That system, with individuals holding the most power, did not suit the desires of those who wanted control over the populations for the purpose of harvesting their productivity. They wanted a hierarchy with them being at the top, creating control over the population of powerless people.
Oddly enough, this was a debate even in the earliest days of the nation. Alexander Hamilton was a proponent of Federalism and a national bank. Jefferson and some of the others rejected the idea as being unconstitutional, since that power wasn’t given to the Government. Hamilton was a close associate of the Rothschilds and the London bankers who financed the war. So, you see, even from the start there was a desire to pervert the new networked nation into a hierarchy so the bankers could manipulate and control the people.
That was the debate that caused the Civil War. Eventually the Federalists won, and Lincoln’s address at Gettysburg stunned those who attended. These were new concepts, that the Federal Government was superior to the states, and reigned over the citizens themselves. In the end, the very issue of slavery was used to enslave the population with federalism, democracy, an income tax, and eventually a fractionalized fiat currency.
If you disagree, just consider that you can not own anything that isn’t registered and taxed. You can’t travel outside the country without permission, marry who you wish without permission, or educate your children without notifying them where. The dollar bill in your pocket is even the legal property of a central bank, they just loan it to us with interest. If you go to a bank and deposit more than $100 cash in your account, you legally have to provide identification so they can report it to the Federal Government. They have perfected slavery and call it citizenship.
From the standpoint of our conversation, democracy is a challenging philosophy. Its tenants derive from the humanist viewpoint that each person has equal value, and as such should participate in self-determination. As a concept it sounds admirable, but in practice it always becomes the tool by which the majority oppresses the minority.
The challenge is that while each person may have equal value, they don’t have equal capacity, knowledge, wisdom, or (arguably) roles within a society. The right to vote in a Republic isn’t related to the person, it was related to ownership and representation of property. We can argue the ability to own property, or to conduct business, but the point remains that a vote wasn’t intended to represent an individual person.
In a democratic society, each person votes, regardless of the value that person has to the society at large. The results of that belief system and the manner in which it was deployed have brought us to the point where vast numbers of the population vote who are being influenced in ways that are destructive to that society and themselves as a result. Again, we know how easily humans can be deceived by those they perceive as being in authority. The COVID experience of the early 2020s being the perfect example as billions of people acted in completely irrational manners, resulting in millions of people being needlessly harmed.
If you reject that statement, I have provided ample evidence in the references section of this paper. I will also share that I and my associates were deeply inside that situation, including the events at the laboratory in Wuhan, and nothing about it was accurately represented to the public, but I digress. My point is that, as writers like Bastiat have observed, humans can easily be influenced to vote in ways that are unproductive. All you have to do is offer them trinkets and they will give you their valuables.
I understand the challenges this philosophical conversation can create. It leads us to some extremely uncomfortable observations, and conclusions are even more difficult to discuss. The passions that surround core beliefs often remove our ability to analyze facts using logic and reason.
In 1848 a group of women met socially to enjoy their afternoon tea. It is said that this was the event where Elizabeth Cady Stanton shared her views that women were being oppressed by men, and that became the start of the Feminist movement. I can think of no subject that presents a greater conundrum.
As the father of daughters I want my girls to have every opportunity my sons have. Education, freedom, and safety being the foremost among them. I am also convicted that there is only one essential role that women play in any society, motherhood. If the world never saw another woman doctor, lawyer, business executive, or politician, society would continue. If women stop having babies, and they have, we die. Either that, or our society is replaced by one where women are not given choices. The other option is one where women elect to focus on life and family as their career, choosing childbirth early in life. I see some indication that this may be increasingly embraced, but I fear the speed of that transition is too slow.
The root of this conundrum is that in every nation on earth where women have been given the privilege of self-determination, they have chosen infertility. What then can we judge from that fact? How do we reconcile ourselves with the truth that if women don’t have 4-5 babies by the time they are 30 years old, that society will be replaced by one that does. Math and biology are tyrants.
I think we need to face the fact that unless we use our knowledge of history and devise a new system of society, we will suffer a complete collapse. In a separate paper on marriage, I will explore some ideas on how we might incorporate timeless biological truths into modern society.
Next: We begin the challenge of coming to conclusions.