After years of research on the net, I happened across these works and would like to share them with readers.
American Connection Books
The author is meticulous concerning citations, indicating a positive validation to the information provided.
This genre of reading material is not for mindless entertainment, but serious consideration due to the theme and content: Read at your own risk. You could be exposed to powerful information that may reconfigure your whole paradigm. "The choice is yours."
After reading a few of these works, please return to post your insights, ideas, and impressions.
American Connection Books
The author is meticulous concerning citations, indicating a positive validation to the information provided.
This genre of reading material is not for mindless entertainment, but serious consideration due to the theme and content: Read at your own risk. You could be exposed to powerful information that may reconfigure your whole paradigm. "The choice is yours."
After reading a few of these works, please return to post your insights, ideas, and impressions.
Trying!
ReplyDeleteA simplified analogy for paradigm is a habit of reasoning, or "the box" in the commonly used phrase "thinking outside the box".
ReplyDeleteThinking inside the box is analogous with normal science. The box encompasses the thinking of normal science and thus the box is analogous with paradigm. "Thinking outside the box" would be revolutionary science. Revolutionary science, like Darwin's mutation that he claimed lead to diversification of life, is usually unsuccessful. It very rarely leads to new paradigms. However, when they are successful they may lead to large scale changes in the scientific worldview. When these large scale shifts in the scientific view are implemented and accepted by the majority, it will then become, "the box" and science will progress within it.
In today's world, "The Box" is often what the elite and the media tell us is acceptable, and Politically Correctness, in some important social concepts, has replaced logic, even reason, even common sense and is the current "box."
Having read the a4v to page 30, what is being revealed is our dual situations as Citizen sureties and natural humans contracted through the Constitution and our executive trustee. That's what is meant by attacking our collective, unconsciously defined "paradigm." We are not aware of our lawful positions and empowerment and therefore it's used against us due to "ignorance of the law." Maybe it's just because my first super hero was Popeye, I also copped the attitude that I too can do anything anyone else can (except of course, actually incubate and birth the child..that's Olive Oil's "special" talent).
ReplyDeleteWhat I'm referring to is understanding this convoluted, seemingly unintelligible thing that holds sway and force over all "civilized" peoples called the Law. I believe that having read a sufficient amount of mythology, and philosophy, my brain is able to bob, weave, and do the double helix twists required to "presumably" understand cognitively what exactly is being conveyed. This sort of attitude is going on elsewhere in the world (specifically the UK: ) based on the concept of habeas corpus. Interesting how the "powerful" lawful concepts are all Latin phrases.
Et tu Brute?
Check this guy out when you get a chance:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.google.com/search?q=john+harris+lawful+rebellion
If your reading and awareness has brought you to the level of Popeye, good on you!
ReplyDeleteBut you can do much better. There is an entire world based on non-fictional action figures, and it may open to you eventually.
It may just be a reflex from reading too much mythology and philosophy, two subjects that in general cloud the ability to sort reality from fantasy, but if I am not mistaken about England, England is a country that, while it had an Empire it ruled the waves, while now (judging from the riots and people running amok) it waives the rules.
John Harris...I couldn't understand his British language. Why can't Scandinavians speak English?
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeleteyou're not reading the material are you. Feinting opinions about the validity of reading genres, and casting some sort of inferred qualifier that it makes one's mind somehow inferior when it comes to analytical tasks, indicates a false divergence on your part. You know I don't take feints well and go for the bait. If you are alluding to the fact that the aforementioned reading material is, well let's just say "double black diamond?" I would understand.
As to Harris, oh well, maybe if he had a Japanese accent, you'd ferret it out better? I kinda like the Andy Capp flavor of his Brixton upbringing. A true cockney he is! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brixton
Bringing up the temporal media's mediocre coverage of the riots, indicates an easily shielded psyche. I know you can go deeper and steeper than that and that's the point of this blog's existence. Let' get into the stuff that scares the crap outta people because it's significantly controversial. The concrete thinking is the foundation that supports the rise of consciousness to hopefully a point of self actualization. This normal process can be significantly impacted by one's environment,and of course personal choices. Remember "Maslow's Pyramid?" The above initiating topic, and supplied reading, goes to an absence of structural material in the center of that theoretical pyramid. When fencing a blind man, it's best NOT to be in the dark.
(as he steps back and opens the line...)
I am reading. Slowly. Some times hard to wade through the rhetoric and remove what are the writer's preconceived assumptions about the "way things are," and keep in mind he is approaching these subjects with a predetermined objective and the essays are built to show his opinion, not to discover any new knowledge.
