Update the Authoritarian Enabler
In Authoritarian Enabler, I argued for lifting the NDA that submits our Guards, as we as America’s officers are described in the Declaration of Independence, to an oath of silence to “enthusiastically support America’s policies”.
In its current form, even under the auspices of loving, caring leadership; the existing non-disclosure agreement is a tool of tyranny without exception, as without amendment will eventually come to be abused once again. As is generally the case with oppressive rule, the devil lies in the very subversive, subjective detail, or omission thereof.
Recently, I’ve begun watching Turn on Netflix (NFLX). It’s the story of General Washington’s devoted spies who used deception to gain the advantage on the enemy. Under the weight of overt oppression, America’s colonists chose to enlist in the war for independence as a result of gentle persuasion to the cause of Independence rather than through the coercive tactics of those who they sought to gain their independence from.
These spies, who were naturally adept at the subtleties of speech and listened with an earnest ear, served behind enemy lines under the cover of the Red Coat. It is because of their dedicated service that Washington gained the information he needed to anticipate the moves of the enemy, to confuse their commanders, and ultimately to win the war against modern history’s first global empire.
Washington knew and understood that while the sun never set on the British empire, and their subjects labored by day, the other half lay peaceably under the cover of darkness. Indeed, it is because of General Washington’s spy mastery and the daring actions of those under his charge, that President Reagan was free to ably exalt George Orwell’s genius over 200 years after our Declaration, “People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
This is the wisdom of the Tao — and as usual, it hides in plain sight.
The symbol of yin and yang (above) shows the interrelated and interconnected nature of life: lightness begets darkness and darkness begets lightness. By shifting the shape, you may see that yin and yang is also two sides of the same ancient Chinese coin (below).
Looking from above with the aid of light, darkness emanates from the center. Conversely, looking from below and into the light, only the center will be illuminated as the rest of the coin appears dark. Set the two sides of the coin adjacent to each other, give a slight twist, and you have the symbol of the Tao, yin and yang. Apply this to physics, and I expect you will find a wormhole enabling instant travel to distant galaxies and the parallel universes of our dreams.
The complexity and depth of meaning to the yin yang symbol of Tao is hidden in the simplicity and beauty of it. Enlightened leadership understands and commands this nuance against the misguided to establish just rule.
Sun Tzu, the philosopher military strategist, was a student of the Tao Te Ching, The Book of the Way, a book of poetic wisdom. So too were students of the Way, was General Washington and the whole cadre of Founding Fathers who crafted our Constitution through another version of the Tao, Deist Christianity.
Deist Christianity is a study of natural christening, according to the Laws of Nature and in the context of the trinity, the circle of life and inevitable death, through the eyes of the infinite duality of nature.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
This first line of the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is drawn from the Founding Fathers’ observations of nature, which they make explicit in the first and preceding paragraph of the Declaration, “…the separate and equal station to the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them….” But it is the clause that follows that shows the true genius of our Founding Fathers, and the very basis of our Liberty, not only in the words, but also in the positioning within the Declaration itself: “…a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”
In one deft move, a powerful flanking maneuver on the unsuspecting British, the Founding Fathers declared their independence, their universal right to free speech and liberty, to be predicated upon the immutable Laws of Nature thereby inextricably linking Lady Liberty to Mother Nature as two sides of the same coin.
We are told, and it is true, that America is a nation founded on Christianity. However, like today, there were many varieties of religion and spirituality: European, African and indigenous; present among the colonists at the time of our nation’s founding. Like today, this pluralism, as with nature, was the fundamental basis for our resilience against tyrannical British rule. Once again, the truth of the history of America’s dogma is full of nuance.
Poem 42 of the Tao Te Ching, entitled Yin and Yang, explains the relationship between nature and Christianity:
The Tao produces unity;
unity produces duality;
duality produces trinity;
trinity produces all things.
That our forefathers drafted the Constitution in such a way so as to juxtapose liberty with nature illustrates their keen insight into the nature of their liberty, and ours.
