Copyright 2013,14,15,2016 Tim Siewert
All Rights Reserved
Tim Siewert LLC- Products for the passionate shooter
Portions of this website are reprinted and sometimes edited to fit the standards of this website under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copyright Law as educational material without benefit of financial gain. http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
1776 men is a registered trademark
of Tim Siewert LLC
I believe that there are six types of people living in this country today. Those six types are Order-lings, Stooges, Operatives, Enablers, the Masses, and Patriots. First, allow me to define these.
Order-lings: These are the people behind the scenes; the corporate CEOs, bank CEOs, people who operate and own stock exchanges, the people who run the “military/industrial complex”, people with more money than they know what to do with, the privileged elite. These make up the Bilderberger group, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Club of Rome, the IMF, and all other nefarious international organizations that meet in secret. These are the people that are really calling the shots; the ones that have all the politicians in their hip pocket. These people are never mentioned in the media; because they own the media (do you really think they want the masses to know who they are?). The “New World Order” is their ultimate objective at any cost which equates to complete world control. These people worship this “NWO” as if it were the savior of mankind. There may be 3K in this group at the most.
Stooges: These are the politicians (all of them) and their appointed subordinates. They all get their marching orders from the Order-lings. None of them have any original thoughts. They just do as they are told by the Order-lings. This also includes the presstitute media talking heads that are responsible for disseminating the lies for the Order-lings. These are the most pathetic of the five because they think they are part of the “in crowd” but really they aren’t; they don’t matter to the Order-lings any more than anyone else. All lawyers are part of this group as well. This group creates some of the lies.
Operatives: These are the police and military. They get their marching orders from the Stooges. Operatives are only a little less pathetic than Stooges because while they (the Operatives) may realize they are expendable, they still think they are better than everyone else. Some middle-level government employees are also part of this group; including independent civilian “contractors”. While there may be some police officers and military personnel that have honorable, altruistic intentions, I believe they are still being used to further implement the NWO agenda. I believe that anyone in this group that is cognizant of this agenda and remains in their present position is in a dangerous place. Their safety and the safety of their families are tenuous.
Enablers: Everyone who is associated with the “entertainment industry”, all “professional athletes” along with all who have anything to do with the modern day coliseum events. Stock brokers are also part of this group. I have labeled them “Enablers” because they assist the Order-lings, Stooges, and Operatives to perpetuate the sham. The entertainment industry creates the smoke-screen of lies that is disseminated by the presstitute media to keep the masses confused and pacified. All other government employees are part of this group as well; all of these employees believe the lies because the government is their livelihood.
The Masses: This is the bulk of the population. This segment of the population I have referred to as the “insouciant masses” in the past; I have referred to them as “insouciant” because this group believes the lies and do not care to know the truth. This group is comprised of the minority portion of the population that is still working at regular jobs and the 50M+ that are subsisting off of welfare and other government assistance programs. The few that are still working at non-government jobs believe the system is still working and they believe the lies because they have a job. The other 50M+ believe the lies because the government is their livelihood as well.
Patriots: This portion of the population is the most segmented. First there are those who claim to be “patriotic” yet in reality their patriotism consists of nothing more than flying a Chinese made, plastic flag on their vehicle; these may in fact be part of the masses, but I will give some the benefit of the doubt; this segment believes the lies. Then there are those who do little more than bitch about the current situation; know little about the true causes of said situation; do not care to learn about the causes because they think they are already omniscient; and offer no solutions; this segment also believes most of the lies. Then there are those that are learning what is wrong; still have much to learn; consequently do not know how to fix things yet, therefore have no solutions to offer; I applaud these people, at least they are open-minded enough to learn the truth; this segment believes only some of the lies. Then there are those who have been aware for decades yet even this group is segmented. Some who have been aware for decades are of the misconception that our problems have only recently come about. Others are of the opinion that our problems have their roots in the beginning or middle of the last century. I on the other hand believe that the problems facing this country started in 1776; I believe none of the lies.
“If you don’t know where to start, go back to the beginning.”
You see, when the disgruntled and disillusioned men who decided they wanted to sever ties with the British crown decided to do so in 1776, they immediately embarked into uncharted territory. Countries had been ruled by kings and emperors for millennia. The idea of men ruling themselves without a sovereign was unheard of. Even the Greek city-state republics of 2000 years before still had a king. So when those men of 1776 severed those ties with Britain they had to devise something to keep order; otherwise chaos would have ensued and the movement would have been for naught. The British would have simply returned. The main problem was an intense distrust of a centralized government with all the power residing with a few men (the king and parliament) who had plenty of minions to do their bidding (the army). One underlying problem was how to get people to do what you want them to do after you have told them they no longer have to follow the rules.
Historical note: The concept of another man, a king, having authority over other men has its’ roots with the nation of Israel and before. The nation of Israel petitioned God to have a king to lead them so they could be like other nations. Prior to this, the nation of Israel had “Judges” in charge that operated under the auspices of deriving their authority from God the Father. Kings are the original form of subjugation of men by other men. Then slavery was invented. It is truly all about control.
Something to think about: Only 56 men signed the unanimous Declaration of 4 July, 1776. If 56 men got together today and openly declared their independence from the Federal government, what do you think would happen? Also consider that there were about 10M people living in the colonies in 1776. Even if a proportionate number of people got together and declared their independence from all government, what do you think would happen?
Back to the main article:
So the lawyers got together and wrote a contract. They called this contract the Articles of Confederation. Then they got representatives from every state to agree to this contract. Ostensibly those representatives were elected and spoke for everyone who lived in their respective states but really they didn’t. Only about 3% of the total population actively supported the move to be independent from the British crown. There was another 3-5% who took a less active part in the movement. The other 92% or so were divided up much like the population of the country today; without all the welfare recipients and the Enablers. Many of the businessmen saw the move as foolhardy and an impediment to trade. Many of the masses saw it as opening up the colonies for Indian and foreign invasion; they had just finished fighting a long war with France ten years before.
Then there was a convention convened in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. This convention was convened under the auspices of amending The Articles of Confederation; which had been written in 1776-7 and officially ratified on 1 March, 1781. Most people know that the Constitution was the end result of this convention. The Articles were not perfect and neither is the Constitution. The main difference between the two is where the authority is claimed to reside. In the Articles it is specifically stated that all authority resides with the states and the people. The Constitution conversely claims to grant specific, limited powers to the Federal government. Both documents are in reality a contract. The Articles were a contract between the states that ratified said document. The Constitution is really a contract between no named parties.
I would like to offer something else to think about here: As I wrote just previously, about 92% of the people living in the colonies at the time were not really in favor of severing ties with Britain. There is no mention of how all of those people felt about being forced to abide by the Articles of Confederation. In my mind there had to be more than just a few who did not recognize that document as being valid. After all, they did not agree to it, why should they recognize it? And remember, swearing allegiance to a document, a piece of paper, had to be a very novel concept then. Previously, everyone followed other men. The only documents that existed were laws and decrees issued by kings and agreements between kings and subjects. A piece of paper is not going to lead an army into battle, listen to your concerns, solve the nation’s problems, nor will it feed or shelter one single person. I mean really, think about it. This is truly lawyer shenanigans compounded exponentially.
Granted, when I was in the Corps, I swore an oath to “support & defend…” as many others have also. But in retrospect, I was very naïve and was filled with noble and altruistic ideals. Had I been fully cognizant of everything then, I would not have chosen the same course. Rule #1 of contracts: a contract entered into without full knowledge of said contract is null and void.
I believe that self-governance is a noble concept but virtually impossible to achieve in practice. It is first predicated on the belief that everyone is equal when they aren’t. Next, it is also predicated on the belief that people are honorable when history has shown that honorable men are rare. Finally there is a dilemma: how to perpetuate self-governance and make it truly binding? The Constitution is a contract that has none of the defining characteristics of a true contract. There are no named parties; it is open-ended (a contractual sin to the nth degree); and no provisions for opting out or ending said contract (the 13 states of the Confederacy had every right to “opt out” and look what happened); to name but a few.
