HEGEL, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich

(1770-1831), German idealist philosopher, who became one of the most influential thinkers of the 19th century.

Hegel was born in Stuttgart on Aug. 27, 1770, the son of a revenue officer with the civil service. He was brought up in an atmosphere of Protestant Pietism (q.v.) and became thoroughly acquainted with the Greek and Roman classics while studying at the Stuttgart gymnasium (preparatory school). Encouraged by his father to become a clergyman, Hegel entered the seminary at the University of Tuebingen in 1788. There he developed friendships with the poet Friedrich Hoelderlin and the philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Joseph von Schelling. Having completed a course of study in philosophy and theology and having decided not to enter the ministry, Hegel became (1793) a private tutor in Berne, Switzerland. In 1797 he assumed a similar position in Frankfurt. Two years later his father died, leaving a financial legacy that was sufficient to free him from tutoring.

In 1801 Hegel went to the University of Jena, where he studied, wrote, and eventually became a lecturer. At Jena he completed The Phenomenology of Mind (1807; trans. 1910), one of his most important works. He remained at Jena until October 1806, when the city was taken by the French and he was forced to flee. Having exhausted the legacy left him by his father, Hegel became editor of the Bamberger Zeitung in Bavaria. He disliked journalism, however, and moved to Nuremberg, where he served for eight years as headmaster of a gymnasium.

During the Nuremberg years Hegel met and married Marie von Tucher (1791?-1855). Three children were born to the Hegels, a daughter, who died soon after birth, and two sons, Karl (1813-1901) and Immanuel (1814-91). Before his marriage, Hegel had fathered an illegitimate son, Ludwig (1807-31), who eventually came to live with the Hegels. While at Nuremberg, Hegel published over a period of several years The Science of Logic (1812, 1813, 1816; trans. 1929). In 1816 Hegel accepted a professorship in philosophy at the University of Heidelberg. Soon after, he published in summary form a systematic statement of his entire philosophy entitled Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences in Outline (1817; trans. 1959). In 1818 Hegel was invited to teach at the University of Berlin, where he was to remain. He died in Berlin on Nov. 14, 1831, during a cholera epidemic.

The last full-length work published by Hegel was The Philosophy of Right (1821; trans. 1896), although several sets of his lecture notes, supplemented by students' notes, were published after his death. Published lectures include The Philosophy of Fine Art (1835-38; trans. 1920), Lectures on the History of Philosophy (1833-36; trans. 1892-96), Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion (1832; trans. 1895), and Lectures on the Philosophy of History (1837; trans. 1858).

Strongly influenced by Greek ideas, Hegel also read the works of the Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, the French writer Jean Jacques Rousseau, and the German philosophers Immanuel Kant, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, and Schelling. Although he often disagreed with these philosophers, their influence is evident in his writings.

Philosophical Aims.

Hegel's aim was to set forth a philosophical system so comprehensive that it would encompass the ideas of his predecessors and create a conceptual framework in terms of which both the past and future could be philosophically understood. Such an aim would require nothing short of a full account of reality itself. Thus, Hegel conceived the subject matter of philosophy to be reality as a whole.

This reality, or the total developmental process of everything that is, he referred to as the Absolute (q.v.) , or Absolute Spirit.

According to Hegel, the task of philosophy is to chart the development of Absolute Spirit. This involves (1) making clear the internal rational structure of the Absolute; (2) demonstrating the manner in which the Absolute manifests itself in nature and human history; and (3) explicating the teleological nature of the Absolute, that is, showing the end or purpose toward which the Absolute is directed. `

Dialectic.

Concerning the rational structure of the Absolute, Hegel, following the ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides, argued that "what is rational is real and what is real is rational." This must be understood in terms of Hegel's further claim that the Absolute must ultimately be regarded as pure Thought, or Spirit, or Mind, in the process of self-development ( see Idealism ). The logic that governs this developmental process is dialectic (q.v.) . The dialectical method involves the notion that movement, or process, or progress, is the result of the conflict of opposites. Traditionally, this dimension of Hegel's thought has been analyzed in terms of the categories of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Although Hegel tended to avoid these terms, they are helpful in understanding his concept of the dialectic. The thesis, then, might be an idea or a historical movement. Such an idea or movement contains within itself incompleteness that gives rise to opposition, or an antithesis, a conflicting idea or movement. As a result of the conflict a third point of view arises, a synthesis, which overcomes the conflict by reconciling at a higher level the truth contained in both the thesis and antithesis. This synthesis becomes a new thesis that generates another antithesis, giving rise to a new synthesis, and in such a fashion the process of intellectual or historical development is continually generated. Hegel thought that Absolute Spirit itself (which is to say, the sum total of reality) develops in this dialectical fashion toward an ultimate end or goal.

For Hegel, therefore, reality is understood as the Absolute unfolding dialectically in a process of self-development. As the Absolute undergoes this development, it manifests itself both in nature and in human history. Nature is Absolute Thought or Being objectifying itself in material form. Finite minds and human history are the process of the Absolute manifesting itself in that which is most kin to itself, namely, spirit or consciousness. In The Phenomenology of Mind Hegel traced the stages of this manifestation from the simplest level of consciousness, through self-consciousness, to the advent of reason.

Self-Knowledge of the Absolute.

The goal of the dialectical cosmic process can be most clearly understood at the level of reason. As finite reason progresses in understanding, the Absolute progresses toward full self-knowledge. Indeed, the Absolute comes to know itself through the human mind's increased understanding of reality, or the Absolute. Hegel analyzed this human progression in understanding in terms of three levels: art, religion, and philosophy. Art grasps the Absolute in material forms, interpreting the rational through the sensible forms of beauty. Art is conceptually superseded by religion, which grasps the Absolute by means of images and symbols. The highest religion for Hegel is Christianity, for in Christianity the truth that the Absolute manifests itself in the finite is symbolically reflected in the incarnation. Philosophy, however, is conceptually supreme, because it grasps the Absolute rationally. Once this has been achieved, the Absolute has arrived at full self-consciousness, and the cosmic drama reaches its end and goal. Only at this point did Hegel identify the Absolute with God. "God is God," Hegel argued, "only in so far as he knows himself."

Philosophy of history.

In the process of analyzing the nature of Absolute Spirit, Hegel made significant contributions in a variety of philosophical fields, including the philosophy of history and social ethics. With respect to history, his two key explanatory categories are reason and freedom. "The only Thought," maintained Hegel, "which Philosophy brings . . . to the contemplation of history, is the simple conception of Reason; that Reason is the Sovereign of the world, that the history of the world, therefore, presents us with a rational process." As a rational process, history is a record of the development of human freedom, for human history is a progression from less freedom to greater freedom.

Ethics and Politics.

Hegel's social and political views emerge most clearly in his discussion of morality ( Moralitaet ) and social ethics ( Sittlichkeit ). At the level of morality, right and wrong is a matter of individual conscience. One must, however, move beyond this to the level of social ethics, for duty, according to Hegel, is not essentially the product of individual judgment. Individuals are complete only in the midst of social relationships; thus, the only context in which duty can truly exist is a social one. Hegel considered membership in the state one of the individual's highest duties. Ideally, the state is the manifestation of the general will, which is the highest expression of the ethical spirit. Obedience to this general will is the act of a free and rational individual. Hegel emerges as a conservative, but he should not be interpreted as sanctioning totalitarianism, for he also argued that the abridgment of freedom by any actual state is morally unacceptable.

Influence.

At the time of Hegel's death, he was the most prominent philosopher in Germany. His views were widely taught, and his students were highly regarded. His followers soon divided into right-wing and left-wing Hegelians. Theologically and politically the right-wing Hegelians offered a conservative interpretation of his work. They emphasized the compatibility between Hegel's philosophy and Christianity. Politically, they were orthodox. The left-wing Hegelians eventually moved to an atheistic position. In politics, many of them became revolutionaries. This historically important left-wing group included Ludwig Feuerbach, Bruno Bauer (1809-92), Friedrich Engels, and Karl Marx. Engels and Marx were particularly influenced by Hegel's idea that history moves dialectically, but they replaced Hegel's philosophical idealism with materialism.

Hegel's metaphysical idealism had a strong impact on 19th-century and early 20th-century British philosophy, notably that of Francis Herbert Bradley, and on such American philosophers as Josiah Royce, and on Italian philosophy through Benedetto Croce. Hegel also influenced existentialism (q.v.) through the Danish philosopher S0-ren Kierkegaard. Phenomenology (q.v.) has been influenced by Hegel's ideas on consciousness. The extensive and diverse impact of Hegel'sideas on subsequent philosophy is evidence of the remarkable range and the extraordinary depth of his thought.

See also Philosophy . R.M.B. For further information on this person, see ~Biblio. HEGEL, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich .

IDEALISM,

a theory of reality and of knowledge that attributes to the mind a key role in the constitution of the world as it is experienced. Different forms and applications of idealism are discernible in the history of philosophy. In its most radical and commonly rejected form it is equivalent to solipsism, the view that all reality is nothing but the activity of one's own mind and that nothing really exists but oneself. The idealist, however, usually gives full recognition to the external, or natural, world, avoiding any claim that it can be reduced to the mere process of thinking. The mind, on the other hand, is active and indeed is able to produce and sustain modes of being that would not otherwise exist, such as law, religion, art, and mathematics. Furthermore, the way that natural objects exist in human experience is to some extent affected by the activity of the mind, and attention to this influence is essential if inquiries concerning the world are to be scientific.

Plato.

Plato, a distant precursor of idealism, postulated the existence of a realm of Ideas that the varied objects of common experience imperfectly reflect. He maintained that these ideal Forms are not only more clearly intelligible but also more real than the transient and essentially illusory objects themselves.

Berkeley and Kant.

The 18th-century Irish philosopher George Berkeley speculated that all aspects of everything of which one is conscious are actually reducible to the ideas present in the mind. The observer does not conjure external objects into existence, however; the true ideas of them are caused in the human mind directly by God. The 18th-century German philosopher Immanuel Kant greatly refined idealism through his critical inquiry into the limits of possible knowledge. Kant held that all that can be known of things is the way in which they appear in experience; there is no way of knowing what they are substantially in themselves. He also held, however, that the fundamental principles of all science are grounded in the constitution of the mind rather than being derived from the external world.

Hegel.

The 19th-century German philosopher G. W. F. Hegel regarded as invalid Kant's theory concerning the inescapable human ignorance of what things are in themselves, instead arguing for the ultimate intelligibility of all existence. Hegel also maintained that the highest achievements of the human spirit (culture, science, religion, and the state) are not the result of naturally determined processes in the mind, but are conceived and sustained by the dialectical activity ( see Dialectic ) of free, reflective intellect. Further strains of idealistic thought can be found in the works of the 19th-century Germans J. G. Fichte and F. W. J. Schelling, the 19th-century Englishman F. H. Bradley, the 19th-century Americans C. S. Peirce and Josiah Royce, and the 20th-century Italian Benedetto Croce.

See also Philosophy . P.Fu. For further information on this topic, see ~Biblio. Branches and schools

Make no mistake that Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Eduard Berstein , Vladimir Lenin, Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya, Joseph Stalin All have been extreme students of inverting the principles of John Locke, if you don’t take this exposé serious, you will deserve what you get! First and foremost Karl Marx himself defined Socialism as the transitional state of Communism! To redefine this is not valid. To invade a state whether by Violent Revolution or from within, with Evolutionary Socialism, the people must be indoctrinated to accept Communism! There are those that have inverted the perception of the empirical reality by minimizing Socialism denying that it is the road to Communism, It must be understood that socialist want to be elected and remain in power, to personally succeed in Systematically Reversing Positive Law and over regulating Capitalism into Massive Failure if possible in addition to create entitlement programs that benefit the irresponsible dependent subject citizens of the state, therein they don’t want their programs to succeed, as we think of it , to be good for America! they want their programs to promote their ideology and to eventually bankrupt America! so as to save America, by “reinventing it” by completely implementing the Formal Socialist Communism.

( Creating an Inverted Empirical Reality.) Each and every General Principle and their Particulars can and are inverted daily, .Anticonstitutionally !

Cognitive dissonance is a theory of human motivation that asserts that it is psychologically uncomfortable to hold contradictory cognitions. The theory is that dissonance, being unpleasant, motivates a person to change his cognition, attitude, or behavior. This theory was first explored in detail by social psychologist Leon Festinger, who described it this way:

He argued that there are three ways to deal with cognitive dissonance. He did not consider these mutually exclusive.

This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.

Dissonance increases with:

Dissonance is often strong when we believe something about ourselves and then do something against that belief. If I believe I am good but do something bad, then the discomfort I feel as a result is cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful motivator which will often lead us to change one or other of the conflicting belief or action. The discomfort often feels like a tension between the two opposing thoughts. To release the tension we can take one of three actions:

Dissonance is most powerful when it is about our self-image. Feelings of foolishness, immorality and so on (including internal projections during decision-making) are dissonance in action.

If an action has been completed and cannot be undone, then the after-the-fact dissonance compels us to change our beliefs. If beliefs are moved, then the dissonance appears during decision-making, forcing us to take actions we would not have taken before.

Cognitive dissonance appears in virtually all evaluations and decisions and is the central mechanism by which we experience new differences in the world. When we see other people behave differently to our images of them, when we hold any conflicting thoughts, we experience dissonance.

mes·mer·ize [mézzm? r?z]

(past mes·mer·ized, past participle mes·mer·ized, present participle mes·mer·iz·ing, 3rd person present singular mes·mer·iz·es)

1. absorb somebody’s attention: to fascinate somebody or absorb all of somebody’s attention

The speaker mesmerized the audience with his dramatic tale.

2. hypnotize: to hypnotize somebody, especially formerly in a way believed to involve animal magnetism

[Early 19th century. Formed from the name of F. A. Mesmer (1734–1815), an Austrian physician who conducted experiments in which he induced trancelike states in his subjects.]

