Note: For unknown reasons, Substack failed to save part of the essay and as a result a prior draft was published. I have updated the text with the correct version. The section on the first wall is now much more detailed. Sorry for the inconvenience!
Many consider the Constitution to be a coup against the Articles of Confederation, and that we would have been far better off under the latter than the former. Curious to your thoughts on this.
Wow! You have convinced me that I need to finally get around to reading the Federalist Papers. I had no idea that Alexander Hamilton endorsed private gun ownership as a check on the federal government. I always associated that with Jefferson.
---
Regarding vertical separation: I have come to the conclusion that the reason the Democrats have become such serious centralists is that for Blue America, there is no such thing as local government. If you live in a county or city with 200,000+ people, your local government isn't really local. And since the federal government does have better rule of law than many city governments, federal bureaucrats -- and criminal gangs -- are more responsive than the titular local government. "You cannot fight City Hall"
Maybe the solution is to leverage the sentiments that launched BLM and Antifa and give those "anarchists" what they were truly asking for: local government. Do a bit of "formalizing" as Mencius Moldbug would put it.
"A government of laws, not of men" is a neat concept. Lots of people have wanted it throughout history. Clearly we aren't there yet, and America has done as well as it because this series of walls kept the racoons out for as long as it did.
Bitcoiners, however, have a working prototype. The 'crypto bro' manifesto says, hey, you can get rich in a few years if you invest in this shitcoin. Bitcoiners say, hey, the revolution started a decade ago and it'll probably keep going another few decades. If you can handle 80% drawdowns, you're welcome to join. Either way, you're along for the ride.
I had always thought than Montesquieu's "executive power" is a farce. As the royalist authors Rivarol and Bonald said : the only power is to decide of the law. "Executing laws" is just an employee stuff.
Same thing for Judiciary power : it's not a power, it's a delegation of power for... apply the law on people or judgements based on those laws.
Thus, the only power is the legislative one. Actually stolen by the Supreme Court.
IMO, the best way to have an efficient power and to preserve liberty is : legislative power in the hands of a king. National Assembly Delegates would be elected to control administrations and to use of a veto power (at 66.67% needed). If the king don't agree with the veto, he could make a referendum. His law would be revoqued if 50 (or 60) % of the electoral registered voters vote "no".
Of course, that's just an outline, wrote in bad english (I'm french), but it would be better than actual mess in France or USA.
Oh, and the constitution must emphasize that laws as patriot act can never be implemented
Jan 5, 2023·edited Jan 5, 2023Liked by Tree of Woe
When the Spartan general Lysander Routed the Athenian fleet at the Battle of Aegospotami, he surrounded Athens with the sole intention of starving it into surrender. In those days, such siege tactics (i.e. "pure attrition") was viewed by the common Spartan as "cowardice" and nothing more.
Here is a relevant snippet regarding his exploits:
>> Lysander finally set sail with some 200 ships, and among his early actions, which are variously reported by the sources, was the enslavement of the population of Cedreae, an ally of Athens. He continued toward the Hellespont to threaten the route of grain transports to Athens from the Black Sea, forcing the Athenians to send their fleet, 180 ships, in pursuit. Lysander set up anchor at Lampsacus and plundered it, while the Athenians took up a position at Aegospotami in the opposing shore of the straits. For several days Lysander refused battle, studying the opponent's moves, until, during a moment of enemy carelessness, he surprised the Athenians and captured most of their vessels as they were still ashore and unmanned. The entire Athenian fleet was gone, and Sparta had finally won the Peloponnesian War.[23]
Now in full command of the seas, Lysander began touring the Aegean to receive the surrender of enemy strongholds, ordering all captured Athenian garrisons and cleruchs (colonists) home in order to overcrowd the city and hasten its surrender through famine.[24] In many Greek cities, he installed ten-man governing boards (decarchies) whose members were selected from the oligarchic clubs he had sponsored earlier, supported and supervised by a Spartan harmost (military governor).[25] Democrats and other opponents of his narrow oligarchies were often massacred or banished.[26] In a propaganda gesture he restored places like Aegina, Melos and Scione to populations whom the Athenians had forcibly uprooted throughout the course of the war.[27] <<
We all know the rest: The Thirty Tyrants were installed over a defeated Athens that devolved from then onward into more Tyranny and Despotism. The "world's first democratic republic" ended thus with a whimper, and not a bang. Plato wrote His "Republic" whilst in the company of said Vile Traitors and Scum (i.e. The Thirty), so no wonder he spoke glowingly of "The Philosopher Kings".