America was not founded on Christianity, but upon Protestant Christianity specifically, with all the sects contained therein, Deist Christianity included. This insight gives proper heed to the knowledge that their basis for society was built upon the revolution of another, in this case, the British independence from Roman rule, and that, as is the case with nature, true strength rests in the diversity of all things.
Likewise, in paragraphs seven and eight of our Declaration, our forefathers state that the King actively sought to prevent the immigration and naturalization to the States in order to keep the colonies weak, knowing that the strength of the people lie in the diversity thereof.
“He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.”
“He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without, and convulsions from within.”
From this protestation, we may also deduce the appropriate policy for the dominant vexing issue of the day: immigration and border control. In order to fully appreciate the importance of appropriate policy in this regard, we must first understand how we came to be as a nation.
To Reflect Our History
In 1787, Congress approved a proposed convention to amend the Articles of Confederation in order to strengthen the fledgling federal government so that it would balance the power wielded by the individual States. This first constitution was written hastily in a time of revolutionary war in 1781, rife with shortcomings, and insufficient to withstand the challenges of a budding nation. For that reason, the Constitutional Convention labored in secret throughout the summer of 1787 to produce the Constitution that we, as America’s officers, have sworn an oath to defend.
There was just one problem — the Convention required that the Constitution be ratified by a supermajority approval of 9 of 13 states to take effect. Like today’s now defunct prescribed three-fifths standard for Supreme Court appointees, the two-thirds supermajority was based on the concept of a minimally viable consensus and balance of power between the Congress and the Executive. Without a Bill of Rights to ensure the sovereign rights of the individual, that which had not yet been drafted, there were not enough states to ratify our Constitution and birth our new nation.
Of the uncommitted states, Massachusetts, in particular, refused to ratify the Constitution without political protections for the individual, such as freedom of speech, religion, and of the press; and reservation of undelegated powers to the states, the latter of which endows the states with any constitutional power not explicitly reserved for the federal government.
The first ten amendments that we now know as the Bill of Rights was the result of a compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. With the promise of a Bill of Rights, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina and New Hampshire ratified the Constitution. It is to this compromise, with balance between federal and state’s rights akin to that of yin and yang, that we now have a United States of America based on Constitutional Liberty.
Here, once again, in the very first line of the First Amendment to the Constitution, our Founding Fathers show their foresight and understanding of the necessity of flexibility in governance; that, as written in the Declaration of Independence, “…respect for the opinions of mankind…” is necessary to “…secure the Blessings of Liberty….”
The First Amendment reads as follows:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
At this time in the 1700s, the crown used religion to control thought as a means to suppress rebellion among the colonies. To decry your disbelief of the One True God of Christ or to proclaim any other faith was considered blasphemy and punishable by death.
Thomas Jefferson, our third president and the primary author of our Declaration of Independence, said that “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.”
When our forefathers penned that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and in positioning this clause on religion as the preeminent right of the sovereign individual, the Founding Fathers provided for the basis of freedom of speech and of the press. Likewise, Benjamin Franklin once said, “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation first must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” What he didn’t say was that the first step in subverting the freeness of speech is to stir fear of and discontent for people of differing religion or nationality. That is why zealous hatred, bigotry, and racism, cloaked in nationalism, religiosity or otherwise, must be guarded against with equal zeal.
Put simply, a president elected upon the premise of building a wall, the same president who challenges people of diverse backgrounds to “go back to where you came from;” who militarizes the border; who separates parents from their kids; who keeps people in cages as though they were animals; who closes ports-of-entry to those seeking asylum; and who criminalizes illegal border crossings rather than properly categorizing them as a civil violation as was the case prior to 9/11; the intent is clear — to undermine liberty in America.
We, as a nation, have grown since 1776, and the world has gotten much smaller too. The colonists were primarily of Western European and African descent. The Muslim world lay much further to the east and was therefore at a competitive disadvantage for populating the new world. As a result, Christianity was the dominant religion because it was the religion of the people in power in the new world. I estimate that various African faiths were also prevalent at the same time, as was the case for Native Americans who practiced a nature-based faith of their own.