-mes·mer·

HYPNOSIS,
altered state of consciousness and heightened responsiveness to suggestion; it may be induced in normal persons by a variety of methods and has been used occasionally in medical and psychiatric treatment. Most frequently hypnosis is brought about through the actions of an operator, the hypnotist, who engages the attention of a subject and assigns certain tasks to him or her while uttering monotonous, repetitive verbal commands; such tasks may include muscle relaxation, eye fixation, and arm levitation. Hypnosis also may be self-induced, by trained relaxation, concentration on one's own breathing, or by a variety of monotonous practices and rituals that are found in many mystical, philosophical, and religious systems.
Characteristics.
Hypnosis results in the gradual assumption by the subject of a state of consciousness wholly dissimilar to either wakefulness or sleep, during which attention is withdrawn from the outside world and is concentrated on mental, sensory, and physiological experiences. When a hypnotist induces a trance, a close relationship or rapport develops between operator and subject. The responses of subjects in the trance state, and the phenomena or behavior they manifest objectively, are the product of their motivational set; that is, behavior reflects what is being sought from the experience.
Most people can be easily hypnotized. The depth of trance, however, will vary from a light state close to waking, to a profound state of somnambulism. A profound trance is characterized by a forgetting of trance events and by an ability to respond automatically to posthypnotic suggestions that are not too anxiety-provoking. The depth of trance achievable is a relatively fixed characteristic, dependent on the emotional condition of the subject and on the skill of the hypnotist. Only 20 percent of subjects are capable of entering somnambulistic states through the usual methods of induction. Medically, this percentage is not significant, since therapeutic effects occur even in a light trance.
Hypnosis can produce a deeper contact with one's emotional life, resulting in some lifting of repressions and exposure of buried fears and conflicts. This effect potentially lends itself to medical and educational use, but it also lends itself to misinterpretation. Thus, the revival through hypnosis of early, forgotten memories may be fused with fantasies. Research into hypnotically induced memories in recent years has in fact stressed their uncertain reliability. For this reason a number of state court systems in the U.S. have placed increasing constraints on the use of evidence hypnotically obtained from witnesses, although most states still permit its introduction in court.
Medical Uses.
Hypnosis has been used to treat a variety of physiological and behavioral problems. It can alleviate back pain and pain resulting from burns and cancer. It has been used by some obstetricians as the sole analgesia for normal childbirth. Hypnosis is sometimes also employed to treat physical problems with a possible psychological component, such as Raynaud's syndrome (a circulatory disease) and fecal incontinence in children. Researchers have demonstrated that the benefit of hypnosis is greater than the effect of a placebo and probably results from changing the focus of attention. Few physicians, however, include hypnosis as part of their practice.
Some behavioral difficulties, such as cigarette smoking, overeating, and insomnia, are also amenable to resolution through hypnosis. None-the-less, most psychiatrists think that fundamental psychiatric illness is better treated with the patient in a normal state of consciousness.

It’s in The psychological warfare value of Intellectual Antitheticalism and not the intellectual system value itself of dialectical materialism. By simply replacing the Empirical Positive Thesis self evident proposition with it’s own Empirical Negative Antithesis for a Inverted or Intellectually Antithetical Empirical (Negative)Thesis self evident proposition, thereby creating a state of Psychological Cognitive Dissonance.

(1) This Combined with the Tenure Coercion or Bought or recruited since the civil war the perception of the dominant Objective Observation Intellectual Scientific Consensus of our most Prestigious Universities Harvard, Yale, Princeton Scholastic intelligentsia of our higher learning Institutions, public information or Mass Media - News Papers, Magazines, Movies, Television pseudo Intellectual or scientific Experts, Radio, Internet. Etc.

(2) The Unelected, unaccountable, legislators, Constitutional Authorities or the A.C.L.U. or the Antithetical American Civil Liberties Union. who Formally Revision and Repeal Empirically Positive Laws and Legislate Antithetical Empirical Negative Laws as if they were Empirically Positive Laws. Using modern political scientific method.

This is the first instance of informal Dialectic Materialism and informal Revisionism effecting and inverting the perception of world morality, I call Empirical Antitheticalism, or Intellectual Antitheticalism or Neo-Liberalism. In 1850 labeled Communist Socialism.

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM

NEGATIVE EMPIRCAL ANALYSIS - WORLD INTELLECTUAL SYSTEM OF LOGIC

DIALECTIC MATERIALISM EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS INVERSION TEST

Negative 270 left step 1. Negate----------------Positive 090 right Negative 270 left

Thesis -X, -Y, -Z. Thesis +X, +Y, +Z. Thesis -X, -Y, -Z.

Bad is Good Good is Good Bad is Good

Positive 090 right step 2. Negate ---------------Negative 270 Positive 090 right

Antithesis -X, -Y, -Z. Antithesis -X, -Y, -Z. Antithesis +X, +Y, +Z.

Good is Good Bad is Good Good is Good

Negative 270 left Cognitive Dissonance. Positive Conclusion Negative Conclusion

Synthesis -X, -Y, -Z. step 3. Good is Good Bad is Good

Bad is Good

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM

NEGATIVE EMPIRCAL ANALYSIS - WORLD INTELLECTUAL SYSTEM OF LOGIC

DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM as taught by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels is the most popular metaphysical doctrine of our age. It is today the official philosophy of the Soviet empire and of all the schools of Marxism outside of this empire. It dominates the ideas of many people who do not consider themselves Marxians and even of many authors and parties who believe they are anti-Marxians and anti-communists. It is this doctrine which most of our contemporaries have in mind when they refer to materialism and determinism.

When Marx was a young man, two metaphysical doctrines whose teachings were incompatible with one another dominated German thought. One was Hegelian spiritualism, the official doctrine of the Prussian state and of the Prussian universities. The other was materialism, the doctrine of the opposition bent upon a revolutionary overthrow of the political system of Metteruich and of Christian orthodoxy as well as of private property. Marx tried to blend the two into a compound in order to prove that socialism is bound to come "with the inexorability of a law of nature."

In the philosophy of Hegel logic, metaphysics, and ontology are essentially identical. The process of real becoming is an aspect of the logical process of thinking. In grasping the laws of logic by aprioristic thinking, the mind acquires correct knowledge of reality. There is no road to truth but that provided by the study of logic.

The peculiar principle of Hegel?s logic is the dialectic method. Thinking takes a triadic way. It proceeds from thesis to antithesis, i.e., the negation of the thesis, and from antithesis to synthesis, i.e., the negation of the negation. The same trinal principle of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis manifests itself in real becoming. For the only real thing in the universe is Geist (mind or spirit). Matter has its substance not in itself. Natural things are not for themselves (fur sich selber). But Geist is for itself. What -- apart from reason and divine action -- is called reality is, viewed in the light of philosophy, something rotten or inert (ein Faules) which may seem but is not in itself real.[1]

Note: nonsensical - as a Valid World Intellectual System of Logic, but an Extremely Deadly Psychological Warfare Weapon.

No compromise is possible between this Hegelian idealism and any kind of materialism. Yet, fascinated by the prestige Hegelianism enjoyed in the Germany of the 1840's, Marx and Engels were afraid to deviate too radically from the only philosophical system with which they and their contemporary countrymen were familiar. They were not audacious enough to discard Hegelianism entirely as was done a few years later even in Prussia. They preferred to appear as continuators and reformers of Hegel, not as iconoclastic dissenters. They boasted of having transformed and improved Hegelian dialectics, of having turned it upside down, or rather, ( Inversely ) of having put it on its feet.[2] They did not realize that it was nonsensical to uproot dialectics from its idealistic ground and transplant it to a system that was labeled materialistic and empirical (Antitheticalism) Hegel was consistent in assuming that the logical process is faithfully reflected in the processes going on in what is commonly called reality. He did not contradict himself in applying the logical apriori to the interpretation of the universe. But it is different with a doctrine that indulges in a naive realism, materialism, and ( Antithetical) empiricism. Such a doctrine ought to have no use for a scheme of interpretation that is derived not from experience but from apriori reasoning. Engels declared that dialectics is the science of the general laws of motion, of the external world as well as of human thinking; two series of laws which are substantially identical but in their manifestation different insofar as the human mind can apply them consciously, while in nature, and hitherto also to a great extent in human history, they assert themselves in an unconscious way as external necessity in the midst of an infinite series of apparently contingent events.[3] He himself, says Engels, had never had any doubts about this. His intensive preoccupation with mathematics and the natural sciences, to which he confesses to have devoted the greater part of eight years, was, he declares, obviously prompted only by the desire to test the validity of the laws of dialectics in detail in specific instances.[4] The theory of the cycle of life replaced with the theory of the cycle of death.

The Formal Science of consistently selling a long train of the “Big Lie‘s” that has claimed 200 million innocent human lives! To date.

Dialectical Materialism is the philosophy of Karl Marx which he formulated by taking the dialectic of Hegel and joining it to the Materialism of Feuerbach, extracting from it a concept of progress in terms of the contradictory, interacting forces called the thesis and antithesis, culminating at a critical nodal point where one overthrows the other, giving rise to the synthesis, and applying it to the history of social development and deriving there from an essentially revolutionary concept of social change.

Dialectical materialism originates from two major aspects of Marx's philosophy. One is his transformation of Hegel's idealistic understanding of dialectics into a materialist one, commonly referred as that he "put Hegel's dialectics back on its feet". The other is his core idea that "the history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles" as stated in The Communist Manifesto in 1848.

Marxism is based in the scientific conviction that everything can be explained by Matter alone. This qualifies Marxism as a fundamentally materialist philosophy. According to materialism, matter is the total explanation for space, nature, man, psychic consciousness, human intelligence, society, history and every other aspect of existence. Marxism assigns the task of knowing all truth to science. If science can get to know everything about matter, then it can get to know about everything. Conclusively, matter is accepted as the beginning and ending of all reality. Matter's sovereignty in determining the course of nature is a vital part of Marxist thought and what separates dialectical materialism from the Hegelian method of dialectical idealism.

[edit] Hegel

Dialectical materialism is essentially characterized by the thesis that history is the product of class struggles and follows the general Hegelian principle of philosophy of history, that is the development of the thesis into its antithesis which is sublated by the "Aufhebung" (~ synthesis, a term not employed by Hegel in describing his dialectics.[3]) — which conserves the thesis and the antithesis while at the same time abolishing it (Aufheben — this contradiction explains the difficulties of Hegel's thought). [4] Hegel's dialectics aims at explaining the growth and development of human history. He considered that truth was the product of history and passed through various moments, including the moment of error, as error, or also negativity, is part of the development of truth. Marx's dialectical materialism considers, against Hegel's idealism, that history is not the product of the Spirit (Geist or also Zeitgeist — the "Spirit of the Time") but the effect of material class struggle in society. Theory thus has its roots in the materiality of social existence.

[edit] Three laws of dialectical materialism

Marxism sets out to answer questions related to both nature and humanity, including questions on:

the origin of energy or motion in nature;

the reasons why galaxies, solar system, planets, animals and all kingdoms of nature constantly increase their numerical quantity;

the origin of life, the origin of species and the origin of consciousness and mind;

the origin of societal order and its direction; and

the end of history and what it may look like.

Marx and Engels answer all of these questions by utilizing the three laws of motion, i.e. dialectics, first discovered by the Greek philosophers and codified by Hegel. These three laws are discovered within nature instead of being superimposed upon it.

[edit] Law of Opposites

Marx and Engels started with the observation that everything in existence is a unity of opposites. For example, electricity is characterized by a positive and negative charge and atoms consist of protons and electrons which are unified but are ultimately contradictory forces. Even humans through introspection find that they are a unity of opposite qualities. Masculinity and femininity, selfishness and altruism, humbleness and pride, and so forth. The Marxist conclusion being that everything "contains two mutually incompatible and exclusive but nevertheless equally essential and indispensable parts or aspects." The basic concept being that this unity of opposites in nature is the thing that makes each entity auto-dynamic and provides this constant motivation for movement and change. This idea was borrowed from Georg Wilhelm Hegel who said: "Contradiction in nature is the root of all motion and of all life."

This dichotomy is often found in nature. A star is held together by gravity trying to push all the molecules to the center, and heat trying to send them as far from the center as possible. If either force is completely successful the star ceases to be, if heat is victorious it explodes into a supernova, if gravity is victorious it implodes into a neutron star or a black hole. Furthermore, living things strive to balance internal and external forces to maintain homeostasis, which is nothing more than a balance of opposing forces such as acidity and alkalinity.

Some opposites are antagonistic, [1] as in the competition between capitalists and laborers. Factory owners offer the lowest wages possible, while workers seek to maximize wages. Sometimes this antagonism sparks strikes or lockouts.

[edit] Law of Negation

The law of negation was created to account for the tendency in nature to constantly increase the numerical quantity of all things. Marx and Engels demonstrated that entities tend to negate themselves in order to advance or reproduce a higher quantity. This means that the nature of opposition which produces conflict in each element and gives them motion also tends to negate the thing itself. This dynamic process of birth and destruction is what causes entities to advance. This law is commonly simplified as the cycle of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.

In nature, Engels often cited the case of the barley seed which, in its natural state, germinates and out of its own death or negation produces a plant; the plant in turn grows to maturity, and is itself negated after bearing many barley seeds. Thus, all nature is constantly expanding through cycles.

In society, we have the case of class. For example, the aristocracy was negated by the bourgeoisie; and the bourgeoisie then created the proletariat that will one day negate them. This illustrates that the cycle of negation is eternal, as each class creates its "grave-digger", its successor, as soon as it finishes burying its creator.

[edit] Law of Transformation

This law states that continuous quantitative development results in qualitative "leaps" in nature whereby a completely new form or entity is produced. This is how "quantitative development becomes qualitative change". Transformation allows for the reverse with quality affecting quantity.

This theory draws many parallels to the theory of Evolution. Marxist philosophers concluded that entities, through quantitative accumulations, are also inherently capable of "leaps" to new forms and levels of reality. The law illustrates that during a long period of time, through a process of small, almost irrelevant accumulations, nature develops noticeable changes in direction.

This can be illustrated by the eruption of a volcano which is caused by years of pressure building up. The volcano may no longer be a mountain but when its lava cools it will become fertile land where previously there was none. A revolution which is caused by years of tensions between opposing factions in society acts as a social illustration. The law occurs in reverse. An example would be, that by introducing better (changing quality) tools to farm, the tools will aid the increase in the amount (change the quantity) of what is produced.

and therefore revolutionary.

Socialism elevates the common good to the number one priority in all decision-making, instead of the good of a small ruling class. Many democratic socialists around the world have used electoral politics as a way of becoming accommodating to the capitalist class. Now they refuse to use terms like "capitalist class," and reactionaries get away with denouncing even tepid liberalism as "class warfare."

You bet it's class warfare. The hard facts of the domination of the capitalist class persist and become more outrageous every year. History offers a multitude of examples to contradict the notion that capitalists will voluntarily cede power. German capitalists raised up Hitler in order to stop the socialists and communists. Capitalism has staged bloody and utter illegal means in Greece, Spain, Chile, Nicaragua, Indonesia. McCarthy-ite Conservatives in every country in the world have slandered, persecuted, jailed and murdered leftists, union organizers and civil liberties advocates. Socialism evolved in reaction to the hard fact of capitalist oppression, and thus is directly antithetical to it.

There are many ways of envisioning revolution, and it need not necessarily be a bloody thing. In this Bergonian fantasy, the radicals use electoral politics to score a big victory that paved the way for the subsequent revolution, and in fact Hitler's revolution came about as a result of parliamentary elections. Socialist electoral revolutions were violently aborted by the Fascist Uprising and Civil War in Spain, and by Pinochet in Chile.

But "social democracy" and "Fabian socialism" have not resulted in more than a reform of capitalism. While social democrats in Europe and other parts of the world have succeeded in obtaining pensions, health care, hour and wage protections and the like, a capitalist class still controls the means of

production.