It is said that history repeats first as tragedy and then as farce... clearly we are experiencing both simultaneously. Fortress America is being attrited into Total Surrender. Of course, we have developed "siegecraft" several generations more so than Lysander himself could have envisioned. In particular, modern siegecraft and its attritions are not merely in the realm of the physical.
Whether it is the Alphabet people's onslaught on the family unit; the technocrat assault on *the human being* as such, etc, etc... we have the same motif that Lysander from some 2,500 years ago came up with to end the decades long Peloponnesian War: Strike a Decisive Blow at the Vehicle/Engine of Military Prowess (for Athens, it was her Navy) and then Attrit away!
If anything, the American people are fortunate that they are getting the Attrition first and the Decisive Blow second. At least in this manner (unlike the Athenians) they have sufficient time to develop some false semblance of hope and comfort themselves with it as the end approaches.
The Athenians never had such a luxury; no such mercy was afforded to him as Lysander's thugs Raped and Pillaged the city. If the American Elite have some semblance of intelligence left, they ought to negotiate Terms of Surrender that best avoid (or at least minimize) what throughout Human History has been a constant: The victorious army's Sack of the City.
Because unlike Lysander's goons. this is not going to be merely a "Sack" of the physical sort. For if Siegecraft has already iterated several generations and made "progress" on that front, so too we can infer that "Crimes Inflicted" and whatnot will likewise have done so as well.
> A Constitution is essentially a compact or contract between citizens.
I came to believe that the American Constitution was more of a compact among the States, rather than the citizens. It's a slight, but very important difference.
Also, I think you are taking too idealistic of an approach. If ever The Constitution was a Citadel of Freedom, it was only rhetorically.
This all makes sense if history does not lie. But it does. As Acton observed "There are no great men, only bad men, and they write the histories".
To paraphrase another great man, "Never trust a lawyer". Madison killed the Constitution, to erase a single phrase of Thomas Paine's. Acually, there were two troublesome phrases, but one overrode all else.
The aristocrats and plutocrats deliberately created an unnamed monarchy to protect their interests. They also made sure that the real inspiration for the Constitution, Thomas Paine, was excluded because his works contained two key phrases "The people are the source of all authority" was the most important, and "the aged, the sick and the infirm must be supported by public funds". The rich and powerful could not tolerate either.
But all of this circumvents an overiding consideration, one which explains why the word DEMOCRACY was carefully omitted. Because in a genune democracy you do not need a constitution, a bill of rights, or a treaty. As Lincoln clearly understood, all you need is "Government of the people, by the people and for the people".
Is there anybody out there who can grasp this? It meaans that "The people, fully informed on all issues, formulate policy. This policy is then implemented by the Public Service body".
The End.
No parliaments are necessary, No representation is necessary. No voting for candidates of parties. No majority votes. No elections. These are all political theatre to hide the exercise of central power, and as Acton also said, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". That is why the US of A was corrupted long before the Constitution was ratified.
Because the US is 39th on the global literacy scale, and falling fast, there seems to be no possibility of establishing a genuine democracy. The one slim possibility is if one warlike leader emerges who creates a dictatorship first and then implements democracy. The problem is, that such power would corrupt before the democracy was installed.
Note: For unknown reasons, Substack failed to save part of the essay and as a result a prior draft was published. I have updated the text with the correct version. The section on the first wall is now much more detailed. Sorry for the inconvenience!
