Is Occupy Wall Street a Bolshevik…
or an American Revolution?
Natural-Law copyright by Anthony Hargis
(Copyright notice: to lawfully reproduce all or part of this article, the following attribution must be included: “Natural-law copyright by Anthony Hargis, redressone.wordpress.com)
Follow: To follow this website (to receive e-mail with each new post), click “Follow” at bottom of right sidebar. Thanks for visiting, Anthony
He who endures a knave, is next a knave. Alexander Pope, Moral Essays,I, 77
Will Durant described history as a long monotonous chronicle of the crime and folly of men.
I think it would be just as well described as a story of crime and futility – by the criminal class and its victims, respectively.
During the whole of human history, there has hardly been a year that has been free of an uprising or revolt of slaves, or some other kind of fratricidal slaughter. Serfs would reach their limit of suffering, take to paths and byways with sticks, stones and farm implements; slaughter every “royal merchant” or tax collector they could find without regard to age or sex, innocence or guilt. A few days or weeks would exhaust their fury. The king would arrive with his troops; leisurely slice off a few heads or flay alive leaders of the uprising; and the remaining peasants would return to their suffering until they reached their limit again. Year after year, century after century, age after age, in every country of the globe, this has been the long monotonous story of man.
Despite the huge number of attempted revolutions in our history, few people seem to realize that there are two kinds of revolution. One advances the cause of tyranny; the other, the cause of liberty. I give one the name of Bolshevik; the other, American… after their most recent and spectacular examples.
Oh, people do realize, of sorts, that a revolution can produce more liberty or more tyranny; but they believe that it is a mere throw of dice that determines which it will be. And, for this doubt, they fear a revolution as one should fear a plague. This does not have to be: as I explain in my book, The Lost Right, each of the differing revolutions operates according to a particular set of principles and laws of nature. They are,
One, the American is founded on English/American law; the other is founded on Persian law.
Two, the American determines policy and direction by reasoned deliberation; the other by street demonstrations.
Three, the American is de-centralized; the other, centralized.
Four, the American is financed by investments and recovery of plunder; the other, by donations and plunder.
Five, the American proceeds by due process of law (where possible); the other is little more than a riot of barbarism.
Six, The American regards reason and friendship as major pillars of freedom, and, thus, encourages them; the other regards them as mortal enemies, and, thus, demonizes and punishes them.
Now, let us examine each of these points in some detail.
English/American law vs. Persian law
American Founders frequently declared that no law, and no tax, was valid unless it was derived from the consent of the people; that no man was obligated to obey any law, or pay any tax, unless he personally consented to it. Some declarations added the qualification that consent could be derived from the people thru their representatives; but this is still dependent on personal consent.
Did they really mean this?
Of course they meant it; such a principle had been operating in England for hundreds of years prior to the establishment of English colonies on American soil – and these English settlers brought their law with them. And hardly an American today understands this foundational principle of American law.
English law originated from the petitioning process. By this process, Englishmen would carry their petition to parliament in which they would describe their grievance and request redress. The historical definition of a grievance is, “any action or thing that impairs the ‘law of the land’ or the rights of man.” However, despite this definition, there seems to be no limit as to what consists of a grievance: from the absence of a road between point A and point B; to the absence of effective defense against pirates; to abuse of power; boundary disputes; the lack of an effective forum to resolve disputes among the local population; and the list goes on, almost endlessly.
Suppose, for example, several men decided they wanted a road from point A to point B. They would frame a petition and carry it to parliament. The petitioners and parliament would negotiate details, terms and money payments pertaining to the construction and operation of the road; and the resulting agreement would be a contract between petitioners and parliament. These terms and money payments evolved into the “law” and “taxes” of the contract, and were enforceable only against parties to the contract.
By this process, petitioners personally gave their consent to the “law” of the contract.
This nature of “law” was the basis of English parliamentary history. In 1295, Edward I convened parliament and asked for supplies (taxes): the commons voted to pay one part in seven of their personal property; the lords, one part in eleven; the clergy, one part in ten. Each class voted separately; and, thus, each member gave his personal consent. (In this example, there appeared to be no dissenting vote.) (The Lost Right, 3rd edition, p 46.)
The practice was carried across the Atlantic. Prior to the Revolution, the colonies’ “tax laws were a Babel of special measures enacted in response to individuals’ and towns’ petitions for particular relief.” (The Lost Right, 3rd edition, p 47.)
Thus, according to English/American principles, “law” is derived from voluntary contracts, is obligatory only against parties to the contract; and imposes no burden without an equal compensation, and becomes void when the object of the contract is completed.
Persian law is different. It is, essentially, the law of the conqueror, of the slave holder.