ReplyDeleteWelcome Anonymous!
ReplyDeleteI agree with your assertion about the preconceptions and rhetoric proffered by the author.
This is why I've set up this blog and invited others to help analyze the information presented.
If there is any true "science" in the area of Political Science, then we should all find certain incontrovertible evidence that there are "remedies" to be had that are lawful and peaceable.
Academically speaking, if the references and sources cited are accurate and falsifiable, we can reject the null hypothesis and conclude the data to be effectually valid.
Essentially, this is a research project and the most anyone has to lose is time reading something potentially controversial. What we have to gain, however, may in fact be something reserved for "those in the know." (Is there a "man behind the curtain" Toto?)
Admittedly, I've always felt (my own intuitive preconceptions) there was a lot more going on that held, and presently holds, sway and effect on our collective lives and energy that is not commonly know and understood. It's as if we are all required to unconsciously play a game without full conscious consent (legal capacity/ meeting of the minds) or full knowledge and understanding of all the rules. Socrates might urge us to ask, "who stands to benefit and why, and at who's expense?
Any ideas about exactly what the author's "predetermined objective" is? May I infer that from your perspective, supporting one's opinion with an interpretation of cited sources of codes and regulations is not "new knowledge," but merely uncovered information? May I also infer from these statement that you are familiar with the lawfully coded foundations of the author's focus? Please, tell us more when you can.
I've finished a4v and have started in on book 1. I'll post my findings and impressions as they occur, but please be patient for my daily duties supersede my avowed passions for understanding our collective lot.
Ah HA!
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how one must first open their heart, then mind, to see information previously obscured.
I'd noticed a subtle thing in denoting citations and sources through the course of my profession and it's intrigued me for some time now. I'd asked the Dean and President of a law school if there was in fact a significant difference between "laws" and "statutes." Interestingly enough, all I got for an answer was somewhat of a runaround response.
In the course of my professional studies, we were required to review, analyze, and discuss "Public Law" and Supreme Court decisions surrounding certain cases.
What caught my attention was how those "laws" were cited and are different from the "laws" cited for banking, loans, and taxes.
Being a natural at history and anthropology (it just makes sense to me..?), I'd concluded that significant changes in our individual status occurred after the Civil War. This first book's reading is supporting my previous general conclusions in very specific ways by quoting sources and case law.
(The Quest continues, "eh Sancho?)
Finished the first book. Have not taken the time to personally review the citations, so for now, will accept them at face value. Anonymous' point about opinion support, is what either position in a debate does: seek sources to support one's arguments. This is what the author is doing. He is also explaining himself though the time honored tradition of the Story Teller through familial analogy and allegory.
ReplyDelete(So let me see if I understand what you're saying Plato. If I leave the cave, I can't go back because they'll think I'm crazy with what I found outside and want to kill me..?
http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/allegory.html)
I read through the second book this past weekend. I found it to be a page turner with references to Bible passages and one from the Talmud. This morning, I've gotten going on the third book dealing with "positive law." It's deconstructing from where supposed "authority" emanates. In the earliest sections there is a presumption that people, Homo sapiens, have a natural empowerment to own or "posses" things and therefore naturally have the ability to contract obligations. Philosophical research had lead me previously to an ancient Hindu perspective that asserts propriety of anything outside of one's own thoughts, is not actually possible. Owning anything is a mere notion. Since the rise of chiefdoms, there's been a number done on our psyche to unconsciously enforce this notion of ownership that then extends to "the chief" specifically with regard to the exclusive "right to use force" and "force tribute" from the tribe. Jared Diamond's, Guns, Germs, and Steele, asserts that during this time in the rise of civilization, these absconded rights lead to a form of institutionalized corruption that he calls "the kleptocracy."
ReplyDeleteOur author references the English Monarchy's (another chiefdom)assertion of "We see a fundamental principle for the establishment of positive
law is the need to have a state of society governed by a superior or
sovereign power functioning in an unnatural order where the people
appear as servants or workers in a controlled legal, political, and
economic system." I see an intertextual support of ideas here....more later....duty calls!
Having finished the 3rd book, maybe the author and myself are looking for "rationalizations" to our deeper core values unarticulated and in conflict with what we are told is "the way it it."
ReplyDeleteAnonymous pointed that out, so reviewing this author's take on "no new knowledge," what do you all think about this statement?
"There are ways to preserve freedom and liberty which are important
aspects of life given to us by our Creator, if we gain more knowledge
and understanding (or maybe discover certain secrets) about how the
legal system works with its positive laws and courts of equity in a
state of society."