Just as a food chain is dependent upon the distinct links within the chain, ecosystems increase and decrease in resilience relative to the diversity of the component species. Likewise, and as a direct result of their observations of the Laws of Nature, the Founding Fathers observed that the strength of a nation lies in the diversity of its people and its ideas.
It is in this context that we understand that the measures championed by our current president to limit the diversity of immigration and ideas is nothing short of a deliberately planned 9/11-style direct affront on Lady Liberty herself. Indeed, his actions to intercept and obstruct are the “IO” in “USA PATRIOT Act”.
And Secure Our Liberty
For the entirety of my life, I have been blessed with certainty of purpose, and let my conviction of faith guide my actions in service of the duality of Liberty and Nature, so that we, myself included, may find unity within ourselves. In doing so, I have made decisions for one reason or another, which didn’t make sense to me nor likely anyone else at the time. These choices have caused effects of profound pain, suffering, remorse, and reflection. Ironically, it is precisely because of these choices and effects that I have been able to discover, learn and come to better understand the complex confusion that facilitated the hijacking of America, and now, more intimately of the relationship between Liberty, Nature, and of the Self.
Since 2015, I have been working on a lending and investment company called Earth Loans that would facilitate the growth and use of planet-friendly products and services, thereby displacing the deleterious and damaging effects of a fossil fuel-based economy, and reversing the parasitic relationship into a symbiotic one between the two most powerful forces on Earth, Consumer Behavior and Mother Nature. It is in this context, having already served with the Marine Corps and errantly acting in a manner that would bring down upon me the ire of United States Government and subsequently suffering from USA PATRIOT Act-enabled loss of liberty, that I began to learn of the interdependent connections between Liberty and Nature. Only now, after reflection upon yet another painful setback, have I come to realize the linkage between Liberty and Nature with Self.
As my time of healing, solitude and reflection in Puerto Rico came to a close, and government obstruction along with it, albeit without fully knowing so at the time, I chose to act on faith once more in response to what appeared to be a sort of olive branch and invitation to finally launch my company with the assistance and supervision of a talented business incubation team. Nearly 12 months after submitting my application to the venture contest, I received an invitation to apply, completing an aptitude assessment and subsequent admission to an incubation counterpart on the same evening. In the following days, I studied the personnel roster, their experiences and the relationships between them, coming to the conclusion that the program appeared to have been deliberately designed to facilitate and expedite the launch of Earth Loans.
This was a dream come true.
However, with further study, I learned that the contract to which I would submit to participate in the program lacked a clause to protect my ownership stake in the company, just as the Constitution failed to protect individual rights without the Bill of Rights.
This was a dilemma. Here was the opportunity that I had been waiting for; however, it was wrapped in paper that would require my submission to their authority or risk losing every ounce of sweat and financial equity that I had invested in the years past and for the next 15 years hence.
I sought counsel from a friend on the island who suggested to go forth with awareness and not fall for the trick. Easy as it may sound, this presented a conundrum: How was I to make the most of the opportunity without also subjecting myself to the danger of another 15 years of entrapment?
Settling on a choice to make a good faith effort, I accepted the agreement with the missing the Mandatory Dilution clause as it was, knowing that if I followed through with the agreement that I would risk losing 100% of my ownership stake. Nevertheless, I sold my Puerto Rican-based possessions to raise just enough money to make the trip to Buffalo in order to participate in the program. Once arrived, I informed the team that I would require at least part-time employment if I were to complete the payment plan totaling $800, with the latter two payments yet to be made.
The venture organization had investments in a variety of interesting and promising startups, most of which were hiring. I submitted applications for a variety of jobs, ranging from Customer Service Representative at $13.50 per hour to Logistics Manager at $80,000 per year. Naturally, I expected that since they had a need for talent and I had a need for employment that we would find mutual agreement and I would continue in the program. When employment failed to materialize and I predictably ran out of money and consequently could not make the next scheduled payment, it seemed to me that they were not holding up their end of the bargain. After three bounced attempts to withdraw payment, the program subsequently bounced me from continued participation.