Many consider the Constitution to be a coup against the Articles of Confederation, and that we would have been far better off under the latter than the former. Curious to your thoughts on this.
Wow! You have convinced me that I need to finally get around to reading the Federalist Papers. I had no idea that Alexander Hamilton endorsed private gun ownership as a check on the federal government. I always associated that with Jefferson.
---
Regarding vertical separation: I have come to the conclusion that the reason the Democrats have become such serious centralists is that for Blue America, there is no such thing as local government. If you live in a county or city with 200,000+ people, your local government isn't really local. And since the federal government does have better rule of law than many city governments, federal bureaucrats -- and criminal gangs -- are more responsive than the titular local government. "You cannot fight City Hall"
Maybe the solution is to leverage the sentiments that launched BLM and Antifa and give those "anarchists" what they were truly asking for: local government. Do a bit of "formalizing" as Mencius Moldbug would put it.
Much more here:
https://rulesforreactionaries.substack.com/p/rule-6-break-up-the-blue-zones
(Warning: it's a five-parter.)
"A government of laws, not of men" is a neat concept. Lots of people have wanted it throughout history. Clearly we aren't there yet, and America has done as well as it because this series of walls kept the racoons out for as long as it did.
Bitcoiners, however, have a working prototype. The 'crypto bro' manifesto says, hey, you can get rich in a few years if you invest in this shitcoin. Bitcoiners say, hey, the revolution started a decade ago and it'll probably keep going another few decades. If you can handle 80% drawdowns, you're welcome to join. Either way, you're along for the ride.
I had always thought than Montesquieu's "executive power" is a farce. As the royalist authors Rivarol and Bonald said : the only power is to decide of the law. "Executing laws" is just an employee stuff.
Same thing for Judiciary power : it's not a power, it's a delegation of power for... apply the law on people or judgements based on those laws.
Thus, the only power is the legislative one. Actually stolen by the Supreme Court.
IMO, the best way to have an efficient power and to preserve liberty is : legislative power in the hands of a king. National Assembly Delegates would be elected to control administrations and to use of a veto power (at 66.67% needed). If the king don't agree with the veto, he could make a referendum. His law would be revoqued if 50 (or 60) % of the electoral registered voters vote "no".
Of course, that's just an outline, wrote in bad english (I'm french), but it would be better than actual mess in France or USA.
Oh, and the constitution must emphasize that laws as patriot act can never be implemented
8. The exclusion of foreigners, women, boys under 21, and (usually) non-land-owners from voting to change any of the above walls.
When the Spartan general Lysander Routed the Athenian fleet at the Battle of Aegospotami, he surrounded Athens with the sole intention of starving it into surrender. In those days, such siege tactics (i.e. "pure attrition") was viewed by the common Spartan as "cowardice" and nothing more.
Here is a relevant snippet regarding his exploits:
>> Lysander finally set sail with some 200 ships, and among his early actions, which are variously reported by the sources, was the enslavement of the population of Cedreae, an ally of Athens. He continued toward the Hellespont to threaten the route of grain transports to Athens from the Black Sea, forcing the Athenians to send their fleet, 180 ships, in pursuit. Lysander set up anchor at Lampsacus and plundered it, while the Athenians took up a position at Aegospotami in the opposing shore of the straits. For several days Lysander refused battle, studying the opponent's moves, until, during a moment of enemy carelessness, he surprised the Athenians and captured most of their vessels as they were still ashore and unmanned. The entire Athenian fleet was gone, and Sparta had finally won the Peloponnesian War.[23]
Now in full command of the seas, Lysander began touring the Aegean to receive the surrender of enemy strongholds, ordering all captured Athenian garrisons and cleruchs (colonists) home in order to overcrowd the city and hasten its surrender through famine.[24] In many Greek cities, he installed ten-man governing boards (decarchies) whose members were selected from the oligarchic clubs he had sponsored earlier, supported and supervised by a Spartan harmost (military governor).[25] Democrats and other opponents of his narrow oligarchies were often massacred or banished.[26] In a propaganda gesture he restored places like Aegina, Melos and Scione to populations whom the Athenians had forcibly uprooted throughout the course of the war.[27] <<
We all know the rest: The Thirty Tyrants were installed over a defeated Athens that devolved from then onward into more Tyranny and Despotism. The "world's first democratic republic" ended thus with a whimper, and not a bang. Plato wrote His "Republic" whilst in the company of said Vile Traitors and Scum (i.e. The Thirty), so no wonder he spoke glowingly of "The Philosopher Kings".