The government claims to govern by consent of the governed by authority of the Constitution. In reality, under that document, we are all governed (controlled) by forced proxy under threat of violent retribution for non-compliance. When was the last time, if ever, that the general population of this country was actually queried as to what their desires were about anything? Then, those making the inquiry actually did what the majority of the people wanted? That was not even the case in 1776. After all, 92% of the population did not support the move to sever ties with Britain. They just went along with their lives which were of more concern to them. I believe the only true, legitimate form of self-governance of a country would be a pure democracy; one were every adult votes on every issue. It was T. Jefferson that said “the best government is no government at all...” But in reality a pure democracy is nothing more than mob rule which leads to “Group think” where the rights of the individual are superceded by the desires of the majority. Allegedly, this situation of “group think” is what the Constitution claims to guard against.
Today there are many so-called “patriots” that have been clamoring for a “return to the Constitution”. I would like to point out again that the Constitution is what this country has been allegedly operating under since 1789. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. Do you really think that if we were to “return to the Constitution” that the same crap would not happen again and faster? I recognize completely that men and women have inalienable rights; these rights are derived from The Creator. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were supposedly written with these rights in mind. As I wrote just previously, that document is a contract with none of the defining characteristics of a contract. In reality, men and women, we as a country, are under no obligation to The Creator to abide by this non-contract called the Constitution. The Father did not ordain the Constitution like He did the Ten Commandments with Moses. In reality, all the lawyers did in 1781 and 1787 was to substitute a piece of paper for the king; the greatest lawyer scheme ever devised. In order for either of those documents to be truly binding upon all of us, all parties involved would first have to be named in the document and then each one of us personally would have to agree to be bound by one of those documents and then, most importantly, honorably do so.
I am not advocating a return to being part of the United Kingdom. I have no desire to be any man’s subject. The only Man I am subject to is my Lord Jesus.
There are many “patriots” that are of the misconception that there is a “quick-fix” to our problems (a return to the Constitution). They want a “15 minute revolution” and then life to return to their idea of “normal”. Aside from the fact that this notion of a “quick fix” is very myopic, it just ain’t going to happen. It has taken 238 years to get us into this mess; a solution is not going to happen overnight.
There are many issues facing us not the least of which is common defense of our homeland. This has been a problem since God created man because men by and large are not honorable. The main reason for this lack of honor among men is greed as I see it; greed is the reason why The Father ordained the tenth commandment. I believe that common defense is the only legitimate responsibility necessary for the well-being of a population on a whole. I believe that all of the “duties and responsibilities” other than “common defense” that are outlined in the Constitution are not really germane to the common interests of all concerned. Those other duties and responsibilities are actually interests of specific segments of the population. For example: promoting trade only benefits those men who wish to conduct business abroad. Promoting trade with other countries does not benefit everyone contrary to what some would have people to believe. The present state of the economy of this country is a direct result of enabling trade world wide. Printing and coining money only benefits bankers. If individuals were able to determine the value of some commodity on their own, money would be superfluous. This would be true freedom because it would make banks and bankers unneeded and they would no longer be able to artificially manipulate the value of commodities. I believe that the Constitution is just another vehicle designed to enable some men to control other men. The men who wrote that document professed to want freedom yet they imposed a plethora of constraints through that document. That document, a non-binding, non-contract, lawyer fabrication, has been used as an excuse to control people for 238 years.
I readily admit to not having all of the answers; I have done so in the past. I am a writer. Much of my writing is philosophical in nature. Much of philosophy is recognizing an issue; like the first step in problem solving is to identify the problem. Many times philosophy offers no solutions; instead its’ focus is to get the individual to think. A person who thinks for themselves is an independent person.