According to Persian law, whatever comes out of the mouth of a ruler is law – the people have no voice in the matter. This is based on the assumption that everything within the reach of the ruler is his property: all land, bodies of water, all animals, and all men; thus, when he speaks, he is merely giving directions to his property. This is the appearance of a Persian society; the reality of it is that a ruler is, in fact, a puppet controlled by the ruling class, which, historically, has been a priesthood, an army, merchants et cetera. In this arrangement, all law is determined by the ruling class and then given to a puppet ruler to declare to the mass of slaves. Beyond the ruling class, discussion and dissent are not allowed – and frequently bring a sentence of death. Wherever Persian law prevails, the great majority of men, from ninety to ninety-eight percent, are rightless property belonging to other men. They possess nothing but what smiles of their masters allow them.
In other words, under English and American law, both benefits and taxes were restricted to those who requested the redress of grievance. Under Persian law, benefits and taxes are divided; benefits go to the ruling class and taxes are imposed on the other ninety-eight percent of the population.
And so, if a revolution (or any arrangement of society) derives its “law” from deliberations and decisions of “the people” (for such is the only way “law” can derive consent from “the people”), it employs a procedure that will make the rights of man more secure. If a revolution derives its “law” from intrigues of party leaders – and is then dictated to “the people”, it employs a procedure that will advance the cause of tyranny.
Deliberations vs. Demonstrations
The reason that men organize a society is to protect rights and property of the “people” – as “people,” “rights” and “property” are defined by members of the dominant class.
In the vast majority of cases, the definition of “the people” is restricted to a very small class of men, such as a priesthood, landholders, merchants et cetera.
If the definition of “the people” is restricted to a small class of men, the power of society will protect plunder and genocide; and punish the man who labors for his bread (thru some form of an income tax). As the definition of “the people” is broadened, plunder is less, and honest labor is more, protected. When all men, in fact – tho not necessarily in law, are brought within the term “the people”, plunder will cease to be protected, and labor will cease to be punished. For, when no one lies outside “the people”, there is no one who can be legally plundered; and, hence, no one that would seek to protect it.
Whether “the people” is comprised of the criminal class or of honest men, the method by which members of “the people” secure their rights and property consists of certain, and historically proven, steps: namely, complaint, investigation, prosecution, judgment and enforcement of that judgment. Complaint must be done by each individual member of “the people”; the other steps must be done thru the mechanism of assemblies. Here, and thru the activity of deliberation, members discover each others’ minds; correct their errors or misunderstandings; declare rights and procedures they intend to make secure; identify their grievances; design corrections for such grievances; and then appoint one or more of their members to execute such corrections.
At all times, members are allowed to express themselves; all agreements are concluded by voluntary consent; and all understand that their rights and property can be made secure only by their own efforts.
These are the foundational principles of an American revolution.
When people resort to waving signs or shouting at strangers, they demonstrate impotence and ignorance of principles of redress. People who engage in such activities have identified particular grievances and feel they should be redressed. The crowds, pedestrians and motorists these petitioners harass do not have the intelligence to understand grievances that bother demonstrators; nor, do they have any interest to do anything about such grievances. In other words, we have two groups of people in this context: one (petitioners) has the intelligence and sense of justice to identify and seek to correct grievances; the other (crowds, pedestrians and motorists) has no such intelligence or sense of justice. A street demonstration consists of petitioners (with intelligence) trying to persuade crowds (without intelligence or interest) to design a correction for petitioners’ grievances.
It is more. It also demonstrates insanity. Several major figures in the history of liberty have observed that ‘a man who cannot, or will not, use reason is little more that a wild beast or a slave by nature’ (see below). Within this context, who is more stupid, they who have no reason… or he who tries to reason with wild beasts?
There is probably not an activity that displays more impotence, folly and waste of resources than a street demonstration.
Remember, it is the principle of an American revolution that those who have an interest in the correction of a grievance will also correct that grievance with their own resources; it is a Bolshevik principle that “petitioners” receive benefits of a correction while related burdens are imposed on someone else.
If you will notice, there were practically no “street” demonstrations during the American Revolution. Of those that occurred, the “tea parties” (Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Charleston) were ill-advised in that the English reaction (The Boston port bill) very nearly decapitated the budding revolution. The revolution survived because it was largely de-centralized and well-populated with natural leaders.
De-Centralized vs. centralized.
“To live by the will of one man, or set of men, is the production of misery for all men.” (Continental Congress, Appeal to the Inhabitants of Quebec, 1774 October.)
A main aim of criminal and idiot classes is to concentrate power into as few hands as possible. This allows more efficient enforcement of Persian law, and deprives slaves the capacity to complain – much less, to resist tyranny.
- when industries are consolidated, or merged, into as few monopolies as possible;
- when dissent, or “unauthorized” deliberation, is not allowed, or punished;
- when the fate of a society, or movement, is made to appear that its success depends on keeping a leader or ruler well supplied with prostitutes and exotic food, palaces and yachts;
- when “law” is imposed on people, instead of made by them.