Goals/About us Site map Contact us> Search this site Testimonials

Dialectics Defined Since 1999

Top of Form 1

Bottom of Form 1

The ABC's of Change - Ages 4 and up

Popcorn, Earthquakes, and Other Changes - Ages 5 and up

Bit by Bit . . . Then all at Once - Ages 7 and up

Circles or Spirals? - Ages 9 and up

Ten Ways You Turn into Your Opposite - Ages 9 and up

Dialectics--The Musical - Songs for all ages

Dialectics for Teachers - Exercises for students

What the Heck is Dialectics? - For big kids

Dialectics and the film Half Nelson - For movie goers (R rated)

Of course that's not all there is to understanding change. This site will add more songs, drawings, and essays. What do you think about change? Please send your comments by clicking here, and go out and make some changes of your own!

Last updated June, 2008

He is the world's most famous political economist. A philosopher of the mid-19^th century, Karl Marx witnessed both the rewards and abuses of industrialization in Europe. He lived in London for a while during the industrial revolution and most of his writings have stemmed in part from his knowledge of London's slums. Both of Marx's sons and his daughter died from illness related to under-nourishment and poor living conditions.

The first to use the idea of dialectic to explain the evolution of history was the German Philosopher Hegel. According to Hegel's the Philosophy of History, history moves through conflict- a conflict of ideas. The idea of beauty gets opposed by the idea of ugliness, the idea of truth and the idea of falsehood and the idea of slavery and liberty. The battle between opposing ideas is called by Hegel dialectic idealism. It goes something like this: each phase in history corresponds to the manifestation of certain ideas. It is called a thesis. However, it includes its opposite, its antithesis. Thesis and antithesis struggle with each other until the antithesis manages to absorb the thesis or to combine it on one form or another. This combination is called synthesis representing a new stage in history. Every synthesis, in turn, becomes a thesis that struggles automatically its antitheses, which comes into conflict with it to lead to a new synthesis and so forth… A point comes when history will have exhausted itself- the best possible synthesis will have occurred and this will be the end of history. (For Marx this synthesis is communism; for Fukuyama this synthesis is liberalism)

Marx maintains from Hegel one thing and rejects one thing. He postulates the dialectic (the notion of conflicting opposites that determines history) and he rejects the role of ideas. In the preface of the Capital Marx mentions that: "with me on the contrary [to Hegel] is nothing else than the material would reflected by the human mind, and translated the form of thought."

Thus Marx found in the material world, our senses and our working conditions-not in our ideas- the source of conflict and change. This is what, in contrast to "dialectic idealism," has become known as dialectic materialism.

The conflict according to Marx, is a conflict between classes. Classes are defined according to their relationship to the means of production (if "A" owns his means of production, he belongs to the lord, noble, or bourgeois class, while if "B" does not own anything but his labor he belongs to the slave, servant or proletariat class).

The struggle between the mentioned classes is the engine of dialectic materialism that dictates the history of human kind.

No property, no state, no laws, no classes: absolute freedom and absolute equality. Anthropology proves that this phase historically took place.

The process of fencing led to the emergence of private property

Marx talked about three major types of feudal system that depended on agriculture as the major source of production.

This type of society emerges in the most industrially advanced nations. For the first time in human history, industrialization had the chance to make it possible for society to provide and advance quality of life for all of its citizens. The problem from Marx's perspective is that the gains of the industrialization process was faced by two evils: the private property and the state system that defends the interest of the economically dominant class (it is a committee of the rich charge with keeping the masses in servitude). This dominant class is a narrow class of industrialists and merchants he referred as the bourgeoisie. While the bourgeoisie reaped huge profits, the majority of the working class- the proletariat- lived in poverty and squalor. Industrialization had made it possible for human society to attain new heights of prosperity and intellectual development, but the goal had been subverted by the greed of the capitalist bourgeoisie.

It simply says that the value of a commodity, it is held, depends on the quantity of labor employed to produce it. Other means of production such as capital, land, technology are useless without labor. Marx further distinguishes between the use value (the value of the commodities to satisfy human want) and the exchange value (what it can get in exchange with other values = purchasing power). The labor has a very high use value but very little exchange value. The difference between the two is called the surplus value that capitalists gain through exploiting the proletariat. (Money here is necessary as the surplus value would be very limited in the barter system).

The economic forces of production are the “foundation” that determine and dictate politics, law, literature, art, the production of ideas, conceptions, metaphysics, ideology, morality, consciousness and religion, not the other way around. Why and how? According to Marx, in every stage there is a set of ideas, laws, norms, religious beliefs that are fashioned by the property-owning (economically dominant class) to rationalize and legitimize (i.e. make acceptable to all) its dominance. That is how the dominant class shapes the subjective economic conditions of the dominated exploited class and keep them away from the objective economic conditions of the society. It is a mechanism to make the slave happy. He is objectively slave but he is happy with his position. That is why Marx said: " Religion is the opiate of the masses," because it helps create the false consciousness among the proletariat. Religion, ideology, education and others defend the private right of property, and socialize everybody to respect the capitalist ethics and private property. Moreover, the state with its coercive tools is a tool in the hands of the dominating class to defend its rights and privileges.

There is a struggle between classes that makes history moves from a point to another. The substructure determines everything in the superstructure. (Ex. Law, politics, art and religion are of the elite (bourgeois). If the economic elite (dominant class) changes, everything in the superstructure will be the same. Similarly, if the masses win, they will change the superstructure as well.

For the revolution to happen, the subjective and objective conditions should overlap. The workers must gain the full (class) consciousness that they are a class and they must demand a change in the existing property relations. In this case they may need to resort to violence against the state as the peculiar characteristics of the state is that is the only part of the superstructure that can use force. That is why the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie will be replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat. According to Marx the proletarian revolution will take place in the most advanced industrial society, Britain. But when it happens it would take the form of Domino model and all bourgeois societies will topple down promptly. Ironically this did not happen when socialism spread but it took place when it fell apart.

Marx has never used the concept of state socialism. He usually used "socialism or social society." Marx meant by socialism the stage that follows capitalism. Socialism, according to Marx, entails the removal of social inequalities through limited social and government ownership of property and the means of production and distribution, and the redistribution of wealth and resources through high taxes and confiscation. For Marx, it is a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. However, this part of socialism was very influential in many capitalist systems through progressive income taxes, social security, food stamps, and economic regulations imposed on business and industry. Nobody is forced to work for the benefit of others. Everybody (men and women) will get according to his/her contribution. During this phase the state exists and plays its role in transforming the private properties into public properties as a necessary stage to reach the end of history: Communism.

1- The self-destructive prophecy.

2- The revolution did not take place in the most advanced industrial society.

3- that there is some sort of inversion in Marx's theory. Socialism came before capitalism in all Eastern Europe and post-communist countries.

( It obvious that a Antithetical Perception of a Positive Historical Reality derived from historical cause and effect, trial and error can be achieved, by systematically inverting the construction process of the Positive Historical Reality Empirically demonstrated general principles and their particulars, by way of what I call Empirical Antitheticalism or Dialectic Materialism and Historical Formal Revisionism to arrive at a perfectly Antithetical Negative Perception creating a Negative Historical Reality. Of the United States of American, Liberal individual right, Written Constitution, democratic representative, Republic form of Civil Government . Founded on the Empirically Demonstrated Validated Metaphysical Principles of the King James version of the Holy Bible’s Protestant Christian Gods Limited Human Laws that leave Liberal Human Rights )

4- Dahrendorf's analysis of Marxism explained why the developments did not lead to the revolution of the proletariat. In his book Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society Dahrendorf's deems that things changed since Marx wrote his book at 7 directions in a way that make Marxist theory of class inapplicable. These changes are: 1- The capitalist class decomposition; 2- The labor class decomposition; 3- The New Middle Class Composition; 4- The Social mobility; 5- The promotion of legal and political equality; 6- The Institutionalization of class conflict; 7- the moral and cultural changes in the Capitalist society that makes it different from a mere industrial society.

DIALECTIC MATERIALISM OR THE INTELLECTUAL ANTITHETICALISM SYSTEM OF LOGIC

LEFT NEGATIVE ANTITHESIS RIGHT POSITIVE THESIS

(1) God is Extremely Bad or Evil. Secularism , Anti - Religion. (1) God is Extremely Positive, Good or Devine. Religion

(2) Reality is the cycle of Death. Inverted or Reciprocal Perspective. (2) Reality is the cycle of Life.

(3) All Men are Born Morally & Intellectually Equally Literate. (3) All Men are Born Morally & Intellectually Equally Illiterate.

All Men Know Moral Right from Wrong at birth. Tabla Rasa - Blank Slate, must be taught Right from Wrong.

(4) Woman’s illiberal Civil Right for choice of Abortion. (4) Thou Shall Not Murder. God’s Liberal Human Right of Life.

Pro - Choice to Murder. As last option Contraception. Pro - Life, The First Law of Nature - Self Preservation.

(5) Illiberal Capital Punishment for Murders is Evil. (5) Thou Shall Not Murder. God’s Liberal Human Right of Life.

Pro - Choice to Murder. Note: Contradiction’s ! Pro - Life,The First Law of Nature - Self Preservation.

(6) Moral & Intellectual Abstract Reasoning illiterate Dishonorable (6) Moral & Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Literate Honorable

Unproductive & Counter Productive Men Deserve the Unearned Productive Men have the Human Right of their Earned

Completely Subsidized Generation after Generation Property Fair Profit in exchange for Hard Labor Property.

Of those whom they irrationally Blame for their Illiterate Condition.

(7) Moral & Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Illiterate Men (7) Moral & Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Literate Men Earn

Demand their Unearned Liberal Human Right of Dignity their Liberal Human Right of Dignity by obeying Gods

Limited While rejecting Gods Limited Human Laws. Human Laws.

FORMAL REVISIONISM AND ITS 180 DEGREE MOVEMENT OR TRANSITION FROM POSITIVE RIGHT TO NEGATIVE LEFT.

LEFT NEGATIVE ANTITHESIS CENTERED RIGHT POSITIVE THESIS

NEUTRALIZED

Synthesis < (3) (2) < Negate (1) < Negate

< ^ >

270 degrees relative 000 degrees relative 090 degree relative

(1) Pro - Choice Human Right Murder . (1) Repealed: or Neutralized. (1) Pro - Life, Anti-Abortion Law.

(2) America is a Democracy : “Anti-Constitutional”(2) Universal Suffrage. (2) America is a Republic: “Constitutional”

Content of Character: Subject Citizens Content of Character: Sovereign Citizens

Unearned Political Enfranchisement. Earned Political Enfranchisement.

Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Moral & Ethical and Intellectual

Reasoning Illiterate Secular Men and Woman Abstract Reasoning Literate Men

Claim they Are Equal to Moral & ethical and

Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Literate Men.

Example : Repealing Criminal Laws on Abortion Thou shall Not Murder, Negate, from 090 - to 000 degrees ,then Negate the Negate, from 000 - to 270 degrees synthesized Thou Shall Murder, therefore a 180 degree Reciprocal movement from Positive Right to Negative Left..

Philosophic Revisionism Inverting Fundamental Principles and their Particulars. Inverting Positive Thesis into Negative Thesis.

Legislative Revisionism Repealing of Positive Laws 090 to neutral 000 and then Legistlaing Negative Laws 270. Human Relative.

Adjudicative Revisionism inverting Fundamental Principles , Establishing inverted interpretation.

In America Both Major Political Parties would have to be considered Complicit in implementing this Subversion!

All Humans are born Equally Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Illiterate

(1) Positive Programmed Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Positive Literate. With a Positive Conscience.

(2) Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Illiterate. With No Concience’

(3) Negative Programmed Moral & Ethical and Intellectual Abstract Reasoning Negative Literate with a Negative Conscience.

In closing in light success of democratic scientific socialism by their pathetically obvious negative empirical analysis called dialectic materialism Inverted Age of Enlightenment ! Nonsensical tripe, and using the inverted negative empirical self evident proposition synthesized conclusions to revision all general and their particular propositions to formally invert the perception of positive empirical self evident propositions of positive empirical reality. In conjunction with the domination of the mass media information dissemination, education ect… The analogy of the war of the worlds, that the resistance is futile, aliens were defeated by a simple earth bacteria or virus!.

Top of Form 1

Bottom of Form 1

Sometimes we can't decide what to do next, i.e. we can't decide what is the principal contradiction. This happens when we have conflicting goals. For example, we may want to do the dishes, but we may also want to relax and watch the ball game. What we do depends on what our main goal is. Watching what people do is a good clue to what they see as the principal contradiction. This is true even if the goal is subconscious, as advertisers are well aware.

Sometimes we misjudge what the principal contradiction is, even if we know what we want. For example, if a car has a problem with its carburetor, it will not do any good to fix the ignition system. In such a case we may replace one part, then another, and still not get the car to run. Fixing a car requires identifying the problem--the principal contradiction. Otherwise it is just guesswork, and not likely to be successful.

What Happens if You Don't Address the Principal Contradiction?

The principal contradiction in a process must be resolved or the process will not move forward. There may be several problems blocking the process, but resolving the principal contradiction allows the other problems to be addressed. For example, you have to clear the table before you can do the dishes.

Of course, there's nothing that says you have to move a process along. Maybe you never will get around to reading that book on the coffee table, or writing that letter to your sister, or inviting your friends over for dinner. If this is a conscious decision, it may be OK. Sometimes, however, people maintain a state of denial about a problem because they really don't want to face up to it. In these cases a serious contradiction can be allowed to fester--like not going to the dentist--so the problem only gets worse. And your sister is likely to get mad if you don't get in touch with her before too long.

If there is a principal contradiction that cannot be resolved in a process, this is referred to as a "fatal flaw." If a project has a fatal flaw, it should not be attempted. For example, nuclear power does not have a safe means of disposing of its radioactive wastes; this is a fatal flaw that makes nuclear power highly impractical.

What About the Non-principal Contradictions?

We don't spend all of our time confronting one principal contradiction. We have to keep our "eyes on the prize"--i.e. the principal contradiction--while paying attention to many details to achieve that. In building a house, for example, the contractor has to order the roofing materials, electrical wiring, and plumbing even though building the foundation may be underway. Similarly, washing your hands or brushing your teeth may not be critical at any one time, but failure to do so would jeopardize your health in the long run. So the idea of a principal contradiction does not rule out addressing lesser problems. If they aren't addressed, they can become much bigger, and stop progress altogether.

At what point do secondary contradictions--cleaning up your desk, vacuuming the living room, fixing the light switch in the hallway, etc.--become important enough to resolve? This depends on your style of work, tolerance of clutter, and many personal factors. Eventually, we all get to the point where such problems do become significant enough to address (for me, not before I finish working on this essay, however!)

Some contradictions are not necessary to address. Often junk mail has misleading wording such as "RUSH" or "Open Immediately" printed conspicuously on the envelope, enticing you to open it. Perhaps they should just say "Principal Contradiction!"

Is There Just One Principal Contradiction?

With all due respect to Chairman Mao, I think there are limits to the concept of principal contradiction. For example, in my weekly trip to the grocery store, it does make sense to buy the bread before the vegetables since the bread aisle comes right by the entrance to the store. In that sense buying the bread before the vegetables is placing first things first, or identifying the principal contradiction. But what about when I’m buying peanut butter vs. jelly? They are all together. Does it really matter which one I buy first?

