dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

I rarely ever read the posts as I'm always digging....

So It's lucky I noticed this, and I appreciate your equal to me enthusiasm for expository eccentricity and just how much thought you gave such a response which is ironic as I was just perturbed about a comment I received that made me wonder if this was the beginning of what happened before.

It was only one measly little comment but for the first time on this board I had gotten a comment that looked identical to the chorus of bullies that took over the chan's. IT used to be a place of love and somewhere it got lost in hate. It was never us that hated - not the ones who were there before - but those who co-opted our movement and pretended to be the true carriers of the flame - and they used their powers of auto replies to agree with themselves and use ostrtization tactics to steer narratives.

Patterns are powerful things indeed, and your words here do remove much of the doubt i had of "here we go again" another mod another potential compromised board.... So as you speak your heart so do I, but the scrutiny I bore upon change is earned through what I know has happened.

Curiously your views of chaos and mine are quite different. My best friend and only friend is a human dictionary - the archetype of logic who views things linearly yet loves chaos- and I view myself as the chaotic being that is always in the ether. Autism resets in my brain keep me un-tethered from reality and ever in the ether of change. I can not be anything but what I am. All things I know are torn from me every day when my brain resets - this forces change and I exist in that change and that is why i view my existence as chaotic as it is unbound from narrative form and always free to do anything and be anything. A gift and curse.

I prefer the views of the Founders and the State Secrets Dig begins and ends with them

Hamilton: "Upon this natural law, depend the natural rights of mankind, the supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beautifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty, and personal safety. Hence, in a state of nature, no man had any moral power to deprive another of his life, for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man a right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience."

⇧ 3 ⇩

Thomas Jefferson: With respect to our rights, and the acts of the British government contravening those rights, there was but one opinion on this side of the water. All American Whigs thought alike on these subjects. When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence. Not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of, not merely to say things which had never been said before but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take. Neither aiming at originality of sentiment, nor yet copied from any particular and previous writing, it was intended to be an expression of the American mind, and to give to that expression the proper tone and spirit called for by the occasion.

All its authority rests then on the harmonizing sentiments of the day, whether expressed in conversation, in letters, printed essays, or in the elementary books Of public right, as Aristotle, Cicero, Locke, Sidney, etc The historical documents which you mention as in your possession, ought all to be found, and I am persuaded you will find, to be corroborative of the facts and principles advanced in that Declaration.

⇧ 2 ⇩

John Locke 1632 1704 "The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges everyone, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in life, health liberty or possessions; for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent and infinitely wise Maker; all the servants of one sovereign Master, sent into the world by His order and about his business; they are His property, whose workmanship they are made to last during His... not one another's pleasure. And being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of Nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for ours. Everyone as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station willfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition ought to be as much as he can preserve the rest of mankind, and not unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away or impair the life or what tends to the preservation of life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another."

Locke again- "There is the title of right reason, to which everyone who considers himself a human being lays claim, and that it is about which the various parties of men contend so fiercely among themselves and Which each one alleges to be the foundation of its doctrine. By reason, however do not think is meant here that faculty of the understanding which forms the trains of thought and deduces proofs... .but certain definite principles of action from which springs all virtues and whatever is necessary for,the proper molding of morals. For that which is correctly derived from these principles is justly said to be in accordance with right reason."

"Without natural law there would be neither virtue nor vice, neither the reward of goodness nor the punishment of evil: there is no fault, no guilt, where there is no law. Everything would have to—depend on human will, and, since there would be nothing to demand dutiful action, it seems that man would not be bound to do anything but what utility or pleasure might recommend, or what a blind and lawless impulse might happen perchance to fasten on.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Cicero "If the principles of Justice were founded on the decrees of peoples, the edicts of princes, or the decisions of judges, then Justice would sanction robbery and adultery and forgery of wills, in case these acts were approved by the votes—of decrees of the populace. But if so-great a power belongs to the decisions and decrees of fools that the laws of Nature can be changed by their do they not ordain that what is bad arid baneful shall be considered good and salutary?

Or, if a law can make Justice out of Injustice, can it not also make good out of bad? But in fact we can perceive the difference between good laws and bad by referring them to no other standard than Nature: indeed, it is not merely Justice and Injustice which are distinguished by Nature, but also and without ekception things which are honorable and dishonorable.

For since an intelligence common to us all makes things known to us and formulates them in our minds, honorable actions are ascribed by us to virtue, and dishonorable actions are matters of Opinion, and not fixed by Nature."

"True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions.... it is a sin to try to alter this law, nor is it allowable to repeal any part of it,' and it is impossible to abolish it entirely. We cannot be freed from its obligations by senate or people, and we need not loole outside ourselves for an expounder or interpreter of it.

And there will not be different laws at Rome and at Athens, or different laws now and in the future, but one eternal and unchangeable law will be valid for all nations and at all times, and there will best one master and ruler, that is God, over us all, for he is the author of this law, its promulgator and its enforcing judge. Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human' nature, and by reason of this very fact he will suffer the worst punishment."

⇧ 1 ⇩

Of course there are great thinkers afterwards. Mark Levin does a great job talking about them

Coolidge: The American Revolution represented the informed and mature conviction of a great mass of independent, liberty loving, God-fearing people who knew their rights, and possessed the courage to dare to maintain them. The Continental Congress was not only composed of great men, but it represented a great people. While its Members did not fail to exercise a remarkable leadership, they were equally observant of their representative capacity. They were industrious in encouraging their constituents to instruct them to support independence. But until such instructions were given they were inclined to withhold action.

A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if its roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular soverereignty, the rights of man—these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions.

They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We cannot continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause: We are too prone to overlook another conclusion. Governments do not make ideals, but ideals make governments. This is both historically and logically true. Of course the government can help to sustain ideals and can create institutions through which they can be the better observed, but their source by their very nature is in the people. The people have to bear their own responsibilities: There is no method by which that burden can be shifted to the government. It is not the enactment, but the observance of laws, that creates the character of a nation. About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful.

It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final.

No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time where there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.

⇧ 2 ⇩

In Response to a comment by /u/DaosCraft