Freedom, by its nature, is a de-centralizing force: it tends to empower greater numbers of men with time. De-centralization, in fact, is driven by a self-reinforcing impulse. As men are empowered, they notice that their rights and property are more secure. This drives them, and others, to seek more empowerment.
It is, therefore, sort of a contradiction when a so-called freedom movement establishes groups that are required to receive directions from a central office, or to funnel its money thru that same office.
Another aspect of a free (that is, de-centralized) society is that there are no rulers. If all power is derived from “the people”, they can – by definition – have no rulers.
And more, if power is derived from the people, it – by definition – cannot be centralized; for, then, power would not be in the hands of the people; but, in the hands of a centralized authority.
Rights and property are never more secure than when those who have rights and property also have the power to make them secure. Hence, as power is more widely distributed – that is, as it is decentralized – rights become more secure. In such a case, the loss (by incapacity or death) of one or a few “natural leaders” (private men who display high levels of reason and justice) will have little effect on the security of rights. But where the “rights” of all people depend on the happiness of one man, or body of men, all can be lost if he becomes disenchanted with his harem of children – not to mention the effect of his death.
From one to many “leaders” (from centralized to de-centralized power), there is a gradation of security of rights – from a minimum to a maximum. If we are to advance the cause of liberty, we must be constantly testing for the maximum that yields optimum results.
This leader-cult method of organizing human societies had been established all over the planet for many thousands of years before poorly articulated stories began to replace the murky mist of past times. It is time to abandon structures built by our ancestors in the time of their ignorance.
Investments vs. Donations
Charity was invented to allow men to purchase the appearance of virtue or innocence as cheaply as possible.
Let us start with the definition of two different words.
The first word is defined as, “to take property one did not earn.”
The second word is defined as, “to take property one did not earn.”
The first word is generally regarded as a vice. The second is generally regarded as a virtue.
The first word is, “theft”; the second is, “the act of receiving charity”.
And more, to describe charity as a virtue is insupportable. A virtue is an activity that furthers or improves the life of man. It is the product of intelligence and labor: the difficulty of its achievement determines its rank among other virtues. It takes no skill whatsoever to drop a coin onto a plate: it can be done equally well by any man, whether genius, idiot or thief. Charity, in other words, is no virtue
Charity (beyond the family) was, in fact, invented to allow men to purchase the appearance of virtue or innocence as cheaply as possible. By this nostrum, a man could commit genocide and take a million shekels in plunder, and then buy sainthood (or equivalent) with ten shekels given to a priest; and this washed away the guilt associated with the ocean of blood that flowed from his hand, and booty he had taken.
My remarks so far imply that to receive charity is equivalent to theft. I feel that an explanation is necessary to avert certain criticism on the topic.
In the relationship between parent and child, for example, action that resembles charity is proper… this action only resembles charity. The child did not ask to come into this world; and it is the natural duty of parents to properly raise their children so the child will feel fortunate to have been born. When we consider the current state of the world, I would suggest that this natural duty should be regarded as a perpetual apology to children for bringing them into a world full of treachery.
But, this “charity” toward children is not really charity at all: it is an act of self-preservation; for, every child is another self of its parents. Thus, the work of a parent is to prepare his child for survival in the world so the parent will continue to live in the genetic material of the child and – if we are fortunate – in the memory of a child.
The reward of child rearing is the pride of workmanship. As the shoe maker experiences pleasure from the shoes he has well-made, so the parent will experience the same pleasure from the children he has well-raised. This pleasure is profound confirmation that an afternoon – or a life – was well-used. Hence, every man will have his life validated, or invalidated by the children he has raised, or failed to raise. From this perspective, it is not possible to regard the work of child rearing as an act of charity.
Charity, then, in every conceivable form cannot be a virtue: it may very possibly be a vice.
Another perspective: there are two ways that men can survive on this planet: by productive labor or by theft – the more polite term, of course, would be “charity”.
Intelligent and productive men have no need of charity; the indolent and the idiot, the criminal and inept classes of men would die without charity – or by whatever disguise it wears – welfare, monopoly, vestments…
Thus, when a man seeks donations, he tells the world he has nothing to give in exchange… that he has little or no productive capacity. A donation, then, is a way for honest men to drop money into a bottomless pit; for them, it is simply a waste of resources.
The fact that charity is used by men of base character to purchase the appearance of virtue or innocence is a major reason why any organization that seeks justice will fail if it relies on donations.
I would estimate that ninety to ninety-five percent of all people, who are inclined to donate money, are motivated by a desire to conceal their crimes; or to deflect penalties that naturally attach to such crimes.
When men propose to advance the cause of liberty – and if they mean what they propose, they will aim to establish principles of justice and accountability. This will automatically alienate ninety to ninety-five percent of all those who are inclined to donate money… and they will work furiously for the defeat of any man or group of men who propose the idea of justice.