This situation, like our two-sided coin, was at once both a frustrating disappointment and a fortuitous occasion. Until then, approximately half way through the program, I frequently boiled over, struggling to justify my labor knowing that it would most likely be in vain as my efforts would be subject to the whimsical will of nameless corporate financiers.
At the half way marker, I was beyond the point at which I could withdraw from the agreement without being contractually bound for the next two years. I could only be excused from that commitment if they dropped me rather than the other way around. Once I found myself on the outside looking in and free from the contract, an ease came upon me that I had not felt since prior to having signed the agreement two months earlier. I reasoned that after having established my bona fides as a strong entrepreneurial talent, that if they desired my services, they would include the Mandatory Dilution clause and either facilitate a part-time role or a small seed investment so that I could continue with the program. When this failed to happen, I decided it was time to move onto something that was completely within my own control, writing a full account of Hijacking America and the specific actions needed to restore and secure the Blessings of Liberty.
When we are in the midst of processing a challenging situation, we are sometimes blind to the causes, seeing only the effects. Other times, we are aware of the problem and unable to control the emotional effect. In either case, acting on effect, rather than on cause only leads to other unintended effects. In my case, processing the simultaneous and directly opposing desires of wanting to continue while also desiring to maintain my personal sovereignty and conviction thereof proved to be an irreconcilable situation. In these scenarios, often times the best action is no action at all.
As I process and seek to understand the entirety of my predicament; as I have now consulted both the Tao and the trinity of founding documents for many months to the same end; I seem to have stumbled upon the wisdom of a child. While behaving very much like a child in protest and so choosing to do nothing rather than to choose the lesser of two evils, I find understanding in poems 37, Stop Striving, 43, Stillness and Silence, and 44, True Freedom:
The way of the Tao is simple –
stop striving, defeat desire.
In the absence of striving, there is peace;
in the absence of desire, there is satisfaction.”
Stillness and Silence
The soft overcomes the hard;
the flexible conquers the stiff;
the ethereal penetrates the solid.
This is why there is great advantage
in stillness and silence
over movement and speaking.”
The man who knows when to stop
is free to go on.”
Additionally, I must acknowledge that in referencing Stillness and Silence especially, that I have much to learn with respect to silence. The price paid for exuberant speech rather than that of silence is best captured in poem 26, Self-Mastery:
Being flippant himself,
he lost the respect of his subjects.
Failing to control himself,
he lost the control of the empire.”
For those of average stature such as myself, this may be interpreted as not the loss of empire for there is no empire to lose, but for the potential loss of love, influence and respect among friends, family and foes alike.
There’s a reason that we are given a lifetime, perhaps many lifetimes; and I believe that reason is to achieve mastery over the Self. It’s no simple task given that the nature of this self mastery lies in the ironic humility of knowing that one may never achieve it — the yin and yang of Self.
Processing takes time and is not often fully understood until the lesson is learned. Until then, one can only rely upon his instinct, convictions and volition. Reflecting and writing in this moment helps me to better understand a second distressing dilemma that I grappled with while writing my forthcoming book, Hijacking America, in which I attempt to prescribe policy in order to rectify our loss of liberty and to safeguard her for the future.
For All Time;
In my article, Authoritarian Enabler, I argued to lift the NDA that holds America’s officers to an oath of secrecy in defense of America’s policies. I believed, and still hold true, that the people are better served as properly informed than to be held hostage to the fear of uncertainty. With that said, having served in the military and understanding that intelligence leads operations and not the other way around, I sensed that something was missing from my initial assessment, and yet, I couldn’t quite determine what exactly was missing.
As I wrote in my Dirty Tricks series, most challenging is the task of proving the absence of some thing. Likewise, identifying what is missing can be equally challenging. However, I’ve discovered that at least for myself, that the best lessons are not learned lightly because learning does not equal understanding, but rather that they are most often and best understood after terrible heartbreaking loss.
