The court is supposed to be an embodiment of the height of civilization. In the United States, we are brought up to believe that the justice system and the government, in general, operate in service of the innocent. The burden of proof, we are told, is on the prosecution, and we are judged by a jury of our “peers.”
This American system, held up as a unique model of justice, is founded on Western revolutionary thought aimed at disrupting existing societal structures. This restructuring, characterized by bloodshed, economic collapse, and exploitation, was proclaimed to be induced in the name of freedom, the rights of the individual, by the people, for the people.
A government is inherently nonconsensual. How does one consent to being governed? Does Lady Liberty visit every American at birth, presenting infants with a social contract which they then agree to of their own volition? Of course not. So when, precisely, do American citizens give their consent to be governed? More importantly, what weight does such consent actually carry? Is there any feasible recourse for those who don’t consent to be governed in such a manner?
The common answer drilled into American brains is that, being a democratic-republic, the people rely on their elected representatives. The expression “taxation without representation” is remembered and repeated as if having a “representative” in Washington justifies the federal government’s immoral actions. The kids can’t read, and your body decays with the fear that comes with food insecurity and children who hunger, but at least you have representation.
Are you not grateful for your “freedoms” that continue to be paid for in the blood of your sons and the occupancy of your time?
What could the so-called representatives in the Capital possibly represent other than their self-serving interests related to their elite social circle? Does a single argument exist that articulates how the average person (much less the poor one) can exert some tangible influence over the way they’re governed? The whole idea is ridiculous, with roots too easy to trace. Idealism is a wicked murder when willful blindness renders men thoughtless—victims of their own fear.
The rapacious courtiers within the Royal courts of monarchical Western Europe were desperate to maintain, increase, and consolidate their power. They knew they were losing grip and had to act fast to maintain control, and this phenomenon is not unique to the West. Following the Second World War, Japan underwent an “intelligent reconstruction,” an idea eerily similar to intelligent design, as if the new state were a perverse reconstruction of God.
This idea makes sense, as the abolition of tradition tends to push societies toward Godlessness—a place where humans make decisions and execute actions that had previously been designated to Divine authority. No state or system on earth can effectively take over a role that truly belongs in the hands of God—every effort leads to blood, mutiny, and demolition.
It’s a shame.
'-M. Shultz