How, then, should people, intent on freedom, finance their cause?
If they actually aim at freedom, they also aim at justice and accountability. This includes the recovery of booty from those who profited from abuse of power. I would estimate that seventy to ninety-five percent of all human property has been stolen. Civilized men would aim to recover this stolen property and return it to those from whom it was taken. Here is a multi-generational and world-wide project. It should be organized as a private company and financed by the issuance of shares and interest-bearing notes.
This “freedom” company (actually, each assembly) would then use the proceeds of these shares and notes to finance the investigation and prosecution of those accused of genocide, abuse of power or plunder. The proceeds of resulting judgments, in turn, would be distributed to victims and investors. How this would be done is outside the scope of our present topic; see my book, The Lost Right, ed., 3.5.
In other words, the aim of an American revolution is the recovery of booty from those who promoted and perpetrated grievances… and those who benefited from such grievances – not those who suffered or resisted grievances.
When men ask victims of grievances to donate money for the purpose of merely exposing corruption, such victims are asked to suffer just a little bit more to finance a fruitless activity.
Our aim should be to correct grievances – not to lead men to continue their suffering, or to waste their resources.
Due Process of Law vs. Barbarism
The business of an American revolution is redress of grievances.
From this perspective, we can see that Thomas Jefferson’s suggestion that Americans should conduct a revolution every twenty years was woefully inadequate. Grievances occur every day; why wait twenty years to correct them? We should correct them every day.
In other words, the redress of grievances has been, and will forever be, a perpetual problem. Thus, revolution should be a perpetual activity of mankind; for, only then will rights and property be perpetually secure.
Grievances can be divided into two general categories: a natural inconvenience or obstruction; and an act by one or more men that results in the violation of rights or property of other men.
Each of these categories has certain steps to follow for the purpose of designing a correction.
For our purposes, we are not concerned about redress related to natural obstructions. These are little more than engineering problems; and the question of American or Bolshevik does not pertain to this category.
We are, however, concerned about grievances related to violations of rights. For this kind of grievance, the major steps for redress are: complaint; investigation; prosecution; judgment; and enforcement of such judgment.
For each of these steps, there is a particular set of rules and procedures that men have developed and that must be followed if justice is to be done. This set of rules is known as “the law of the land”; it is known by several names: “common law”, “custom and tradition”, “unwritten law”, and “due process of law”. It is the result of thousands of years of trial and error, and the growth of man’s knowledge. Its aim is to assure that no man is falsely convicted of crime and to protect every man from acts of tyranny. It has not always been adequate to this purpose; but, nothing else has proved better.
Another very important consequence – and thus, aim – of due process is to maintain tranquility among people… to prevent disputes from escalating into violence.
This leads to the conclusion that, wherever there is violence, there is a failure of due process. People flood into streets… they commit acts of terrorism because forums of due process are closed to them. Where men have no access to these procedures, their only means of redress is violence.
And so, the essence of freedom is the presence – and observance – of due process of law; the essence of tyranny is the absence – or suppression – of such.
If men aim at freedom, they must design all their actions of redress according to the law of the land.
If they do not employ such procedures, they will advance the cause of barbarism.
Reason vs. Sleaze
He who will not, or cannot, use his reason is a wild beast or slave by nature, Aristotle, Politics, I, 5
If we go beneath the superficial surface of freedom, we find that two essential pillars of freedom are reason and networks of friendships.
For thousands of years, men have acknowledged that a man gains his freedom as he gains his reason. Aristotle wrote twenty-three hundred years ago, “He who will not, or cannot, use his reason is a wild beast or slave by nature.” He merely put into concise words a principle that had been embodied in every body of law before, and after, his time. All bodies of law recognize that minors and mentally deranged people are not allowed to participate in normal affairs of the applicable society; they cannot be parties to contracts (for business or marriage); they cannot participate in affairs of the community; they cannot be allowed in court as a witness, party or juror; among other disabilities.
This is not to assert that all societies accorded freedom to all men who had gained their reason. Most of man’s societies invented that class of people known as slaves; these were made deranged or children by law, and usually had no opportunity to leave that class – no matter their virtue, or capacity of reason.
Every society had a particular definition for those who were eligible for citizenship: ‘children of the nobility (army), children of the priesthood; of merchants et cetera; and such children could not enter the status of citizen until they had gained their age of reason.
Two thousand years after Aristotle, John Locke would echo him and then elaborate, “He is a slave who is without, or will not use, reason.” His elaboration, “We are born with the capacity to reason; and once we have mastered it, we are free, and we are free as we master it.” (Locke, Two Treatise…II, 58, 61)
There is more: the capacity for reason is the only attribute of man that distinguishes him from all other animals. To the degree that he develops his reason is the degree that he develops his humanity; as he denies or deranges his reason so he denies his humanity.