After suffering the loss of liberty for seven years, a plight that I would wish upon no other, the concept and cause of liberty is now very deeply personal. So too, I expect that others who may have suffered the loss of their liberty in ways very personal to themselves would also share a deep connection to the cause of their suffering. For that reason, in the latter two months in which I drafted my book after finally choosing to let go of Earth Loans, I couldn’t shake the idea that I was still missing the target with respect to the NDA.
Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution states that “Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy….”
Our Founding Fathers understood that without the aid of General Washington’s spy servants the war for independence could not have been won, and thusly preserved special treatment for the necessary precautionary measure of intelligence and secrecy. When President Truman reflected with pithy, saying that, “Secrecy and democracy don’t mix,” it is very likely that he, too, couldn’t quite pin the tail on the donkey of the missing word in the NDA.
Pledge Your Enthusiastic Support
Not until this morning did the answer finally come to me: what is missing is a single word, “Constitutional”.
Compare the two statements to discern the difference:
I pledge to…
1. “…enthusiastically support and defend the policies of the United States of America.”
2. “…enthusiastically support and defend the Constitutional policies” of the USA.
To Constitutional Policy,
To me, by adding “Constitutional” to the State Department’s non-disclosure agreement, we may preserve the sovereignty and individual rights upon which this nation is formed while also preserving the need for intelligence to stay ahead of our rivals. Most importantly, however, by updating the NDA to include “Constitutional policies,” we empower our ablest servants, those subject to defending “policies” without the measure of Constitutionality thereof, with their Constitutional right to freedom of speech.
All Americans are deserving of their Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, especially those who have earned their right through devotion of service.
To disregard the need for Constitutionality in one case or another, as we have seen over the last thirty years, is to begin down the slippery slope of moralistic dilemma and leads only to tyranny and oppression in governance.
To that end, there are some in our intelligence community who practice the psychological manipulative tactic of attacking one’s character, ideas or talents for the purposes of influencing the behavior of others and thereby maintaining control, statutory or otherwise. I do not blame the people for doing so; I blame the system for training the people in such a manner that which is not only misguided, but also a direct violation of “…a decent respect for the opinions of mankind,” as is stated in the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.
This practice is no less destructive, divisive and damaging to individuals, their families and to the nation herself, than the slaughter of unarmed men and women at the hands of ill-trained or malcontent police forces, with respect, of course, reserved to the loss of life in the latter case. Rooted in utilitarian theory, it is guided by the same precept that led misguided patriots — or political insurgents, depending on their true intent — to kill 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001, for the furtherance of American dominance rather than the safeguarding of liberty.
To that end, on a Christmas morning, after having pinned on the butter bars of a Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps, I became overwhelmed with tears when my parents, who understood my devotion to duty, presented me with a plaque bearing President Reagan’s carefully framed words, “We sleep peaceably at night because of brave men willing to visit violence to others.” Keeping in mind the duality of war and peace, that liberty is not free, there is a time and place for psychological dominance, and I firmly believe that it is to be reserved for those who intend to act in an unconstitutional manner.
To very generously paraphrase Dale Carnegie’s “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” there are other and often better ways to influence people that do not involve insult and negative psychological manipulation. At the least, we owe people of differing opinion a “decent respect,” as stated in our Declaration of Independence.
To Mother Nature
After all, if you wish to gather honey, don’t kick over the beehive.
And to Lady Liberty,
With that said, while Team Liberty appears to be closing in on Tyrant Tower, let us not forget the words of Franklin, that, “Those who would overthrow the liberty of a nation must first begin by subduing the freeness of speech.”
With the next presidential election coming up in 2020, let’s ensure that Lady Liberty has the right dress for the affair. Let’s outfit her in the cloth that made this country great at its founding — and for all time.
Let the State Department honor and empower our servants with our constitutional right to free speech, the duality and nature of liberty, while so too preserving the craft and role of intelligence, and need for discretion.
Pledge instead, to “enthusiastically support the Constitutional policies” of the United States of America.
So help me, God.
Finally, I owe a debt of gratitude to the prosecution, for whom I have had the great pleasure of meeting so many dedicated servants in the most ironic twist of fate, for without having first suffered, I never would have been led to understand.