As I wrote earlier, the real dilemma with self-governance as I see it is how to make it legitimately binding and equal for all concerned along with defining the real necessities. I do not see the Constitution as a solution; aside from the fact that it is not really binding to anyone alive today, it has already been subverted and perverted by dishonest men. Regardless of religious points of view, The Father ordained the Ten Commandments, I say let us start there. Much as a house built on stone, the Ten Commandments is the perfect foundation. Then we must determine an equitable method of common defense and defense of the innocent. Beyond these, I see no justification for more. Trade between parties is the business of the parties involved and no one else. Granted there will be business disputes. The real issue here is one of honor. Considering that business disagreements were the root cause of civil courts coming into existence, I still believe that it is the parties’ involved sole responsibility to solve. I am not of the opinion that a “civilized society” is one that has a vast and complex legal system. A “legal system” is nothing more than a reason for lawyers to exist and proliferate. I believe that a “civilized society” is one were people have honor. People with honor conduct business affairs justly and fairly; which would make a vast and complex legal system superfluous. People with honor treat others with respect. People with honor do not tell lies and then try to justify their lies with more lies (hint, hint). Any other corresponding issue (money, tariffs, affixing weights and measures, etc.) is also a non-issue if people were allowed true freedom. Education of children is the sole responsibility of said child’s parents. To claim that educating children benefits everyone, and therefore everyone’s responsibility, is total bullshit and a lame justification for aggrandizing government. Defense of an individual’s home is their sole responsibility. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that an individual is responsible for their safety and an individual’s safety is not the responsibility of the police. Providing food and shelter for one’s self and family is their sole responsibility also; just as securing a means for providing for these needs is also no one else’s responsibility. There is nothing in the Constitution or God’s Word that alludes to a right to a job.
I also recognize that there are other issues that would have to be addressed. One such issue is that of the right of individuals to travel on what are now considered public roads. I can see a situation arising were an individual may want to use a road that is bordered on both sides by property owned by the same person or people. Those property owners may deem the road their property and thus restrict others use of the road. As I have maintained all along, I don’t have all the answers, but the real issue in this example is that of whose rights should prevail.
Ultimately, a person either wants to be “governed” i.e. controlled or wants to be free. Look up the root word “govern” in the dictionary and see what I mean. You can’t have it both ways. Any person who advocates any form of “government” wants to control others because they don’t have the cojones to stand alone. It is that simple. Then, if one truly believes in individual rights, what right does the majority, or even a minority, have to dictate to an individual, or the whole, how he/she/they lives their life as long as that individual does not infringe another’s same rights? I know it is difficult to grasp the concept of a self-directed life with no constraints. After all, we are all born into a family with parents who are the original authority figures in everyone’s life. Parents start our lives by controlling every aspect of our lives. But, a truly self-directed life necessitates taking responsibility for one’s actions and accepting the consequences of those decisions without any “safety net”. The overwhelming majority today has abdicated these responsibilities. Almost all have been conditioned to accept “government” as an acceptable substitute for parents and look to government as their safety net. Consequently, I see this issue as a conundrum for our society because the solution I see would be the implementation of drastic and overreaching changes.
One last historical note: The Treaty of Paris of 1783 allegedly ended hostilities here in the colonies. An acceptance vote was passed in the British Parliament which supposedly included recognition of the sovereignty of the colonies. I can’t find any reference to King George III agreeing to this treaty. Then, the British continued to usurp its’ authority over the colonies both on the high seas and here in disputed territory. These continued acts of aggression eventually lead to another conflict in 1812-1814. The Treaty of Ghent ended these hostilities yet there is no recognition of the sovereignty of the colonies in that Treaty and once again, no reference to George III accepting this either. I get from this history lesson that the British crown secretly believes that the U.S. is still under their rule and is just waiting for the right time to regain control. After all, both world wars were British wars originally and not ours. Why else would the tabloids in this country constantly have nonsense about the British “royals”? After all, the Brits are not the only “royals” remaining on this planet yet they are the only “royals” heard about here. I believe that the constant nonsense about the British “royals” is just more conditioning of the masses to accept them as being overlords. If we were to have a revolution again, that may be what they are waiting for; to step into the ensuing chaos and offer the “solution” of their sovereignty.
Greed and irresponsible behavior are the root causes of the problems we face as a nation. There is no “quick fix”; no “15 minute revolution” is going to take us back to where we want to be. I have my own idea of the solution to our problems. My solution would be unsavory for most concerned. I choose to leave it at that.