Man is alone in this regard. When men abandon their humanity (deny their reason), some observers describe it as sinking to the level of wild beasts; but this is not correct; for, wild beasts do not voluntarily violate their nature. There is probably no word in human language that accurately colors this violation of man’s nature… perhaps we could call it a freak of nature… something to be abhorred.
The other pillar of a free society is the bond of friendship. This also was first acknowledged by Aristotle, “In tyrannies friendship and justice hardly exist, in democracies they exist more fully. Hence, to establish a tyranny, we must destroy the bonds of friendship; to establish a free society, we must nurture them.” (Aristotle, N. E., viii, 11, 1161a, 30.
This should be clear: to effectively guard against tyranny, we need friends. Where there are numerous networks of friends – and the stronger these networks, the more cautious a tyrant must be; for, if he should suppress or murder an opponent, he must worry about the reaction of a victim’s friends as much, or more so, than the reactions of the victim. But where friendships have been destroyed, a despot may leisurely pick off his opponents with little concern that anyone would even utter of word of protest.
This is why despotism regards men of integrity, reason and justice as mortal enemies. Such men are well respected by all who know them; and such respect is a kind of friendship – and a source of major opposition to tyranny. In fact, friendship is the only historically effective opposition to tyranny. Thus, reason, justice and friendship are inextricably entwined. Take one away, and the other two are words of futility.
And so, where men do not develop their reason – or, where men live as isolated islands in a vast sea, freedom, or security of rights, will not be possible.
Both reason and bonds of friendship are destroyed by moral corruption… un-natural activities that some men call vices. A man who clouds his mind with wine or drugs disables his reason… and threatens or destroys his capacity to live as a free man. He loses his capacity to make life-assertive decisions, and must submit his will to another: he, effectively, becomes a slave; for, all bodies of law define a slave as one who has no will.
Nothing destroys bonds of friendship more than un-natural, or improper, sexual activity. Here, I mean prostitution, homosexuality and pederasty, among other acts of sleaze.
Here, in this category, we will find the greatest crime that men and women could commit: the confusion of progeny. The most important industry of mankind is the rearing of children. For this work to be successful, a child must have proper companionship with each parent. This is corrupted, impaired, or made impossible where a child is the product of improper sexual activity. Thus is destroyed the most important friendship a man could ever know: the bond between parent and child.
Search the earth… search the ages, and you will find the verdict of history to be overwhelming: where sleaze is introduced into a society, tyranny is the guiding hand, and one step behind.
In other words, where men promote the impairment of reason or bonds of friendship – thru the use of wine or drugs, sleaze or any other means, they advance the cause of tyranny.
The promotion of such, then, is an attribute of a Bolshevik revolution; an American revolution would regard it as criminal activity.
Once these principles, and their corollaries, are understood, it is remarkably easy to guide a revolution to a desired end: just implement appropriate principles and technology; sit back; and watch natural consequences of human actions proceed.
However, one has to take care, at all times, of the name and substance of a revolution – they are seldom coordinated. For example, if a revolution employs doctrines of Bolshevism and its leaders name it a Bolshevik revolution, it will strengthen tyranny. On the other hand, if it employs doctrines of Bolshevism and its leaders name it an American revolution, it will still strengthen tyranny; and, its disappointed adherents and proponents will tell you, “Oh, it was such an unfortunate miracle. Oh well, I hope our indoctrination will lead us to better results next time.” Century after century… age after age… The name means nothing; its principles, everything. Whether we color chains blue or pink, they will produce the same result, the yoke of slavery. Whether by Catholic bullets, Anglican bullets, or Jewish bullets… peasants will die by the millions. These are the only options available to modern-day peasants; for, these are the only options peasants are allowed to learn from commerce, government and church, media and education, all dominated by the criminal class.
This stranglehold on knowledge has almost been total for thousands of years. Of the thousands of revolutions that have occurred in human history, only three have advanced the cause of liberty. They are the revolution at Athens in 509 Before the Current Era; the English during the first half of the seventeenth century; and the American during the last half of the eighteenth century.
The reason that each one eventually failed is because men who authored them did not fully understand principles of an American Revolution; and allowed each to be corrupted and then buried in lost pages of history – or drowned in an ocean of babble.
Americans have never heard of the first two (Athenian and English) because… well, the criminal class dominates government and… it is so monotonous.
Each of these revolutions released enormous amounts of energy and produced the most glorious eras known to man. Of the three, the Athenian revolution was probably the most spectacular as it laid the foundation for the Golden age of Greece. Here was a society just emerging from a Stone-Age culture and still, many of the Greek achievements – in philosophy, literature, art, ethics, principles of self-government – have yet to be equaled.