Similarly, when I’m folding laundry, it does make sense to fold the shirts and pants first since I don’t want them to get wrinkled. However, does it matter whether I fold the socks, towels, underwear in any particular order? I don’t think so.

For a third example consider a stack of bills--some may be higher priority, but is it worth sorting them out rather than just taking the top one off the stack?

[An aside--As in all of this web site, I’m sure I could be accused of trivializing philosophy in general and dialectics in particular by bringing in all these mundane examples. Mao, in his essay, "On Contradiction," wrote about the Japanese invasion of China as a more important contradiction than the struggle between the Chinese Communists and the Nationalists. Because he saw the need to defeat Japan as the primary contradiction, he urged the formation of a united front with the Nationalists (Chiang Kai-Shek). So the concept of principal contradiction was introduced at a very high level of political importance. Still, I think any useful philosophy should apply to all questions, great and small. As a tool, if dialectics doesn’t apply to grocery shopping, how can we expect it to apply to political strategy?]

My point here with regard to the principal contradiction is similar to my discussion of negation of negation--i.e. it is a very useful description of many processes of change, but it is not a law. I can’t think of anything that isn’t composed of opposites, but I can think of situations where there may not be a single principal contradiction.

As a practical matter I find it useful to follow the popular time management technique of writing down four or five key tasks and trying to stay focussed on these during the day, even as distractions naturally arise. This doesn’t take away from the importance of identifying the key contradiction at any one moment and trying to resolve it. It’s just that occasionally there may be a few contradictions overlapping, like the socks and towels, and they can be dealt with as equal priorities.

The Principal Contradiction in Our Lives

As noted in the hot stove example, in many cases our bodies automatically respond to the contradictions we face. This is because we are a well-evolved part of nature. As such, most of our bodily functions are managed without any conscious effort. We don't have to remember to breathe; our food digests automatically; our heart keeps a steady beat. When our body needs food or water, it lets us know. If something is coming toward our eye, we automatically blink (or if it's a big object, we duck). Our instinct to survive guides us around lots of pitfalls--we don't step out into the street in front of moving traffic; if there is a tornado or hurricane coming, we take cover; when it's cold, we look for warmth and shelter.

If most of our basic needs are driven by our animal natures, what choices do we have, and how do we make them? Below are listed four fundamental contradictions facing us as human beings in our personal lives, more or less in order of priority. Both as individuals and as a society we have many choices in resolving these contradictions.

Most of our lives are bound up with resolving these contradictions--staying healthy, holding down a job, finding a place to live, and seeking fulfillment through intimate relations and self expression. This list of contradictions is similar to the psychologist, Abraham Maslow's, "Hierarchy of Needs." Maslow listed five needs in his hierarchy, each of which has to be resolved before the next one can be addressed:

The name, Z, was inspired by the movie Z, directed by Costa-Gavras, that tells the story of repression and resistance in Greece. Comrade Z has been assassinated and his killers, including the chief of police, are indicted. The prosecutor disappears and a right-wing military junta takes over. Security police set out to prevent "a mildew of the mind" and infiltration of "isms." As the closing credits roll, the filmmakers list the things banned by the junta. They include: peace movements, labor unions, long hair on men, Sophocles, Tolstoy, strikes, the Beatles, Chekhov, Mark Twain, the bar association, sociology, Becket, the free press, the new math, and the letter Z, scrawled on a sidewalk as the film's final image, symbolizing "the spirit of resistance lives."

"In a time of constant media manipulation, every edition of Z Magazine comes through with key information and cogent analysis. This is an essential publication for people who refuse to be spun by evasion or euphemism and who want to help strengthen movements for social justice and peace. Z Magazine is present-day radicalism at its best -- resolutely progressive, non-dogmatic, compassionate, insightful and always searching for better ways to expose the roots of current disasters." Norman Solomon

"The many Z projects have played an enormously important role in connecting thousands of people outside the traditional channels of communication, bypassing the major media. and introducing into the world of ideas original and provocative insights and significant information that otherwise would be lost. Z has always struggled financially, as befits a bold and dissident organization, and so deserves all the help we can possibly give it." Howard Zinn

South End Press (1978) was founded to raise consciousness about class, gender, race, and power and to provide information, analysis, and vision to help activism. Z Magazine (1987) aimed to bring more diverse information more often and to increase the visibility of writers and illustrators. In ZCom, we added ZNet and ZTranslations, ZMI, ZVideo, and most recently ZEO and ZSpace including new ZBlogs and ZForums.

Z Magazine was founded by Michael Albert and Lydia Sargent. Lydia in turn initiated ZVideo and works overwhelmingly on ZMag and ZVideo. Michael initiated ZNet and works overwhelmingly on web operations. Eric Sargent joined in the late 1980s and works on Z Magazine and ZVideo. Andy Dunn (ZMI 2000) joined in 2005 and works on Z Magazine and ZVideo. Chris Spannos (ZMI 2001) joined in 2006, working on ZNet. Everyone works on ZMI.

THE PROCESS OF INVERTING THE PERCEPTION OF THE EMPIRICAL REALITY.

It’s in The psychological warfare value of Intellectual Antitheticalism and not the intellectual system value itself of dialectical materialism. By simply replacing the Empirical Positive Thesis self evident proposition with it’s own Empirical Negative Antithesis for a Inverted or Intellectually Antithetical Empirical (Negative)Thesis self evident proposition, thereby creating a a state of Psychological Cognitive Dissonance.

(1) This Combined with the Tenure Coercion or Bought Objective Observation Intellectual Consensus of our most Prestigious Universities Harvard, Yale, Princeton Scholastic intelligentsia of our higher learning Institutions, public information or Mass Media - News Papers, Magazines, Movies, Television Intellectual Experts, Radio, Internet. Etc.

(2) The Unelected, unaccountable, legislators, Constitutional Authorities or the A.C.L.U. or the Antithetical American Civil Liberties Union. who Formally Revision and Repeal Empirically Positive Laws and Legislate Antithetical Empirical Negative Laws as if they were Empirically Positive Laws..

Example : Repealing Criminal Laws on Abortion Thou shall Not Murder, Negate, from 090 - to 000 degrees ,then Negate the Negate, from 000 - to 270 degrees synthesized Thou Shall Murder, therefore a 180 degree Reciprocal movement from Positive Right to Negative Left..

( Creating an Inverted Empirical Reality.)

Cognitive dissonance is a theory of human motivation that asserts that it is psychologically uncomfortable to hold contradictory cognitions. The theory is that dissonance, being unpleasant, motivates a person to change his cognition, attitude, or behavior. This theory was first explored in detail by social psychologist Leon Festinger, who described it this way:

He argued that there are three ways to deal with cognitive dissonance. He did not consider these mutually exclusive.

This is the feeling of uncomfortable tension which comes from holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind at the same time.

Dissonance increases with:

Dissonance is often strong when we believe something about ourselves and then do something against that belief. If I believe I am good but do something bad, then the discomfort I feel as a result is cognitive dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance is a very powerful motivator which will often lead us to change one or other of the conflicting belief or action. The discomfort often feels like a tension between the two opposing thoughts. To release the tension we can take one of three actions:

Dissonance is most powerful when it is about our self-image. Feelings of foolishness, immorality and so on (including internal projections during decision-making) are dissonance in action.

If an action has been completed and cannot be undone, then the after-the-fact dissonance compels us to change our beliefs. If beliefs are moved, then the dissonance appears during decision-making, forcing us to take actions we would not have taken before.

Cognitive dissonance appears in virtually all evaluations and decisions and is the central mechanism by which we experience new differences in the world. When we see other people behave differently to our images of them, when we hold any conflicting thoughts, we experience dissonance.

The Christians may have been the first to successfully formulate brainwashing, but we have to look to Pavlov, the Russian scientist, for a technical explanation. In the early 1900s, his work with animals opened the door to further investigations with humans. After the revolution in Russia, Lenin was quick to see the potential of applying Pavlov's research to his own ends.

Three distinct and progressive states of transmarginal inhibition were identified by Pavlov. The first is the equivalent phase, in which the brain gives the same response to both strong and weak stimuli. The second is the paradoxical phase, in which the brain responds more actively to weak stimuli than to strong. And the third is the ultra-paradoxical phase, in which conditioned responses and behavior patterns turn from positive to negative or from negative to positive.

With the progression through each phase, the degree of conversion becomes more effective and complete. The way to achieve conversion are many and varied, but the usual first step in religious or political brainwashing is to work on the emotions of an individual or group until they reach an abnormal level of anger, fear, excitement, or nervous tension.

The progressive result of this mental condition is to impair judgment and increase suggestibility. The more this condition can be maintained or intensified, the more it compounds. Once catharsis, or the first brain phase, is reached, the complete mental takeover becomes easier. Existing mental programming can be replaced with new patterns of thinking and behavior.

Other often-used physiological weapons to modify normal brain functions are fasting, radical or high sugar diets, physical discomforts, regulation of breathing, mantra chanting in meditation, the disclosure of awesome mysteries, special lighting and sound effects, programmed response to incense, or intoxicating drugs.

The same results can be obtained in contemporary psychiatric treatment by electric shock treatments and even by purposely lowering a person's blood sugar level with insulin injections.

Before I talk about exactly how some of the techniques are applied, I want to point out that hypnosis and conversion tactics are two distinctly different things--and that conversion techniques are far more powerful. However, the two are often mixed...with powerful results.

The basis for the modern psychological warfare, which makes it different from whatever was done in the past, are the findings of the Russian physiologist, Pavlov. He is not a Communist. He had completed his most important discoveries before the Communists took power. His first discovery was the effectiveness of using a living animal in experiments, rather than a dead animal. His second great discovery was that the instincts of an animal, that we call reflexes, were of two kinds. One was the reflexes which the animal was born with, its unconditioned reflexes. The other was its conditioned reflexes, which man can train into the animal. Most of us have heard of Pavlov’s experiments with dogs and lights. He first provided a bowl of food and turned on a light of a certain color, then an empty bowl and turned on a different colored light. After he had done this a number of times, he turned on the light that accompanied the food, but presented an empty bowl to the animal, and the dog deposited just as much saliva as when the bowl was full. When he presented a bowlful of food with the wrong light, the animal did not eat. After he switched the lights and bowls of food, the animal became neurotic, barked, was driven into a state, which among human beings we call insanity.)

When the Communist hierarchy in Moscow discovered that it was unable to persuade people willingly to follow communism, when they found that they could not create what they wanted, the “new Soviet man” in which human nature would be changed, they turned to Pavlov and his experiments. They considered people the same as animals anyway, and refused to recognize the role of reason or divinity in a human being. They took over the Pavlovian experiments on animals and extended them to people. They did so with the objective of changing human nature and creating a “new Soviet man.” People, they anticipated, would react voluntarily under Pavlovian pressures, in the way the dog does, to Communist orders, exactly as ants do in their collectivized society.

GREELEY, Horace

(1811-72), influential American journalist and political leader, noted for his vigorous espousal of the antislavery cause in the period preceding the American Civil War. He was born in Amherst, N.H., on Feb. 3, 1811. At the age of 14 he was apprenticed to a printer in East Poultney, Vt., and four years later became an itinerant journeyman printer.

In 1831 Greeley settled in New York City, where he became editor successively of the New Yorker, the Jeffersonian, and the Log Cabin, rapidly gaining a reputation as an influential political writer. He also became associated with the Whig leaders Gov. William Seward of New York and the journalist Thurlow Weed (1797-1882), with whom he worked in behalf of progressive governmental policies.

In order to serve the Whig cause with a low-priced newspaper that would avoid the sensationalism of the New York Herald and the academic detachment of the New York Evening Post, Greeley in 1841 founded the New York Tribune. It met with immediate success, and Greeley remained its editor for 31 years. During this period he opposed unequal distribution of wealth, denounced monopoly, and attacked the preemption of public lands by the railroads and speculators. He advocated a protective tariff, the development of agriculture, and migration to the West; his advice to a Congregational clergyman, who had lost his voice and had to leave the ministry, to build his future in the West, widely popularized the phrase of the Indiana newspaperman John Soule (1815-91), "Go west, young man." For a time Greeley was sympathetic to the ideas of such utopian socialists as the French philosopher Francois Marie Charles Fourier and the British social reformer Robert Owen and to those of the English Chartists. For several years, Greeley employed Karl Marx as a European correspondent, publishing dispatches that later became famous as classics of Marxian socialism.

Although opposed to the abolitionists, who denounced him as a conservative, Greeley was unequivocally opposed to slavery. He opposed the Mexican War because he saw it as a plot conceived by slave owners, and, for the same reason, he urged rejection of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. His increasing preoccupation with these issues led him, in 1854, to break with Seward and Weed.

In 1856, and again in 1860, Greeley attended the national conventions of the Republican party; in the latter year, he was influential in bringing about the nomination of Abraham Lincoln for president. Believing at first that the South should be allowed to secede if a majority of its inhabitants voted to do so, Greeley later urged that the southern states be compelled by force to abide by the decision of the national electorate and its government under Lincoln. He urged vigorous prosecution of the Civil War and frequently criticized Lincoln's hesitation to free the slaves.

After the war, Greeley urged a general amnesty, thus antagonizing the Republican party; and his proposal of unrestricted universal suffrage to form a basis of reconstruction in the South pleased neither side. Greeley provoked great anger in the North and alienated many erstwhile admirers when he signed a bail bond for Jefferson Davis, leader of the defeated Confederacy, whose long imprisonment he held to be a violation of constitutional rights.

Resources of North and South.

Neither the North nor the South was prepared in 1861 to wage a war. With a population of 22 million, the North had a greater military potential. The South had a population of 9 million, but of that number, nearly 4 million were enslaved blacks whose loyalty to the Confederate cause was always in doubt. Although they initially relied on volunteers, necessity eventually forced both sides to resort to a military draft to raise an army. Before the war ended, the South had enlisted about 900,000 white males, and the Union had enrolled about 2 million men (including 186,000 blacks), nearly half of them toward the end of the war.

In addition, the North possessed clear material advantages-in money and credit, factories, food production, mineral resources, and transport-that proved decisive. The South's ability to fight was hampered by chronic shortages of food, clothing, medicine, and heavy artillery, as well as by war weariness and the unpredictability of its black labor force.

Even with its superior manpower and resources, however, the North did not achieve the quick victory it had expected. To raise, train, and equip a massive fighting force from inexperienced volunteers and to find efficient military leadership proved a formidable and time-consuming task. The South, with its stronger military tradition, had more men experienced in the use of arms and produced an able corps of officers, including Robert E. Lee. Only through trial and error did Lincoln find comparable military leaders, such as Ulysses S. Grant and William T. Sherman.

Charles Francis Adams

The Democratic Scientific Socialist - Democratic Party of the U.S.A. Will reply that its just another Guilt by Association - Empty Claim of the Northern States of the U.S.A. and Abraham Lincoln being under the Psychological Cognitive Dissonance (Conflicting Idea ) Influence of Dialectic Materialism - Revisionism, that is not Class warfare, but a Epistemological or the acquisition of human knowledge deficiency that dictates classes of humans. We are all biologically equal at birth, but illiterate, and must be educated.

Protestant Christians Empirically Demonstrate that Positive Metaphysical and Ontological General Principles and their Particulars Principles are Validated both in Form and Content for Positive Truthful Empirical Self Evident Propositions.

International Workingmen's Association Index | Documents

DEMOCRATIC SCIENTIFIC SOCIALISM IS THE SYSTEM USED ON THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

BERNSTEIN, Eduard
(1850-1932), German Social Democratic leader and writer, born in Berlin, and educated at Berlin University. In 1872 he joined the Social Democratic party, and from 1881 to 1890 he and the Social Democratic leader August Bebel jointly edited the newspaper Sozialdemokrat (Social Democrat). While living in exile in London from 1888 to 1901, Bernstein became acquainted with the German coauthor of the Communist Manifesto, Friedrich Engels, and studied the theories developed by Engels and Karl Marx dealing with the nature of capitalist society and the establishment of socialism. Bernstein rejected the arguments by Marx and Engels for the violent overthrow of capitalism; instead, he developed his own theory, known as revisionism, emphasizing evolutionary rather than revolutionary methods to bring about a socialist society. In 1901, he was elected to the Reichstag, serving there in 1902-6, 1912-18, and 1920-28. His book Evolutionary Socialism (1899; trans. 1909) presents his criticisms of the Marxist system.

Bernstein, Eduard (b. Jan. 6, 1850, Berlin-d. Dec. 18, 1932, Berlin), Social Democratic propagandist, political theorist, and historian, one of the first Socialist to attempt a revision of Karl Marx’s tenets, such as abandoning the ideas of the imminent collapse of the capitalist economy and the seizure of power by the proletariat. Although he was not a distinguished theoretician, Berstein called “the father of revisionism,” envisaged a type of social democracy that combined private initiative with social reform.

Berstein was born into a Jewish family that had come to the capital of Prussia from Danzig. His father was a railroad engineer, and his uncle Aaron Berstein was the editor of the Berliner Volks-Zeitung, a newspaper widely read in progressive working-class circles. It was thus not surprising that at a young age Eduard shared the aspirations of many educated Germans for national unity and democracy. Of an engaging and candid disposition, he retained the goodwill of his superiors when in 1872, as a young bank clerk, he announced that he had joined the Socialist Democratic Party. The turbulent years after Prussia’s 1871 defeat of France also contributed to the formation of his political beliefs. Yet the ever-genial Berstein tended to be attracted more to socialism of an under dogmatic. Pragmatic kind than to radical Marxism. He preferred the democratic and pacifist Social Democrats to the somewhat authoritarian Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein (“General German workers’ Association”).

In joining the party, he became associated with the German socialist organ, Die Zukunft (“The Future”). The economic crisis of 1873, which continued into the 1890s, reinforced his belief in the fragility of capitalism. it was however, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck’s anti-socialist laws that finally impelled him toward a more radical position. Exiled from Germany, he immigrated to Switzerland, abandoning the “ethical socialism” of Karl Hochberg, the wealthy patron of Die Zukunft. With Marx’s consent, he became the editor of the Zurich edition of Der Sozialdemokrat, a periodical that was the rallying center of the underground socialist party. Expelled from Switzerland at the request of Bismarck in 1888. Bernstein continued the publication of the periodical in London. There he became a close friend of Friedrich Engels, Marx’s collaborator and patron, and also came to know intimately the leaders of the influential Fabian Society, which advocated a gradualist development of socialism. Berstein set forth his revised views in a series of articles and in a letter to the Socialist Democratic Party meeting at Stuttgart in 1898. in the following year he published Die Voraussetzungen des Sozilismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie (“The Postulates of Socialism and the lessons of Social Democracy”; Eng. Trans., Evolutionary Socialism).

When Berstein returned to Germany in 1901, he became the theoretician of the growing revisionist school of the reformist labor movement. He held that socialism is the final result of the liberalism inherent in human aspiration, not the mere product of a revolt against the capitalist middle class. He no longer believed in capitalism’s imminent collapse, nor did he any longer regarded the bourgeoisie as exclusively parasitic and oppressive.

He also believed that the concentration of productive industry was not taking place in all fields as thoroughly or as fast as Marx had predicted. Citing such reforms as factory legislation and the freeing of labor unions from legal restrictions, he pointed out that, under pressure from the socialist movement, a reaction had set in against the exploitive inclinations of capital. Thus he argued, the prospects for lasting success lay in steady advance rather than violent upheaval.

In 1902 Berstein was elected a member of the Reichstag, or Parliament, to which he was reelected several times. He remained a member of the Reichstag up to 1928. Eventually revisionism became Social Democratic ideology, while the dogmatic Marxism of the socialist theoretician Karl Kautsky and the eclectic Marxism of the German labor leader August Bebel faded into the background. Berstein, however, who was opposed to violence between nations as well as between classes, lent his voice to that of the left to fight against militarism. During World War l, although a leading member of his party’s right wing, he sided with the Independent Socialist (Unabhangige Soziademocratische Partei Deutschlands; USPD) to protest his party’s support of the war. As soon as peace was restored, however, he returned to his old party and opposed those who wanted to transform the political revolution of November 1918 into a social revolution. He believed that the establishment of the parliamentary republic opened the way to uninterrupted progress, and after the war he served as secretary of state for economy and finance in 1919.

Social Democracy had finally become the great popular and reformist movement he had desired for more than 20 years, and, as an adviser respected by his party, he inspired much of its program. If he helped to discourage the Germans from following the Russian example of 1917, he could not dissuade them from imitating the Italian fascist model of 1922. He regarded the bloody outrages of the Nazis and their predecessors as the thoughtless actions of unbalanced minds; he was unable to comprehend the nature of National Socialism and remained powerless to prevent its seizure of power. Less than six weeks after his death, the democratic state on which he had set all his hopes was to give way to the dictatorship of Adolf Hitler.

social democracy, social democrat(1) The title taken by most Marxist socialist parties between 1880 and 1914, especially the German and Russian Social Democratic Parties. In Britain, the Social Democratic Federation (SDF) was a late nineteenth-century Marxist group which was eventually absorbed into the Communist Party.

(2) Beginning with the split of the Russian Social Democratic Party into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, the more right-wing faction when socialist parties split. This has become the established usage.

and therefore revolutionary.

Socialism elevates the common good to the number one priority in all decision-making, instead of the good of a small ruling class. Many democratic socialists around the world have used electoral politics as a way of becoming accommodating to the capitalist class. Now they refuse to use terms like "capitalist class," and reactionaries get away with denouncing even tepid liberalism as "class warfare."

You bet it's class warfare. The hard facts of the domination of the capitalist class persist and become more outrageous every year. History offers a multitude of examples to contradict the notion that capitalists will voluntarily cede power. German capitalists raised up Hitler in order to stop the socialists and communists. Capitalism has staged bloody and utter illegal means in Greece, Spain, Chile, Nicaragua, Indonesia. McCarthy-ite Conservatives in every country in the world have slandered, persecuted, jailed and murdered leftists, union organizers and civil liberties advocates. Socialism evolved in reaction to the hard fact of capitalist oppression, and thus is directly antithetical to it.

There are many ways of envisioning revolution, and it need not necessarily be a bloody thing. In this Bergonian fantasy, the radicals use electoral politics to score a big victory that paved the way for the subsequent revolution, and in fact Hitler's revolution came about as a result of parliamentary elections. Socialist electoral revolutions were violently aborted by the Fascist Uprising and Civil War in Spain, and by Pinochet in Chile.

But "social democracy" and "Fabian socialism" have not resulted in more than a reform of capitalism. While social democrats in Europe and other parts of the world have succeeded in obtaining pensions, health care, hour and wage protections and the like, a capitalist class still controls the means of

production.

"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the ( identity theft 1833 assumed ) name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." – Norman Thomas, American socialist, 1948 Whom F.D.R. instructed to implement his New Deal Economic Program!

Americans did not worry about Norman Thomas' statement when he first uttered these words. The likelihood that the United States of America, the nation of liberty, would fall victim to the wiles of Socialism, seemed impossible. And when Ronald Reagan captured the presidency as the 1980's opened, the liberal attempt at gaining full power seemed to be defeated for good. The platform of Conservatism had produced landslide elections, created a prosperous economy after the economic darkness of the 70's, and reminded the world that America is the strength of the world and that peace comes through that strength.

American Civil Liberties Union: the Democratic Scientific Socialist Antithetical Constitutional Revisionist Unelected Shadow legislators.

By 1969, it had grown to embrace a membership of about 130,000; had 45 state affiliates and over 200 Chapters throughout the U.S.; conducted its business through twenty staff attorneys and one thousand cooperating attorneys; and maintained a national staff in New York City, a legislative office in Washington, and a southern regional office in Atlanta, Ga. Organized to defend the civil liberties of all citizens, it follows a liberal interpretation of U.S. Constitutional law in defense of freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion. It is active before national, state, and local legislative bodies, in courts of all jurisdictions, and in the preparation of educational materials. Since 1920 it has acted directly or by intervention in almost all cases involving civil liberty in the U.S., including the Sacco and Vanzett, Scopes, and Scottsboro trails, and cases involving freedom of expression in the arts, the rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses, the unconstitutionality of white primaries, and the prosecution of citizens under so called loyalty acts. It also took a leading part in the legal fight that resulted in the abolition by the U.S. Supreme Court of segregation in public schools under the doctrine of equal but separate facilities.

INTELLECTUAL SYSTEM EMPIRICAL ANTITHETICALISM - DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM - FORMAL REVISIONISM

METAPHYSICAL EMPIRICAL ANTITHETICALISM -

REVERSING THE PROTESTANT CHRISTIAN GOD’S LIMITED HUMAN LAWS WHICH LEAVES LIBERAL HUMAN RIGHTS.

U.S. CONSTITUTIONAL EMPIRICAL ANTITHETICALISM.

Harvard Professor Steven Wise summarizes this radical revolution in legal theory occasioned by the adoption of Darwin’s principles:

Yet, is the fact that the Constitution is now a living, malleable, evolving document, necessarily bad? After all, society does change and should not necessarily be bound by decisions made two centuries ago.

Significantly, the framers agreed with this thesis—they understood that times would change and therefore so should the Constitution. However, they would have vehemently disagreed with the mechanism by which this change occurs today.

The framers made clear that when the meaning, and thus the application, of any part of the Constitution was to be altered, it was to be at the hands of the people themselves, not at the feet of the judiciary or through the usurpation of any legislative body. For this reason, Article V was placed in the Constitution to establish the proper means whereby the people might “evolve” their government.

As Samuel Adams explained:

George Washington also warned Americans to adhere strictly to this manner of changing the meaning of the Constitution:

Alexander Hamilton echoed this warning, declaring:

American Usurpation has occurred in the 19^th and 20^th Century.

Under the Influence Mass Psychological cognitive dissonance of the inverted perception of the Empirical Reality, The Intellectual Antitheticalism of Dialectic Materialism - Revisionism.not only unconstitutionally but Anticonstitutionally the American people have already, ANTI-COSTITUTIONALLY “evolved” their Constitution twenty-eight times ALL UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THIS PSYCOLOGICAL CONDITION. by abolishing slavery, granting full suffrage without regard to race or gender, replacing capitation taxes with progressive taxes, imposing term limits on presidents, reducing the voting age for youth, requiring Congress to face the electorate before a congressional pay hike can take effect, etc.

It is this method of “evolving” the Constitution set forth in that document which must be followed. Therefore, if the belief in theistic origins, transcendent values, unalienable rights, or any other political doctrine established in our documents, is to change, it must be done by the people themselves, according to the process established in Article V. Any other method such as Intellectual Antitheticalism of change is an abuse of power and a usurpation of the rights of the people. The real danger of societal evolution rests, then, not in the fact that corrections are needed but rather in the fact that those “corrections” are made by a small, elite, and unaccountable group—and often by individuals whose personal values are antithetical and do not reflect those of “we the people.”

The Founding Text on Empirically demonstrated Human Psychology !

Idea is the object of thinking.

§ 1. Every man being conscious to himself that he thinks, and that which his mind is applied about, whilst thinking, being the ideas that are there, it is past doubt, that men have in their minds several ideas, such as are those expressed by the words, Whiteness, Hardness, Sweetness, Thinking, Motion, Man, Elephant, Army, Drunkenness, and others. It is in the first place then to be inquired, how he comes by them. I know it is a received doctrine, that men have native ideas, and original characters, stamped upon their minds, in their very first being. This opinion I have, at large, examined already; and, I suppose, what I have said, in the foregoing book, will be much more easily admitted, when I have shewn, whence the understanding may get all the ideas it has, and by what ways and degrees they may come into the mind; for which I shall appeal to every one’s own observation and experience.

Tabla Rasa.

All ideas come from sensation or reflection.

§ 2. Let us then suppose the mind to be, as we say, white paper, void of all characters, without any ideas; how comes it to be furnished? Whence comes it by that vast store which the busy and boundless fancy of man has painted on it, with an almost endless variety? Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, from experience; in all that our knowledge is founded, and from that it ultimately derives itself. Our observation employed either about external sensible objects, or about the internal operations of our minds, perceived and reflected on by ourselves, is that which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking. These two are the fountains of knowledge, from whence all the ideas we have, or can naturally have, do spring.

§ 9. The use of words then being to stand as outward marks of our internal ideas, and those ideas being taken from particular things, if every particular idea that we take in should have a distinct name, names must be endless. To prevent this, the mind makes the particular ideas, received from particular objects, to become general; which is done by considering them as they are in the mind, such appearances, separate from all other existences, and the circumstances of real existence, as time, place, or any other concomitant ideas. This is called abstraction, whereby ideas, taken from particular beings, become general representatives of all of the same kind, and their names general names, applicable to whatever exists conformable to such abstract ideas. Such precise naked appearances in the mind, without considering how, whence, or with what others they came there, the understanding lays up (with names commonly annexed to them) as the standard to rank real existences into sorts, as they agree with these patterns, and to denominate them accordingly. Thus the same colour being observed to-day in chalk or snow, which the mind yesterday received from milk, it considers that appearance alone, makes it a representative of all of that kind; and having given it the name whiteness, it by that sound signifies the same quality, wheresoever to be imagined or met with: and thus universals, whether ideas or terms, are made.

Beast Abstract Not.

§ 10. If it may be doubted, whether beasts compound and enlarge their ideas that way to any degree; this, I think, I may be positive in, that the power of abstracting is not at all in them; and that the having of general ideas, is that which puts a perfect distinction betwixt man and brutes, and is an excellency which the faculties of brutes do by no means attain to. For it is evident we observe no footsteps in them of making use of general signs for universal ideas; from which we have reason to imagine, that they have not the faculty of abstracting, or making general ideas, since they have no use of words, or any other general signs.