It is said that history repeats first as tragedy and then as farce... clearly we are experiencing both simultaneously. Fortress America is being attrited into Total Surrender. Of course, we have developed "siegecraft" several generations more so than Lysander himself could have envisioned. In particular, modern siegecraft and its attritions are not merely in the realm of the physical.
Whether it is the Alphabet people's onslaught on the family unit; the technocrat assault on *the human being* as such, etc, etc... we have the same motif that Lysander from some 2,500 years ago came up with to end the decades long Peloponnesian War: Strike a Decisive Blow at the Vehicle/Engine of Military Prowess (for Athens, it was her Navy) and then Attrit away!
If anything, the American people are fortunate that they are getting the Attrition first and the Decisive Blow second. At least in this manner (unlike the Athenians) they have sufficient time to develop some false semblance of hope and comfort themselves with it as the end approaches.
The Athenians never had such a luxury; no such mercy was afforded to him as Lysander's thugs Raped and Pillaged the city. If the American Elite have some semblance of intelligence left, they ought to negotiate Terms of Surrender that best avoid (or at least minimize) what throughout Human History has been a constant: The victorious army's Sack of the City.
Because unlike Lysander's goons. this is not going to be merely a "Sack" of the physical sort. For if Siegecraft has already iterated several generations and made "progress" on that front, so too we can infer that "Crimes Inflicted" and whatnot will likewise have done so as well.
> A Constitution is essentially a compact or contract between citizens.
I came to believe that the American Constitution was more of a compact among the States, rather than the citizens. It's a slight, but very important difference.
Also, I think you are taking too idealistic of an approach. If ever The Constitution was a Citadel of Freedom, it was only rhetorically.
This all makes sense if history does not lie. But it does. As Acton observed "There are no great men, only bad men, and they write the histories".
To paraphrase another great man, "Never trust a lawyer". Madison killed the Constitution, to erase a single phrase of Thomas Paine's. Acually, there were two troublesome phrases, but one overrode all else.
The aristocrats and plutocrats deliberately created an unnamed monarchy to protect their interests. They also made sure that the real inspiration for the Constitution, Thomas Paine, was excluded because his works contained two key phrases "The people are the source of all authority" was the most important, and "the aged, the sick and the infirm must be supported by public funds". The rich and powerful could not tolerate either.
But all of this circumvents an overiding consideration, one which explains why the word DEMOCRACY was carefully omitted. Because in a genune democracy you do not need a constitution, a bill of rights, or a treaty. As Lincoln clearly understood, all you need is "Government of the people, by the people and for the people".
Is there anybody out there who can grasp this? It meaans that "The people, fully informed on all issues, formulate policy. This policy is then implemented by the Public Service body".
The End.
No parliaments are necessary, No representation is necessary. No voting for candidates of parties. No majority votes. No elections. These are all political theatre to hide the exercise of central power, and as Acton also said, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". That is why the US of A was corrupted long before the Constitution was ratified.
Because the US is 39th on the global literacy scale, and falling fast, there seems to be no possibility of establishing a genuine democracy. The one slim possibility is if one warlike leader emerges who creates a dictatorship first and then implements democracy. The problem is, that such power would corrupt before the democracy was installed.
You guys are fucked.
You’re writing is very clear and logical. Thank you.
The insane futility of a 'written constitution' is what we get for our rebellion against our king.