The English Revolution, 1604-1650, had its moments also; it produced some of the most daring and spellbinding scenes – regarding resistance to tyranny and innovation of principles of liberty – recorded in man’s journal. But their victories were short-lived; for, they had no philosophers to guide them. Aristotle and the Athenian experiment were virtually unknown to them, and John Locke had yet to do his work.
On the American continent results were slightly better. Experiences and foundations laid by the English Revolution; the contribution of John Locke; the neglect of the English crown; and the independence fostered by frontier life allowed English colonists to found a society in a wilderness and build an unrivaled experiment in human liberty. And, hardly an American or Englishman today understands how they did it. Remember who dominates commerce, government…?
So, what will “Occupy Wall Street” produce? A demonstration of futility and a mockery of American principles are certainties; and a pointless blood-bath is likely… pointless, that is, if your cause is liberty; for, it is the custom of a Bolshevik revolution to allow peasants a few weeks of rebellion while informers jot down names of peasants who are uncommonly bold – so they can be individually sliced to pieces when fury is exhausted.
To give one brief example: redress of grievances is the essence of an American revolution. A Bolshevik revolution aims at the perpetration of grievances and impunity for perpetrators. Two grievances that always occur during a Bolshevik revolution are proscriptions and general plunder. For twenty, or fifty, years before such a revolution, the criminal and idiot classes compile lists of people who oppose rule by thieves. When revolution occurs, death squads roam cities and countryside with these lists… and do not rest until every name is crossed off their lists. The idiot class takes the opportunity to murder creditors, settle personal feuds and remove competitors in business, professions and sexual pursuits.
There are several steps to a redress of grievance. They are, in this order: “identification of a grievance; complaint; investigation; prosecution, judgment and execution of that judgment”. Every action within those quotation marks pertains to an American revolution; every action outside, a Bolshevik revolution.
To successfully redress a grievance requires that each step in this process be done by people who have uncommon intelligence and a high dedication to justice. They must be able a) to understand intricacies of rights, b) to identify violations of them, c) to design a correction for such violations, and d) to implement such correction. If any link in this chain does not possess these attributes, the entire process fails.
There is, for example, no such thing as a public demonstration in an American revolution. A public demonstration/uprising is the natural consequence when all forums of redress are closed, or unknown, to oppressed classes. The service of redress, you see, removes the need for such demonstrations.
Compare the service of redress to the service offered by grocery stores. As long as grocery stores are open, people realize that food is readily available – they just have to pay for it – and no one would give a second, or even a first, thought to a street demonstration to demand food. If the government, however, closed all grocery stores, it would surely provoke widespread street demonstrations, at least. Similarly, if the service of redress is available to all, anyone with a grievance will realize that redress is readily available – he only has to pay for it; and no one would consider a street demonstration.
As noted above, the engine that drives an American revolution – where all its work is organized and directed – is a large network of assemblies: town and county meetings, state conventions or assemblies, a Continental Congress; in England, until the last half of the seventeenth century, town and county meetings and a parliament; in Athens, they were “assemblies of the people”. The historical definition of an assembly is, ‘a body of private men who exercise sovereignty within a particular territory’; the work of redress, in other words, is the work of sovereignty. Don’t forget, all those assemblies that powered the American Revolution were bodies of private men – and they organized courts, sent ambassadors to foreign territories, and raised armies.
Altho the essential work of an assembly is the redress of grievances, it must also provide supporting services for this work. The work of redress, in many cases is expensive: therefore, money must be advanced to finance this work; at least until booty is recovered from those guilty of grievances. The work of redress is dangerous: those guilty have historically proven to be capable of unprecedented desperation: witnesses, victims, investigators among others must be protected from the violence of perpetrators. These functions – redress, financing, protection – can be provided by assemblies. My book includes a short history, the law and technology of revolution (redress of grievances): it is a study guide and can be used as a manual on how to organize an American revolution, from start to a fully functional engine. (Owing to the nature of life, the work of redress will be perpetual, and universal: its work will never be finished.)
The leaders of Occupy do not understand this engine – or intend to make a mockery of it. They organize street riots that aim at obstruction and violence, and call them assemblies. These riots are not First-Amendment assemblies. These street riots are the favored means by which Bolsheviks “legally” suppress bona fide First-Amendment assemblies. When such riots are provoked to violence by their “leaders”, police or military will equally suppress them, bullets will fly, Bolshevik leaders will vanish and peasants will be left to take those bullets – or arrested for trespass; and, Congress and courts will use such riots as a pretext to suppress real First-Amendment assemblies.
How does Occupy measure against these steps within my quotation marks (pertaining to due process)? Its members can barely identify their grievances; or would be embarrassed if they did – much less can they design a correction. They don’t even qualify for the first step.
Some of them have valid grievances; some don’t; both rush to street corners and irritate pedestrians and motorists with signs and slogans. Study this scene for a moment: people, who have sufficient reason and justice to sense that something is wrong and desire its correction, rush to street corners in an attempt to persuade other people, who have no or less reason and justice, to design a correction for the poorly-understood grievance that agitates demonstrators. By this waste of time and resources, what cause is advanced?
Who is the more stupid… they who have no reason… or he who attempts to reason with them?
Another example: instead of going to street corners, our agitators camp in front of an offending private or public building or in the middle of a busy intersection, and attempt to persuade, or compel, those accused of a grievance to what… investigate, prosecute, judge and prosecute themselves? Men have wished for this insanity for ten thousand years – and history has yet to record an example of it.
The business of an American revolution is the redress of grievances; and the engine of this business is an assembly. There are two kinds of assemblies: I call one a ‘local’, the other, ‘representative’. A local assembly will embrace a territory no larger than an average county; some counties, such as Los Angeles, will support up to seventy local assemblies. It is in the local assemblies where people personally express their will (to complain, debate, propose and vote).
When a grievance stretches across jurisdictions of two or more assemblies, we create a representative assembly. It drafts a proposed correction and then sends it to local assemblies for ratification.
Thus, self-government – or, sovereignty – remains at the local level at all times; and only those who petition for redress are obligated to comply with “laws” and “taxes” imposed by an assembly. That is, while an assembly is the mechanism by which its members exercise sovereignty, it is also a passive instrument – just like a court, it waits for someone to “move” it to action. A complaint moves a court to action; a petition moves an assembly to action. Once in motion, petitioners and assembly negotiate how best to redress the requested redress. The result is a contract. Historically, provisions of these contracts became known as “laws”; and money payments became known as “taxes”. Hence, in English law, “laws” and “taxes” grew out of voluntary contracts; and only petitioners were obligated to comply with them. And when redress is completed, the related contract will expire.
In this manner each member of an assembly will choose which “laws” and “taxes” will be set over him, he will comply only with such laws and taxes as he personally gives his consent: he will, thus, set no leader above him.
When “leaders” of Occupy organize general riots, presumably to represent the whole nation, continent or world, they, owing to the high cost of transportation and loss of wages, deprive 99% of the population their right of self government.
This naturally raises a rather obvious question, “How can Occupy represent 99% of the population when it deprives that same number (and more) its rights?”
Actually, their claim to represent 99% of the population is a major misrepresentation between oppressing and oppressed classes. The former (40-60% of the population) consists of the legally protected criminal class and its useful idiot class – the millions of foot soldiers and gate keepers. The foot soldiers are comprised of police, military and myriad of private companies who supply these foot soldiers; gatekeepers consist of bureaucrats and welfare recipients, doctors and actors, teachers and professors who keep peasants securely in their yokes, or drive them to some kind of self-inflicted destruction if they prove too intractable. These foot soldiers and useful idiots know very well that, without the plunder made possible by the criminal elite, they would lose their $4,000 to $7,000 per month pay check as well as their similarly large retirement checks.
The oppressed classes, therefore, represent the remainder, or 40-60%, of the population – not 99%.
The process of redress is little more than due process of law on a large scale. And each step is done under the auspices of an assembly. The first step is a complaint normally called a declaration. It lists grievances and rights and describes the correction desired by members of the assembly. It is then sent to the party responsible for redress (king, judge, pasha, prince, bureaucrat et cetera). If the responsible party does not provide redress within forty days (according to section 61 of the Magna Charta; we can choose a different time limit), the assembly will take matters into its own hands and complete the process.
A very common, and very well-established redress in English and American history was to withhold taxes until redress was done.
American Founders even declared this right to withhold taxes as one of the “three grand rights” (self government and due process were the other two) they intended to secure with the American Revolution. Since they won the Revolution, this means that Americans have a constitutionally-protected right to withhold taxes.
And, hardly an American knows it. (This is a main theme of my book, The Lost Right, edition 3.5, and my article about the mortgage crisis deals with a particular application of it, and, despite its title, provides redress for all possible grievances.
The people who organize public demonstrations well understand the difference between an American and Bolshevik revolution – else they are very useful idiots.
They understand that an assembly is the engine of American revolutions. So they organize a street riot composed of inarticulate and illiterate people who may or may not have valid grievances – and call it a “general assembly”.
They adulterate their “assembly” with classes for arts and craft, dance and song; areas to imbibe mind-twisting drugs; mud and bushes where boys and girls can root around when the urge strikes; all of it with pungent odors of urine and feces wafting thru-out their camp. They even scheduled their “uprising” so long-suffering peasants can suffer more under the harsh blows of winter.
The intention of organizers of Occupy is to make a mockery of forums of redress. They even shove their intention right in front of your face: “occupy” is an instrument of foreign conquest. It is outside our quotation marks.