§ 12. How far idiots are concerned in the want or weakness of any, or all of the foregoing faculties, an exact observation of their several ways of faltering would no doubt discover: for those who either perceive but dully, or retain the ideas that come into their minds but ill, who cannot readily excite or compound them, will have little matter to think on. Those who cannot distinguish, compare, and abstract, would hardly be able to understand and make use of language, or judge or reason to any tolerable degree; but only a little and imperfectly about things present, and very familiar to their senses. And indeed any of the forementioned faculties, if wanting, or out of order, produce suitable effects in men’s understandings and knowledge.

§ 13. In fine, the defect in naturals seems to proceed from want of quickness, activity, and motion in the intellectual faculties, whereby they are deprived of reason; whereas madmen, on the other side, seem to suffer by the other extreme: for they do not appear to me to have lost the faculty of reasoning; but having joined together some ideas very wrongly, they mistake them for truths, and they err as men do that argue right from wrong principles. For by the violence of their imaginations, having taken their fancies for realities, they make right deductions from them. Thus you shall find a distracted man fancying himself a king, with a right inference require suitable attendance, respect and obedience; others, who have thought themselves made of glass, have used the caution necessary to preserve such brittle bodies. Hence it comes to pass that a man, who is very sober, and of a right understanding in all other things, may in one particular be as frantic as any in Bedlam; if either by any sudden very strong impression, or long fixing his fancy upon one sort of thoughts, incoherent ideas have been cemented together so powerfully, as to remain united. But there are degrees of madness, as of folly: the disorderly jumbling ideas together, is in some more, some less. In short, herein seems to lie the difference between idiots and madmen, that madmen put wrong ideas together, and so make wrong propositions, but argue and reason right from them; but idiots make very few or no propositions, and reason scarce at all.

Method.

§ 14. These, I think, are the first faculties and operations of the mind, which it makes use of in understanding: and though they are exercised about all its ideas in general, yet the instances I have hitherto given have been chiefly in simple ideas; and I have subjoined the explication of these faculties of the mind to that of simple ideas, before I come to what I have to say concerning complex ones, for these following reasons.

First, Because several of these faculties being exercised at first principally about simple ideas, we might, by following nature in its ordinary method, trace and discover them in their rise, progress, and gradual improvements.

Intuitive.

Demonstrative.

§ 2. The next degree of knowledge is, where the mind perceives the agreement or disagreement of any ideas, but not immediately. Though wherever the mind perceives the agreement or disagreement of any of its ideas, there be certain knowledge: yet it does not always happen, that the mind sees that agreement or disagreement which there is between them, even where it is discoverable: and in that case remains in ignorance, and at most gets no farther than a probable conjecture. The reason why the mind cannot always perceive presently the agreement or disagreement of two ideas, is, because those ideas, concerning whose agreement or disagreement the inquiry is made, cannot by the mind be so put together as to show it. In this case then, when the mind cannot so bring its ideas together, as by their immediate comparison, and as it were juxta-position or application one to another, to perceive their agreement or disagreement, it is fain, by the intervention of other ideas (one or more, as it happens) to discover the agreement or disagreement which it searches; and this is that which we call reasoning. Thus the mind being willing to know the agreement or disagreement in bigness, between the three angles of a triangle and two right ones, cannot by an immediate view and comparing them do it: because the three angles of a triangle cannot be brought at once, and be compared with any one or two angles; and so of this the mind has no immediate, no intuitive knowledge. In this case the mind is fain to find out some other angles, to which the three angles of a triangle have an equality; and, finding those equal to two right ones, comes to know their equality to two right ones.

John Locke, The Two Treatises of Civil Government [1689]

Second Treatise

CHAP. II.
Of the State of Nature.

To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man.

A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.

This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in itself, and beyond all question, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mutual love amongst men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of justice and charity. His words are,

But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

I doubt not but this will seem a very strange doctrine to some men: but before they condemn it, I desire them to resolve me, by what right any prince or state can put to death, or punish an alien, for any crime he commits in their country. It is certain their laws, by virtue of any sanction they receive from the promulgated will of the legislative, reach not a stranger: they speak not to him, nor, if they did, is he bound to hearken to them. The legislative authority, by which they are in force over the subjects of that common-wealth, hath no power over him. Those who have the supreme power of making laws in England, France or Holland, are to an Indian, but like the rest of the world, men without authority: and therefore, if by the law of nature every man hath not a power to punish offences against it, as he soberly judges the case to require, I see not how the magistrates of any community can punish an alien of another country; since, in reference to him, they can have no more power than what every man naturally may have over another.

Besides the crime which consists in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reason, whereby a man so far becomes degenerate, and declares himself to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to some person or other, and some other man receives damage by his transgression: in which case he who hath received any damage, has, besides the right of punishment common to him with other men, a particular right to seek reparation from him that has done it: and any other person, who finds it just, may also join with him that is injured, and assist him in recovering from the offender so much as may make satisfaction for the harm he has suffered.

From these two distinct rights, the one of punishing the crime for restraint, and preventing the like offence, which right of punishing is in every body; the other of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party, comes it to pass that the magistrate, who by being magistrate hath the common right of punishing put into his hands, can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law, remit the punishment of criminal offences by his own authority, but yet cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he has received. That, he who has suffered the damage has a right to demand in his own name, and he alone can remit: the damnified person has this power of appropriating to himself the goods or service of the offender, by right of self-preservation, as every man has a power to punish the crime, to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of preserving all mankind, and doing all reasonable things he can in order to that end: and thus it is, that every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security: and upon this is grounded that great law of nature, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. And Cain was so fully convinced, that every one had a right to destroy such a criminal, that after the murder of his brother, he cries out, Every one that findethme, shall slay me; so plain was it writ in the hearts of all mankind.

By the same reason may a man in the state of nature punish the lesser breaches of that law. It will perhaps be demanded, with death? I answer, each transgression may be punished to that degree, and with so much severity, as will suffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him cause to repent, and terrify others from doing the like. Every offence, that can be committed in the state of nature, may in the state of nature be also punished equally, and as far forth as it may, in a common-wealth: for though it would be besides my present purpose, to enter here into the particulars of the law of nature, or its measures of punishment; yet, it is certain there is such a law, and that too, as intelligible and plain to a rational creature, and a studier of that law, as the positive laws of common-wealths; nay, possibly plainer; as much as reason is easier to be understood, than the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words; for so truly are a great part of the municipal laws of countries, which are only so far right, as they are founded on the law of nature, by which they are to be regulated and interpreted.

To this strange doctrine, viz. That in the state of nature every one has the executive power of the law of nature, I doubt not but it will be objected, that it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, that self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends: and on the other side, that ill nature, passion and revenge will carry them too far in punishing others; and hence nothing but confusion and disorder will follow, and that therefore God hath certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men. I easily grant, that civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniencies of the state of nature, which must certainly be great, where men may be judges in their own case, since it is easy to be imagined, that he who was so unjust as to do his brother an injury, will scarce be so just as to condemn himself for it: but I shall desire those who make this objection, to remember, that absolute monarchs are but men; and if government is to be the remedy of those evils, which necessarily follow from men’s being judges in their own cases, and the state of nature is therefore not to be endured, I desire to know what kind of government that is, and how much better it is than the state of nature, where one man, commanding a multitude, has the liberty to be judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects whatever he pleases, without the least liberty to any one to question or control those who execute his pleasure? and in whatsoever he doth, whether led by reason, mistake or passion, must be submitted to? much better it is in the state of nature, wherein men are not bound to submit to the unjust will of another: and if he that judges, judges amiss in his own, or any other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of mankind.

It is often asked as a mighty objection, where are, or ever were there any men in such a state of nature? To which it may suffice as an answer at present, that since all princes and rulers of independent governments all through the world, are in a state of nature, it is plain the world never was, nor ever will be, without numbers of men in that state. I have named all governors of independent communities, whether they are, or are not, in league with others: for it is not every compact that puts an end to the state of nature between men, but only this one of agreeing together mutually to enter into one community, and make one body politic; other promises, and compacts, men may make one with another, and yet still be in the state of nature. The promises and bargains for truck, &c. between the two men in the desert island, mentioned by Garcilasso de la Vega, in his history of Peru; or between a Swiss and an Indian, in the woods of America, are binding to them, though they are perfectly in a state of nature, in reference to one another: for truth and keeping of faith belongs to men, as men, and not as members of society.

To those that say, there were never any men in the state of nature, I will not only oppose the authority of the judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol. lib. i. sect. 10. where he says, The laws which have been hitherto mentioned, i. e. the laws of nature, do bind men absolutely, even as they are men, although they have never any settled fellowship, never any solemn agreement amongst themselves what to do, or not to do: but forasmuch as we are not by ourselves sufficient to furnish ourselves with competent store of things, needful for such a life as our nature doth desire, a life fit for the dignity of man; therefore to supply those defects and imperfections which are in us, as living single and solely by ourselves, we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others: this was the cause of men’s uniting themselves at first in politic societies. But I moreover affirm, that all men are naturally in that state, and remain so, till by their own consents they make themselves members of some politic society; and I doubt not in the sequel of this discourse, to make it very clear.

Note: The British Government Instituted African Slavery in the British American Colonies in 1612;

Here below, its Empirically Demonstrated that it Is in Accordance with the laws of Natural Reasoning that a moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning literate man can accept forced servitude, and must resist it until death ! But moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning illiterate men have an adult mind of a irresponsible child that must never have a right to exercise a will of their own illiterate choosing ! Even if by anti-constitutionally sanctioned emancipation ! Or antithetical civil rights legislation !

If you don’t know the laws, you cant obey the laws, or you reject the limited Human laws of God, But demand the Liberal Human Rights as follows you reject the Limited Civil Laws, But demand the Liberal Civil Rights of our Republic ! African Sovereign Citizens are the Epitome of Not in Accordance with the laws of Natural Reasoning ! The ultimate definition of a antithetical contradiction !

Maximus Publius

THE natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in society, is to be under no other legislative power, but that established, by consent, in the common-wealth; nor under the dominion of any will, or restraint of any law, but what that legislative shall enact, according to the trust put in it. Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Observations, A. 55. a liberty for every one to do what he lists, to live as he pleases, and not to be tied by any laws: but freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man: as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature.

This freedom from absolute, arbitrary power, is so necessary to, and closely joined with a man’s preservation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his preservation and life together: for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own consent, enslave himself to any one, nor put himself under the absolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleases. No body can give more power than he has himself; and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it. Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life, by some act that deserves death; he, to whom he has forfeited it, may (when he has him in his power) delay to take it, and make use of him to his own service, and he does him no injury by it: for, whenever he finds the hardship of his slavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by resisting the will of his master, to draw on himself the death he desires.

This is the perfect condition of slavery, which is nothing else, but the state of war continued, between a lawful conqueror and a captive: for, if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery ceases, as long as the compact endures: for, as has been said, no man can, by agreement, pass over to another that which he hath not in himself, a power over his own life.

I confess, we find among the Jews, as well as other nations, that men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery: for, it is evident, the person sold was not under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power: for the master could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was obliged to let go free out of his service; and the master of such a servant was so far from having an arbitrary power over his life, that he could not, at pleasure, so much as maim him, but the loss of an eye, or tooth, set him free,

Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence: or revelation, which gives us an account of those grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. CXV. 16. has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common. But this being supposed, it seems to some a very great difficulty, how any one should ever come to have a property in any thing: I will not content myself to answer, that if it be difficult to make out property, upon a supposition that God gave the world to Adam, and his posterity in common, it is impossible that any man, but one universal monarch, should have any property upon a supposition, that God gave the world to Adam, and his heirs in succession, exclusive of all the rest of his posterity. But I shall endeavour to shew, how men might come to have a property in several parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any express compact of all the commoners.

God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the support and comfort of their being. And tho’ all the fruits it naturally produces, and beasts it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as they are produced by the spontaneous hand of nature; and no body has originally a private dominion, exclusive of the rest of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural state: yet being given for the use of men, there must of necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other, before they can be of any use, or at all beneficial to any particular man. The fruit, or venison, which nourishes the wild Indian, who knows no inclosure, and is still a tenant in common, must be his, and so his, i. e. a part of him, that another can no longer have any right to it, before it can do him any good for the support of his life.

Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others.

He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himself. No body can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask then, when did they begin to be his? when he digested? or when he eat? or when he boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? and it is plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could. That labour put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right. And will any one say, he had no right to those acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved, notwithstanding the plenty God had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them.

By making an explicit consent of every commoner, necessary to any one’s appropriating to himself any part of what is given in common, children or servants could not cut the meat, which their father or master had provided for them in common, without assigning to every one his peculiar part. Though the water running in the fountain be every one’s, yet who can doubt, but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out? His labour hath taken it out of the hands of nature, where it was common, and belonged equally to all her children, and hath thereby appropriated it to himself.

Thus this law of reason makes the deer that Indian’s who hath killed it; it is allowed to be his goods, who hath bestowed his labour upon it, though before it was the common right of every one. And amongst those who are counted the civilized part of mankind, who have made and multiplied positive laws to determine property, this original law of nature, for the beginning of property, in what was before common, still takes place; and by virtue thereof, what fish any one catches in the ocean, that great and still remaining common of mankind; or what ambergrise any one takes up here, is by the labour that removes it out of that common state nature left it in, made his property, who takes that pains about it. And even amongst us, the hare that any one is hunting, is thought his who pursues her during the chase: for being a beast that is still looked upon as common, and no man’s private possession; whoever has employed so much labour about any of that kind, as to find and pursue her, has thereby removed her from the state of nature, wherein she was common, and hath begun a property.

IT may perhaps be censured as an impertinent criticism, in a discourse of this nature, to find fault with words and names, that have obtained in the world: and yet possibly it may not be amiss to offer new ones, when the old are apt to lead men into mistakes, as this of paternal power probably has done, which seems so to place the power of parents over their children wholly in the father, as if the mother had no share in it; whereas, if we consult reason or revelation, we shall find, she hath an equal title. This may give one reason to ask, whether this might not be more properly called parental power? for whatever obligation nature and the right of generation lays on children, it must certainly bind them equal to both the concurrent causes of it. And accordingly we see the positive law of God every where joins them together, without distinction, when it commands the obedience of children, Honour thy father and thy mother, Exod. xx. 12. Whosoever curseth his father or his mother, Lev. xx. 9. Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father, Lev. xix. 3. Children, obey your parents, &c. Eph. vi. 1. is the stile of the Old and New Testament.

Had but this one thing been well considered, without looking any deeper into the matter, it might perhaps have kept men from running into those gross mistakes, they have made, about this power of parents; which, however it might, without any great harshness, bear the name of absolute dominion, and regal authority, when under the title of paternal power it seemed appropriated to the father, would yet have sounded but oddly, and in the very name shewn the absurdity, if this supposed absolute power over children had been called parental; and thereby have discovered, that it belonged to the mother too: for it will but very ill serve the turn of those men, who contend so much for the absolute power and authority of the fatherhood, as they call it, that the mother should have any share in it; and it would have but ill supported the monarchy they contend for, when by the very name it appeared, that that fundamental authority, from whence they would derive their government of a single person only, was not placed in one, but two persons jointly. But to let this of names pass.

Though I have said above, Chap. II. That all men by nature are equal, I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of equality: age or virtue may give men a just precedency: excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level: birth may subject some, and alliance or benefits others, to pay an observance to those to whom nature, gratitude, or other respects, may have made it due: and yet all this consists with the equality, which all men are in, in respect of jurisdiction or dominion one over another; which was the equality I there spoke of, as proper to the business in hand, being that equal right, that every man hath, to his natural freedom, without being subjected to the will or authority of any other man.

Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them, when they come into the world, and for some time after; but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they art wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy: age and reason as they grow up, loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal.

Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full possession of their strength and reason, and so was capable, from the first instant of his being to provide for his own support and preservation, and govern his actions according to the dictates of the law of reason which God had implanted in him. From him the world is peopled with his descendants, who are all born infants, weak and helpless, without knowledge or understanding: but to supply the defects of this imperfect state, till the improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the children they had begotten; not as their own workmanship, but the workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them.

The law, that was to govern Adam, was the same that was to govern all his posterity, the law of reason. But his offspring having another way of entrance into the world, different from him, by a natural birth, that produced them ignorant and without the use of reason, they were not presently under that law; for no body can be under a law, which is not promulgated to him; and this law being promulgated or made known by reason only, he that is not come to the use of his reason, cannot be said to be under this law; and Adam’s children, being not presently as soon as born under this law of reason, were not presently free: for law, in its true notion, is not so much the limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent agent to his proper interest, and prescribes no farther than is for the general good of those under that law: could they be happier without it, the law, as an useless thing, would of itself vanish; and that ill deserves the name of confinement which hedges us in only from bogs and precipices. So that, however it may be mistaken, the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom for in all the states of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom: for liberty is, to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be, where there is no law: but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lists: (for who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.

The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their off-spring, during the imperfect state of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant non-age, till reason shall take its place, and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to: for God having given man an understanding to direct his actions, has allowed him a freedom of will, and liberty of acting, as properly belonging thereunto, within the bounds of that law he is under. But whilst he is in an estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own to direct his will, he is not to have any will of his own to follow: he that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the estate that made his father a freeman, the son is a freeman too.

This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.

Note: The British Government Instituted African Slavery in the British American Colonies in 1612;

Here below, its Empirically Demonstrated that it Is in Accordance with the laws of Natural Reasoning that a moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning literate man can accept forced servitude, and must resist it until death ! But moral & ethical and intellectual abstract reasoning illiterate men have an adult mind of a irresponsible child that must never have a right to exercise a will of their own illiterate choosing ! Even if by anti-constitutionally sanctioned emancipation ! Or antithetical civil rights legislation !

If you don’t know the laws, you cant obey the laws, or you reject the limited Human laws of God, But demand the Liberal Human Rights as follows you reject the Limited Civil Laws, But demand the Liberal Civil Rights of our Republic ! African Sovereign Citizens are the Epitome of Not in Accordance with the laws of Natural Reasoning ! The ultimate definition of a antithetical contradiction !

Maximus Publius

Thus we are born free, as we are born rational; not that we have actually the exercise of either: age, that brings one, brings with it the other too. And thus we see how natural freedom and subjection to parents may consist together, and are both founded on the same principle. A child is free by his father’s title, by his father’s understanding, which is to govern him till he hath it of his own. The freedom of a man at years of discretion, and the subjection of a child to his parents, whilst yet short of that age, are so consistent, and so distinguishable, that the most blinded contenders for monarchy, by right of fatherhood, cannot miss this difference; the most obstinate cannot but allow their consistency: for were their doctrine all true, were the right heir of Adam now known, and by that title settled a monarch in his throne, invested with all the absolute unlimited power Sir Robert Filmer talks of; if he should die as soon as his heir were born, must not the child, notwithstanding he were never so free, never so much sovereign, be in subjection to his mother and nurse, to tutors and governors, till age and education brought him reason and ability to govern himself and others? The necessities of his life, the health of his body, and the information of his mind, would require him to be directed by the will of others, and not his own; and yet will any one think, that this restraint and subjection were inconsistent with, or spoiled him of that liberty or sovereignty he had a right to, or gave away his empire to those who had the government of his nonage? This government over him only prepared him the better and sooner for it. If any body should ask me, when my son is of age to be free? I shall answer, just when his monarch is of age to govern. But at what time, says the judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol. l. i. sect. 6. a man may be said to have attained so far forth the use of reason, as sufficeth to make him capable of those laws whereby he is then bound to guide his actions: this is a great deal more easy for sense to discern, than for any one by skill and learning to determine.

Nay, this power so little belongs to the father by any peculiar right of nature, but only as he is guardian of his children, that when he quits his care of them, he loses his power over them, which goes along with their nourishment and education, to which it is inseparably annexed; and it belongs as much to the foster-father of an exposed child, as to the natural father of another. So little power does the bare act of begetting give a man over his issue; if all his care ends there, and this be all the title he hath to the name and authority of a father. And what will become of this paternal power in that part of the world, where one woman hath more than one husband at a time? or in those parts of America, where, when the husband and wife part, which happens frequently, the children are all left to the mother, follow her, and are wholly under her care and provision? If the father die whilst the children are young, do they not naturally every where owe the same obedience to their mother, during their minority, as to their father were he alive? and will any one say, that the mother hath a legislative power over her children? that she can make standing rules, which shall be of perpetual obligation, by which they ought to regulate all the concerns of their property, and bound their liberty all the course of their lives? or can she inforce the observation of them with capital punishments? for this is the proper power of the magistrate, of which the father hath not so much as the shadow. His command over his children is but temporary, and reaches not their life or property: it is but a help to the weakness and imperfection of their nonage, a discipline necessary to their education: and though a father may dispose of his own possessions as he pleases, when his children are out of danger of perishing for want, yet his power extends not to the lives or goods, which either their own industry, or another’s bounty has made their’s; nor to their liberty neither, when they are once arrived to the infranchisement of the years of discretion. The father’s empire then ceases, and he can from thence forwards no more dispose of the liberty of his son, than that of any other man: and it must be far from an absolute or perpetual jurisdiction, from which a man may withdraw himself, having licence from divine authority to leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife.

The first part then of paternal power, or rather duty, which is education, belongs so to the father, that it terminates at a certain season; when the business of education is over, it ceases of itself, and is also alienable before: for a man may put the tuition of his son in other hands; and he that has made his son an apprentice to another, has discharged him, during that time, of a great part of his obedience both to himself and to his mother. But all the duty of honour, the other part, remains never the less entire to them; nothing can cancel that: it is so inseparable from them both, that the father’s authority cannot dispossess the mother of this right, nor can any man discharge his son from honouring her that bore him. But both these are very far from a power to make laws, and inforcing them with penalties, that may reach estate, liberty, limbs and life. The power of commanding ends with nonage; and though, after that, honour and respect, support and defence, and whatsoever gratitude can oblige a man to, for the highest benefits he is naturally capable of, be always due from a son to his parents; yet all this puts no scepter into the father’s hand, no sovereign power of commanding. He has no dominion over his son’s property, or actions; nor any right, that his will should prescribe to his son’s in all things; however it may become his son in many things, not very inconvenient to him and his family, to pay a deference to it.

CHAP. VII.
Of Political or Civil Society. Note: Africans at the turn of the 21^st Century realize a 80 percent illegitimacy rate in America.

GOD having made man such a creature, that in his own judgment, it was not good for him to be alone, put him under strong obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination to drive him into society, as well as fitted him with understanding and language to continue and enjoy it. The first society was between man and wife, which gave beginning to that between parents and children; to which, in time, that between master and servant came to be added: and though all these might, and commonly did meet together, and make up but one family, wherein the master or mistress of it had some sort of rule proper to a family; each of these, or all together, came short of political society, as we shall see, if we consider the different ends, ties, and bounds of each of these.

Conjugal society is made by a voluntary compact between man and woman; and tho’ it consist chiefly in such a communion and right in one another’s bodies as is necessary to its chief end, procreation; yet it draws with it mutual support and assistance, and a communion of interests too, as necessary not only to unite their care and affection, but also necessary to their common off-spring, who have a right to be nourished, and maintained by them, till they are able to provide for themselves.

For the end of conjunction, between male and female, being not barely procreation, but the continuation of the species; this conjunction betwixt male and female ought to last, even after procreation, so long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young ones, who are to be sustained by those that got them, till they are able to shift and provide for themselves. This rule, which the infinite wise maker hath set to the works of his hands, we find the inferior creatures steadily obey. In those viviparous animals which feed on grass, the conjunction between male and female lasts no longer than the very act of copulation; because the teat of the dam being sufficient to nourish the young, till it be able to feed on grass, the male only begets, but concerns not himself for the female or young, to whose sustenance he can contribute nothing. But in beasts of prey the conjunction lasts longer: because the dam not being able well to subsist herself, and nourish her numerous off-spring by her own prey alone, a more laborious, as well as more dangerous way of living, than by feeding on grass, the assistance of the male is necessary to the maintenance of their common family, which cannot subsist till they are able to prey for themselves, but by the joint care of male and female. The same is to be observed in all birds, (except some domestic ones, where plenty of food excuses the-----from feeding, and taking care of the young brood) whose young needing food in the nest, the ----and hen continue mates, till the young are able to use their wing, and provide for themselves.

And herein I think lies the chief, if not the only reason, why the male and female in mankind are tied to a longer conjunction than other creatures, viz. because the female is capable of conceiving, and de facto is commonly with child again, and brings forth too a new birth, long before the former is out of a dependency for support on his parents help, and able to shift for himself, and has all the assistance is due to him from his parents: whereby the father, who is bound to take care for those he hath begot, is under an obligation to continue in conjugal society with the same woman longer than other creatures, whose young being able to subsist of themselves, before the time of procreation returns again, the conjugal bond dissolves of itself, and they are at liberty, till Hymen at his usual anniversary season summons them again to chuse new mates. Wherein one cannot but admire the wisdom of the great Creator, who having given to man foresight, and an ability to lay up for the future, as well as to supply the present necessity, hath made it necessary, that society of man and wife should be more lasting, than of male and female amongst other creatures; that so their industry might be encouraged, and their interest better united, to make provision and lay up goods for their common issue, which uncertain mixture, or easy and frequent solutions of conjugal society would mightily disturb.

For all the ends of marriage being to be obtained under politic government, as well as in the state of nature, the civil magistrate doth not abridge the right or power of either naturally necessary to those ends, viz. procreation and mutual support and assistance whilst they are together; but only decides any controversy that may arise between man and wife about them. If it were otherwise, and that absolute sovereignty and power of life and death naturally belonged to the husband, and were necessary to the society between man and wife, there could be no matrimony in any of those countries where the husband is allowed no such absolute authority. But the ends of matrimony requiring no such power in the husband, the condition of conjugal society put it not in him, it being not at all necessary to that state. Conjugal society could subsist and attain its ends without it; nay, community of goods, and the power over them, mutual assistance and maintenance, and other things belonging to conjugal society, might be varied and regulated by that contract which unites man and wife in that society, as far as may consist with procreation and the bringing up of children till they could shift for themselves; nothing being necessary to any society, that is not necessary to the ends for which it is made.

The society betwixt parents and children, and the distinct rights and powers belonging respectively to them, I have treated of so largely, in the foregoing chapter, that I shall not here need to say any thing of it. And I think it is plain, that it is far different from a politic society.

And thus the common-wealth comes by a power to set down what punishment shall belong to the several transgressions which they think worthy of it, committed amongst the members of that society, (which is the power of making laws) as well as it has the power to punish any injury done unto any of its members, by any one that is not of it, (which is the power of war and peace;) and all this for the preservation of the property of all the members of that society, as far as is possible. But though every man who has entered into civil society, and is become a member of any common-wealth, has thereby quitted his power to punish offences, against the law of nature, in prosecution of his own private judgment, yet with the judgment of offences, which he has given up to the legislative in all cases, where he can appeal to the magistrate, he has given a right to the common-wealth to employ his force, for the execution of the judgments of the common-wealth, whenever he shall be called to it; which indeed are his own judgments, they being made by himself, or his representative. And herein we have the original of the legislative and executive power of civil society, which is to judge by standing laws, how far offences are to be punished, when committed within the common-wealth; and also to determine, by occasional judgments founded on the present circumstances of the fact, how far injuries from without are to be vindicated; and in both these to employ all the force of all the members, when there shall be need.

Where-ever therefore any number of men are so united into one society, as to quit every one his executive power of the law of nature, and to resign it to the public, there and there only is a political, or civil society. And this is done, where-ever any number of men, in the state of nature, enter into society to make one people, one body politic, under one supreme government; or else when any one joins himself to, and incorporates with any government already made: for hereby he authorizes the society, or which is all one, the legislative thereof, to make laws for him, as the public good of the society shall require; to the execution whereof, his own assistance (as to his own decrees) is due. And this puts men out of a state of nature into that of a common-wealth, by setting up a judge on earth, with authority to determine all the controversies, and redress the injuries that may happen to any member of the common-wealth; which judge is the legislative, or magistrates appointed by it. And where-ever there are any number of men, however associated, that have no such decisive power to appeal to, there they are still in the state of nature.

For he that thinks absolute power purifies men’s blood, and corrects the baseness of human nature, need read but the history of this, or any other age, to be convinced of the contrary. He that would have been insolent and injurious in the woods of America, would not probably be much better in a throne; where perhaps learning and religion shall be found out to justify all that he shall do to his subjects, and the sword presently silence all those that dare question it: for what the protection of absolute monarchy is, what kind of fathers of their countries it makes princes to be, and to what a degree of happiness and security it carries civil society, where this sort of government is grown to perfection, he that will look into the late relation of Ceylon, may easily see.

In absolute monarchies indeed, as well as other governments of the world, the subjects have an appeal to the law, and judges to decide any controversies, and restrain any violence that may happen betwixt the subjects themselves, one amongst another. This every one thinks necessary, and believes he deserves to be thought a declared enemy to society and mankind, who should go about to take it away. But whether this be from a true love of mankind and society, and such a charity as we owe all one to another, there is reason to doubt: for this is no more than what every man, who loves his own power, profit, or greatness, may and naturally must do, keep those animals from hurting, or destroying one another, who labour and drudge only for his pleasure and advantage; and so are taken care of, not out of any love the master has for them, but love of himself, and the profit they bring him: for if it be asked, what security, what fence is there, in such a state, against the violence and oppression of this absolute ruler? the very question can scarce be borne. They are ready to tell you, that it deserves death only to ask after safety. Betwixt subject and subject, they will grant, there must be measures, laws and judges, for their mutual peace and security: but as for the ruler, he ought to be absolute, and is above all such circumstances; because he has power to do more hurt and wrong, it is right when he does it. To ask how you may be guarded from harm, or injury, on that side where the strongest hand is to do it, is presently the voice of faction and rebellion: as if when men quitting the state of nature entered into society, they agreed that all of them but one, should be under the restraint of laws, but that he should still retain all the liberty of the state of nature, increased with power, and made licentious by impunity. This is to think, that men are so foolish, that they take care to avoid what mischiefs may be done them by pole-cats, or foxes; but are content, nay, think it safety, to be devoured by lions.

MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community, for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.

For when any number of men have, by the consent of every individual, made a community, they have thereby made that community one body, with a power to act as one body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority: for that which acts any community, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being necessary to that which is one body to move one way; it is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority: or else it is impossible it should act or continue one body, one community, which the consent of every individual that united into it, agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority. And therefore we see, that in assemblies, impowered to act by positive laws, where no number is set by that positive law which impowers them, the act of the majority passes for the act of the whole, and of course determines, as having, by the law of nature and reason, the power of the whole.

And thus every man, by consenting with others to make one body politic under one government, puts himself under an obligation, to every one of that society, to submit to the determination of the majority, and to be concluded by it; or else this original compact, whereby he with others incorporates into one society, would signify nothing, and be no compact, if he be left free, and under no other ties than he was in before in the state of nature. For what appearance would there be of any compact? what new engagement if he were no farther tied by any decrees of the society, than he himself thought fit, and did actually consent to? This would be still as great a liberty, as he himself had before his compact, or any one else in the state of nature hath, who may submit himself, and consent to any acts of it if he thinks fit. always multiplied, as long as there was room enough, till the stronger, or more fortunate, swallowed the weaker; and those great ones again breaking to pieces, dissolved into lesser dominions. All which are so many testimonies against paternal sovereignty, and plainly prove, that it was not the natural right of the father descending to his heirs, that made governments in the beginning, since it was impossible, upon that ground, there should have been so many little kingdoms; all must have been but only one universal monarchy, if men had not been at liberty to separate themselves from their families, and the government, be it what it will, that was set up in it, and go and make distinct common-wealths and other governments, as they thought fit.

This has been the practice of the world from its first beginning to this day; nor is it now any more hindrance to the freedom of mankind, that they are born under constituted and ancient polities, that have established laws, and set forms of government, than if they were born in the woods, amongst the unconfined inhabitants, that run loose in them: for those, who would persuade us, that by being born under any government, we are naturally subjects to it, and have no more any title or pretence to the freedom of the state of nature, have no other reason (bating that of paternal power, which we have already answered) to produce for it, but only, because our fathers or progenitors passed away their natural liberty, and thereby bound up themselves and their posterity to a perpetual subjection to the government, which they themselves submitted to. It is true, that whatever engagements or promises any one has made for himself, he is under the obligation of them, but cannot, by any compact whatsoever, bind his children or posterity: for his son, when a man, being altogether as free as the father, any act of the father can no more give away the liberty of the son, than it can of any body else: he may indeed annex such conditions to the land, he enjoyed as a subject of any common-wealth, as may oblige his son to be of that community, if he will enjoy those possessions which were his father’s; because that estate being his father’s property, he may dispose, or settle it, as he pleases.

And this has generally given the occasion to mistake in this matter; because common-wealths not permitting any part of their dominions to be dismembered, nor to be enjoyed by any but those of their community, the son cannot ordinarily enjoy the possessions of his father, but under the same terms his father did, by becoming a member of the society; whereby he puts himself presently under the government he finds there established, as much as any other subject of that common-wealth. And thus the consent of freemen, born under government, which only makes them members of it, being given separately in their turns, as each comes to be of age, and not in a multitude together; people take no notice of it, and thinking it not done at all, or not necessary, conclude they are naturally subjects as they are men.

But, it is plain, governments themselves understand it otherwise; they claim no power over the son, because of that they had over the father; nor look on children as being their subjects, by their fathers being so. If a subject of England have a child, by an English woman in France, whose subject is he? Not the king of England’s; for he must have leave to be admitted to the privileges of it: nor the king of France’s; for how then has his father a liberty to bring him away, and breed him as he pleases? and who ever was judged as a traytor or deserter, if he left, or warred against a country, for being barely born in it of parents that were aliens there? It is plain then, by the practice of governments themselves, as well as by the law of right reason, that a child is born a subject of no country or government. He is under his father’s tuition and authority, till he comes to age of discretion; and then he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under, what body politic he will unite himself to: for if an Englishman’s son, born in France, be at liberty, and may do so, it is evident there is no tie upon him by his father’s being a subject of this kingdom; nor is he bound up by any compact of his ancestors. And why then hath not his son, by the same reason, the same liberty, though he be born any where else? Since the power that a father hath naturally over his children, is the same, where-ever they be born, and the ties of natural obligations, are not bounded by the positive limits of kingdoms and common-wealths.

To understand this the better, it is fit to consider, that every man, when he at first incorporates himself into any common-wealth, he, by his uniting himself thereunto, annexed also, and submits to the community, those possessions, which he has, or shall acquire, that do not already belong to any other government: for it would be a direct contradiction, for any one to enter into society with others for the securing and regulating of property; and yet to suppose his land, whose property is to be regulated by the laws of the society, should be exempt from the jurisdiction of that government, to which he himself, the proprietor of the land, is a subject. By the same act therefore, whereby any one unites his person, which was before free, to any common-wealth; by the same he unites his possessions, which were before free, to it also; and they become, both of them, person and possession, subject to the government and dominion of that common-wealth, as long as it hath a being. Whoever therefore, from thenceforth, by inheritance, purchase, permission, or otherways, enjoys any part of the land, so annexed to, and under the government of that common-wealth, must take it with the condition it is under; that is, of submitting to the government of the common-wealth, under whose jurisdiction it is, as far forth as any subject of it.

But since the government has a direct jurisdiction only over the land, and reaches the possessor of it, (before he has actually incorporated himself in the society) only as he dwells upon, and enjoys that; the obligation any one is under, by virtue of such enjoyment, to submit to the government, begins and ends with the enjoyment; so that whenever the owner, who has given nothing but such a tacit consent to the government, will, by donation, sale, or otherwise, quit the said possession, he is at liberty to go and incorporate himself into any other common-wealth; or to agree with others to begin a new one, in vacuis locis, in any part of the world, they can find free and unpossessed: whereas he, that has once, by actual agreement, and any express declaration, given his consent to be of any common-wealth, is, perpetually and indispensibly obliged to be, and remain unalterably a subject to it, and can never be again in the liberty of the state of nature; unless, by any calamity, the government he was under comes to be dissolved; or else by some public act cuts him off from being any longer a member of it.

But submitting to the laws of any country, living quietly, and enjoying privileges and protection under them, makes not a man a member of that society: this is only a local protection and homage due to and from all those, who, not being in a state of war, come within the territories belonging to any government, to all parts whereof the force of its laws extends. But this no more makes a man a member of that society, a perpetual subject of that common-wealth, than it would make a man a subject to another, in whose family he found it convenient to abide for some time; though, whilst he continued in it, he were obliged to comply with the laws, and submit to the government he found there. And thus we see, that foreigners, by living all their lives under another government, and enjoying the privileges and protection of it, though they are bound, even in conscience, to submit to its administration, as far forth as any denison; yet do not thereby come to be subjects or members of that common-wealth. Nothing can make any man so, but his actually entering into it by positive engagement, and express promise and compact. This is that, which I think, concerning the beginning of political societies, and that consent which makes any one a member of any common-wealth.

First, There wants an established, settled, known law, received and allowed by common consent to be the standard of right and wrong, and the common measure to decide all controversies between them: for though the law of nature be plain and intelligible to all rational creatures; yet men being biassed by their interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to allow of it as a law binding to them in the application of it to their particular cases.

Secondly, In the state of nature there wants a known and indifferent judge, with authority to determine all differences according to the established law: for every one in that state being both judge and executioner of the law of nature, men being partial to themselves, passion and revenge is very apt to carry them too far, and with too much heat, in their own cases; as well as negligence, and unconcernedness, to make them too remiss in other men’s.

Thirdly, In the state of nature there often wants power to back and support the sentence when right, and to give it due execution. They who by any injustice offended, will seldom fail, where they are able, by force to make good their injustice; such resistance many times makes the punishment dangerous, and frequently destructive, to those who attempt it.

Secondly, The power of punishing he wholly gives up, and engages his natural force, (which he might before employ in the execution of the law of nature, by his own single authority, as he thought fit) to assist the executive power of the society, as the law thereof shall require: for being now in a new state, wherein he is to enjoy many conveniencies, from the labour, assistance, and society of others in the same community, as well as protection from its whole strength; he is to part also with as much of his natural liberty, in providing for himself, as the good, prosperity, and safety of the society shall require; which is not only necessary, but just, since the other members of the society do the like.

But though men, when they enter into society, give up the equality, liberty, and executive power they had in the state of nature, into the hands of the society, to be so far disposed of by the legislative, as the good of the society shall require; yet it being only with an intention in every one the better to preserve himself, his liberty and property; (for no rational creature can be supposed to change his condition with an intention to be worse) the power of the society, or legislative constituted by them, can never be supposed to extend farther, than the common good; but is obliged to secure every one’s property, by providing against those three defects above mentioned, that made the state of nature so unsafe and uneasy. And so whoever has the legislative or supreme power of any common-wealth, is bound to govern by established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees; by indifferent and upright judges, who are to decide controversies by those laws; and to employ the force of the community at home, only in the execution of such laws, or abroad to prevent or redress foreign injuries, and secure the community from inroads and invasion. And all this to be directed to no other end, but the peace, safety, and public good of the people.

AS conquest may be called a foreign usurpation, so usurpation is a kind of domestic conquest, with this difference, that an usurper can never have right on his side, it being no usurpation, but where one is got into the possession of what another has right to. This, so far as it is usurpation, is a change only of persons, but not of the forms and rules of the government: for if the usurper extend his power beyond what of right belonged to the lawful princes, or governors of the commonwealth, it is tyranny added to usurpation.

In all lawful governments, the designation of the persons, who are to bear rule, is as natural and necessary a part as the form of the government itself, and is that which had its establishment originally from the people; the anarchy being much alike, to have no form of government at all; or to agree, that it shall be monarchical, but to appoint no way to design the person that shall have the power, and be the monarch. Hence all commonwealths, with the form of government established, have rules also of appointing those who are to have any share in the public authority, and settled methods of conveying the right to them: for the anarchy is much alike, to have no form of government at all; or to agree that it shall be monarchical, but to appoint no way to know or design the person that shall have the power, and be the monarch. Whoever gets into the exercise of any part of the power, by other ways than what the laws of the community have prescribed, hath no right to be obeyed, though the form of the commonwealth be still preserved; since he is not the person the laws have appointed, and consequently not the person the people have consented to. Nor can such an usurper, or any deriving from him, ever have a title, till the people are both at liberty to consent, and have actually consented to allow, and confirm in him the power he hath till then usurped.

AS usurpation is the exercise of power, which another hath a right to; so tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which no body can have a right to. And this is making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those who are under it, but for his own private separate advantage. When the governor, however intitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule; and his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness, or any other irregular passion.

If one can doubt this to be truth, or reason, because it comes from the obscure hand of a subject, I hope the authority of a king will make it pass with him. King James the first, in his speech to the parliament, 1603, tells them thus, I will ever prefer the weal of the public, and of the whole commonwealth, in making of good laws and constitutions, to any particular and private ends of mine; thinking ever the wealth and weal of the commonwealth to be my greatest weal and worldly felicity; a point wherein a lawful king doth directly differ from a tyrant: for I do acknowledge, that the special and greatest point of difference that is between a rightful king and an usurping tyrant, is this, that whereas the proud and ambitious tyrant doth think his kingdom and people are only ordained for satisfaction of his desires and unreasonable appetites, the righteous and just king doth by the contrary acknowledge himself to be ordained for the procuring of the wealth and property of his people. And again, in his speech to the parliament, 1609, he hath these words, The king binds himself by a double oath, to the observation of the fundamental laws of his kingdom; tacitly, as by being a king, and so bound to protect aswell the people, as the laws of his kingdom; and expresly, by his oath at his coronation; so as every just king, in a settled kingdom, is bound to observe that paction made to his people, by his laws, in framing his government agreeable thereunto, according to that paction which God made with Noah after the deluge. Hereafter, seed-time and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease while the earth remaineth. And therefore a king governing in a settled kingdom, leaves to be a king, and degenerates into a tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his laws. And a little after, Therefore all kings that are not tyrants, or perjured, will be glad to bound themselves within the limits of their laws; and they that persuade them the contrary, are vipers, and pests both against them and the commonwealth. Thus that learned king, who well understood the notion of things, makes the difference betwixt a king and a tyrant to consist only in this, that one makes the laws the bounds of his power, and the good of the public, the end of his government; the other makes all give way to his own will and appetite.

benefit of appealing to the law, and have reparation for my 100 l. that way.

But if all the world shall observe pretences of one kind, and actions of another; arts used to elude the law, and the trust of prerogative (which is an arbitrary power in some things left in the prince’s hand to do good, not harm to the people) employed contrary to the end for which it was given: if the people shall find the ministers and subordinate magistrates chosen suitable to such ends, and favoured, or laid by, proportionably as they promote or oppose them: if they see several experiments made of arbitrary power, and that religion underhand favoured, (tho’ publicly proclaimed against) which is readiest to introduce it; and the operators in it supported, as much as may be; and when that cannot be done, yet approved still, and liked the better: if a long train of actions shew the councils all tending that way; how can a man any more hinder himself from being persuaded in his own mind, which way things are going; or from casting about how to save himself, than he could from believing the captain of the ship he was in, was carrying him, and the rest of the company, to Algiers, when he found him always steering that course, though cross winds, leaks in his ship, and want of men and provisions did often force him to turn his course another way for some time, which he steadily returned to again, as soon as the wind, weather, and other circumstances would let him?

HE that will with any clearness speak of the dissolution of government, ought in the first place to distinguish between the dissolution of the society and the dissolution of the government. That which makes the community, and brings men out of the loose state of nature, into one politic society, is the agreement which every one has with the rest to incorporate, and act as one body, and so be one distinct common-wealth. The usual, and almost only way whereby this union is dissolved, is the inroad of foreign force making a conquest upon them: for in that case, (not being able to maintain and support themselves, as one intire and independent body) the union belonging to that body which consisted therein, must necessarily cease, and so every one return to the state he was in before, with a liberty to shift for himself, and provide for his own safety, as he thinks fit, in some other society. Whenever the society is dissolved, it is certain the government of that society cannot remain. Thus conquerors swords often cut up governments by the roots, and mangle societies to pieces, separating the subdued or scattered multitude from the protection of, and dependence on, that society which ought to have preserved them from violence. The world is too well instructed in, and too forward to allow of, this way of dissolving of governments, to need any more to be said of it; and there wants not much argument to prove, that where the society is dissolved, the government cannot remain; that being as impossible, as for the frame of an house to subsist when the materials of it are scattered and dissipated by a whirl-wind, or jumbled into a confused heap by an earthquake.