You have much more time to read than I.
ReplyDeleteIt is my feeling that what we are looking at when the author discuses laws is something akin to the fallacious argument of composition.
In this case, that because parts of the law are in the author's opinion erroneous, the entire body of the law is faulty.
Or at least in his conclusion, large parts of it are not appropriate to the business of justice.
In another way, it is also subject to the fallacy of division, where one assumes that what is true of the whole must be true of the parts.
The Body of Law, or the books, statutes, codes etc are not generic items run from an injection factory, or at least they are not intended to be so. They have to have a continuance, and predictability, and a sense of applicability to the questions of redress of wrongs, correction of evils, and prevention of these things being repeated.
Of course, every crime, like every person, is unique. There are genera of crimes, true, in a broad way of classification, but nothing is ever quite the same.
The laws should, and good laws do, have enough elasticity to be appropriate for this wide variety of actual crimes. On the other hand, there are no new crimes. There are news ways of doing the same old crimes, new means and new motives, but it does not require new knowledge to understand that the crime has been done.
The only thing that upsets people is the change in social perceptions that moves one "activity" from the category of "crime" in to the category of "accepted," and the reverse where some daily (or nightly) activity is, with the stroke of a pen, made illegal.
I could name a few of these, common ones; Drinking, for instance. Legal, then illegal, then legal again. Women's vote, slaves and tax levy are all very large a recent revolutions in the concept of what is accepted and what isn't and how it changes.
And that brings me to the author's concept of "Rights granted by God." When the perception of God is, in itself, not one uniform concept at all, but a varied as the number of people who have a concept of God, it make using God's laws problematic.
And that is the very reason our founding fathers decided to establish a State free from the rule of God. They also realized those truths that "we find self evident" that we are born with inalienable rights, among with are..." and you know the rest. But what freedom means from one person to the next is where we have political problems!
And when one holds his head high and proclaims he has no faith in God at all...where does that leave the concept of God Given Rights?
As for the question of the fallacies that I started with, society changes faster than people's caution in changing laws, or ability to erase bad law.
On one hand, the need for new laws can result in legal changes that happen literally in the wink of an eye. That explains a lot of the problems with Homeland Security laws. They were needed now, but the complex issue really needed years of thought.
Combined with, "hanging laws," not to stretch one's neck, but laws that are out-dated but left hanging on the books. For instance, laws that pertain to buggy driving when everyone drives an auto.
These two factor give the body of law a somewhat podge-podge look, and the fact is, law came about very much in a hodge-podge way! Moses may have handed down a code of law intact, but since then every judge, ruler, king and his dog has added two cents worth of jurisprudence.
Precedence leads to continuity, and in the end, people can live with bad law as well as good law; history has shown that rather well. What they can't tolerate is unstable law. The uncertainty integral with complex modern law is the most dangerous part of "rule of law."
For if there is an exception to every rule, the rule is questioned, rather than the exception, which in my opinion, is what the author was doing.
I've been reading more of Beers' works and get the definite impression that he's against the centralization that has occurred since the Civil War. Another author, writes some interesting historical takes on the post Civil War Era:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.academicamerican.com/recongildedage/index.html
Although I agree that much has been done to set precedent in the evolution of the law, I find it difficult to surrender myself through efforts and sacrifice to causes and campaigns that consistently benefit the few at the expense of the many. Beers asserts the idea of legal fictions, conceived in the Roman Empire, as a vehicle that eventually vindicates current corporate practices of autonomy without any human culpability e.g. government bailout money and CEOs getting huge bonuses (http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/04/stimulus-obama-daschle-opinions-columnists_0205_dan_gerstein.html).
What I believe Beers is doing is persuading a form of outlaw non-compliance with bad laws that obviously only favor the well to do and make it legally the financial burden of those who cannot possibly muster enough cash to enforce their civil rights.
His pragmatic explanations of how the "conquered" Southern States submitted to the supremacy of the "conqueror," which then turns all citizens into persons (property), which are henceforth part of the spoils of war. It's interesting to me to see how this will play out.
I recall that R.G.H. Siu stated in his book, The Craft of Power (http://www.archive.org/details/The_Craft_of_Power), that no matter how much the controlling factions try to control all aspects of a situation, out of the ether will coalesce an oppositional force. Very Dowistic and this seems to becoming true with the OWS and The Tea Party "just happening" out of thin air...? Maybe there is something to this "nature's God" asserting itself in an evolutionary way...? Perhaps?
P.S. I keep hearing that tune, "The little girl I left behind me." Wonder what that could mean?
ReplyDelete