But mockery is useless without attention.
So they load their dupes into convenient public arenas, such as the Brooklyn Bridge where they can irritate ordinary peasants in their daily affairs, they are easily arrested and easily fleeced in traffic court. They justify their action, which violates rights of thousands of ordinary peasants, by describing it as an exercise of various First-Amendment rights. Dupes in this melee do not understand what they are doing; for, among civilized men, the exercise of a right does not involve the violation of another’s right. When dupes’ ignorance drives them to the limit of suffering, “leaders”, usually with red arm-bands, will incite their dupes to storm a police station. The police will be instructed to not shoot those with red arm-bands; for, they are fellow union members. When the first shot rings out, arm-bands will disappear – leaving enraged dupes to take following bullets.
Thereafter, police and military will use this violence to suppress a common riot as an excuse to suppress First-Amendment assemblies. They know what they are doing.
Of course, there are a few observers who recognize these dangers; they also wish and hope that such confused protestors will eventually learn what to do… never suspecting that it is not necessary to reinvent what they must do.
But wishful thinking, on the stage we discuss, always leads to fatal consequences: the criminal class commonly responds with maniacal fury when anyone questions its lies, or describes its crimes. Perhaps one of the more relevant examples involves the Magna Charta.
After John signed the document, he immediately retired, sullen and silent, to the Isle of Wight, there to plan a terrible vengeance upon those who insulted his ‘dignity’.
He appealed to the pope to intercede in the matter by voiding his signature on the Great Charter and by granting a commission to raise a European army to invade England and reassert his authority. The pope granted his wishes and did him one better: he also excommunicated the rebellious barons.
John, in utmost secrecy, enlisted foreign freebooters, pirates and robbers to share in the spoils of England and especially of the rebellious barons.
“The ravenous and barbarous mercenaries, incited by a cruel and enraged prince [John], were let loose against the estates, tenants, manors, houses, and parks of the barons, and spread devastation over the face of the kingdom. Nothing was to be seen but the flames of villages and castles reduced to ashes, the consternation and misery of the inhabitants, tortures exercised by the soldiery to make them [inhabitants] reveal their concealed treasures, and reprisals no less barbarous, committed by the barons and their partizans on the royal demesnes, and on the estates of such as still adhered to the crown. The king, marching through the whole extent of England, from Dover to Berwic, laid the provinces waste on each side of him; and considered every state, which was not his immediate property, as entirely hostile and the object of military execution.” (David Hume, History of England, v. 1, 450-1; quoted in American Inquisition, 2nd ed, 67.)
In the midst of this war against his own kingdom, John was afflicted with a distemper, which put an end to his life, a year and four months after he signed the Magna Charta – and brought to a close one of the greatest ironies in the folly of man. The Magna Charta, which is generally regarded as a signal milestone in the long struggle for human liberty, inflamed a frenzy that reduced much of England to ashes and rubble.
Owing to John’s revenge and the Pope’s order of excommunication, the Magna Charta was effectively torn to shreds… and the men who authored it were practically exterminated. It would take the English four centuries and oceans of blood to recover from this slaughter.
This is a glimpse of what we will witness as long as Americans remain ignorant of the power to them thru First-Amendment assemblies.
Timely, and related, pages,
Have I discovered the fountain of youth? Men frequently declare that they would like to go back in time to re-live certain events or to take back unkind words. Well, I can’t send men back in time; so, I haven’t invented a time machine. But I can reduce one’s biological age to the condition one should have had as a teenager… In my case, I’ve reduced my biological age by 50 or more years. So, how can I prove or demonstrate this claim? My primary exercise is hitting baseballs (go to YouTube, search for “1668-85”); I’ve had many former pro and college players tell me that, if I played competitive ball at the level of a major college, I would “wreck,” or “lead,” the league with a “.700 average”; that I’m a “hitting phenomenon”, among other comments. Those who play college ball are about 20 years of age; I’m over 70. This is what I have done despite a current living arrangement that prevents me from complying completely with my health regimen (the YouTube video (above) will lead you to a web page that explains my regimen). Still, I’m looking forward to another fifty years with the health and physical condition of a near-professional athlete. Thus, I fully expect, at the age of 120, to have the same or better condition… If it comes to pass, I’ll have another 50 years. It raises the question, ‘Will it ever stop?’ Check back in 50 years and I’ll let you know… Better yet, maybe you, also, would like to give it a try. Your age makes no difference: my regimen will benefit anyone, at any age: from a year before conception to elderly. It is especially important for the young; for, if they do not get proper nutrients at proper times, they will not develop to their full potential… No, I can’t erase those unwanted events or unkind words; but I can give you the strength and youthful condition to play another, and better, game.
Since most of my articles run 5-35 pages, I thot it would be more time efficient to have one page to summarize each article with one paragraph. Please visit.