Was The Destruction Of America Really That Simple?

Attempting to explain the difference between the society we are, a republic, and the illusion that so many think we are, a democracy, this retort was offered to this simple fact. We are a democracy because we have representative government.

That simple analogy was so beyond any reasoning I’d ever considered, like an epiphany it became obvious that this simple misconstruction answered the reality that today this nation is so far from its design, our designers would not recognize it.

If we envisioned the course of our nation, following a path like a river, we’d now be walking beside a dry stream, like one in the Texas drought, where the only thing in the river bed would be is dry sand. It would be void of any semblance of it once was, or any suggestion of what it once was.

The why would not be because of a drought, thought that may be an analogy, but because as a society we have so diverted, and changed the course of our design, there is nothing left for us to ‘even recognize’ who, or what, this nation’s miracle once was.

Is it that simple? Is our nation’s destruction accelerated and advanced as easily as replacing the design of representative government with the entry drug of communism, democracy?

For those who question this analysis, let me share who first advanced this obvious conclusion, Vladimir Lenin, who realized that it is the perfect tool, this democracy—for it by its very construct—creates the cornerstone of communism; that there will never be the respect of nature’s laws, and nature’s God, if advanced. For foremost in the constants of nature’s law is this simple endowment of self-evident acknowledgement, that all men are equal. That all men are born with free-will, that all men have domination over their greatest wealth—that very life of creators gift—and that all men have the rights to be protected from the domination…and the control…of other men.

This reality has been confirmed in the reality of mankind since the ‘trial of Socrates.’ Man’s first challenge to the power of the most dangerous entity ever created from the mind of mankind, government. It has been confirmed by the philosophical evaluations of philosophers over the ages. From Socrates, to Montesquieu, to Tocqueville, to our own present American philosopher, Thomas Sowell of this reality.

Thinking of the retort, that we have elected representatives—thus we have a democracy—was a simple analogy of error we seldom consider. For the design of using the vote…as in representative government of this nation’s design…and the universal voting rights of everyone, as in democracy, are as inverses as night and day.

If as a society, we do not understand this reality. What is missing creating this error? In my simple analysis, my conclusion is that we as a nation do not understand physics. The reason we as a nation must understand physics, is that the reasoning required to comprehend our design, is based on the simple reality of the second law of thermodynamics, or as many know of cause and effect, Newton’s second law of motion. The concept, the fact we must comprehend and understand is ‘cause and effect.’ For it is the actions of the decision to do, by man, and the fact that he…that same man…will reap the results of those actions which is the basic knowledge we must comprehend.

For it is this simple fact, this simple constant, that is our nation’s design. As such, those who voted in this nation were never designed to be universally all. For what rational nation would allow those to vote, who did not have to live with the results of the decisions they made. How can a man, who pays for the excesses of government spending, and the result of the actions of that government, in rational reasoning, allow those who would benefit from the theft of taxation to have the opportunity to also vote? It is the most illogical, irrational, and unreasonable concept ever devised by man. For by doing so, it refutes that basic concept of physics; that the cause and effect must be in the genre of politics have results to all ‘equal.’

There never was, nor was never intended that all men in a society would be allowed to vote based on the simple reality—they exist! For to do so is so irrational, illogical, and in diametric opposition to the simple physics of the physical world, the universe in which we live, it is incomprehensible that anyone would even contemplate such irrational, illogical, design.

Is that the problem? Is it that our society, the men who inhabit this planet, have no more understanding of the ‘constants’ which make up the universe? Is it the simple reality that in all of the empirical history of man, we have one thing that is an example of confirmed variable? Is it beyond understanding that the variable is, that man, and his ability of ‘abstract’ thought and reason, is that variable? Alternatively, do we even comprehend what the concept of variable is? Do we even lack that?

There are many different definitions used in many genres that identify variable for their use. The only constant is that ‘variable is not consistent.’ In the society of man, this is most easily recognized by considering an experiment. In the hypothesis of man we conduct experiments to use the same genesis, our foundations, resulting in a conclusion. If the conclusion is repeated over and over every time we do the experiment, then we say because of the results are constant, not variable, then the hypothesis is proved, and accepted.

Yet in the actions of man, there is no hypothesis of our political environment we require proof. For in our society of man, we repeat our experiments over and over, even when in that experiment we have—by the results—confirmed, proven it is failure. Yet we, in the environment of the artificial entity of man, government, do it again and again, with failure after failure. The difference, we compose different inputs to the same experiment, proven to fail, with some illogical illusion that, no, now we have the answer. Never once do those who believe in ideology, not reality, accept the fact that the very constraint, the very idea, is in error and will never no matter the application be successful, or work.

The examples could fill a book; communism, islamism, democracy, totalitarian sovereignty, which are all synonyms of the same disease that has plagued mankind since its conception; government. It is no more evident than the illogical insanity of advancing both theft, slavery, and insanity of the ideology of communist control—by government—of the health care system.

In the history of the literacy of mankind—there is one, and only one—example of a concept of government with the result of success. It was the wonder of the United States of America, from 1775 to 1789. This brief window of existence a nation with the only design of government that had within its construct, all of the protections of man’s natural laws, and the laws of God’s design were preserved. It wasn’t even a design of western man, it was the plagiarizing of the construct of the tribes of the North American continent; where the Iroquois federation of five tribes, established a unwritten constitutional government and elaborate political system. The key, the wonder, you not only enumerate—restrict—government, you keep it powerless, unable to dictate—to be the totalitarian sovereignty—to the society of man. This is the reason of this nation’s very existence, and something as a nation, with the corruption of the illusion we are a democracy, and those who do not have to live with the error of their vote, have destroyed.

That is the error. That is our demise. That is the ignorance of our society. Perhaps that is the easiest correct. The means to restore reality, restore reason, and restore logic to this absolute insanity of the path currently of this nation. Perhaps the answer is that simple. If we ensure that those who vote, must be responsible to pay for the actions of this government; perhaps the sanity of our design can be restored.

This is not something new, something original of our nation, not known before. For long before this nation, in the early 1700’s the Scottish in their union with England made the obvious observation. ‘Government has no right to steal in the form of taxation, that which an individual by the criminal laws of the nation cannot do.’

Is it that simple? If we reject the power of government to steal in the name of government—that no man in society can do—is that just how simple our preservation may be?

Written by Dan Short.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *