Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

S.O.U.L. Conspiracy, Part 1: Freedom, Prosperity, and Dis-illusioning the U.S.

Expand Messages
  • Agent RED PILL, BPSA
    The S.O.U.L. Conspiracy When two or more people set out to obtain a specific result, that is a conspiracy. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am a conspirator,
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      The S.O.U.L. Conspiracy
       
      When two or more people set out to obtain a specific result, that is a conspiracy. I am not a conspiracy theorist. I am a conspirator, and this is your invitation to conspire with me- to obtain clarity, freedom, and prosperity.

      Clarity is both a means and an end in itself. Those subject to illusions may experience a series of dis-illusionments or dissolvings and clearings of illusion. Clarity is the means to freedom, including freedom from illusion.
      Freedom is the means to prospering. Prospering simply requires the clear awareness of opportunities (thus the absence of illusion) as well as the capacity to actualize the most favorable opportunities. In that regard, prosperity is a means to new forms of freedom, which in turn foster new manifestations of prosperity.
      The first prosperity is clarity. The clear perceiving and understanding of one's experience is fundamental. In order to begin in clarity and maintain it, I am selecting examples which are self-evident. The first set of examples are general, for simplicity, while the subsequent examples are more provocative - and thus more significant in relation to freedom and prosperity.
      So, I start by revealing the meaning of S.O.U.L and clarifying some very simple distinctions related to each letter: S, O, U, & L. Next, I illustrate those distinctions in more detail, using examples most relevant to those involved with the U.S.

      Why the U.S.? For one thing, the U.S. has been a symbol of freedom and prosperity. However, the U.S. also has a long history as the epitome of controversy- so the examples I use involving the U.S. may be all the more interesting and familiar, especially to the U.S. audience.
      By taking controversial positions, various U.S. political parties and candidates have risen to prominence in the U.S. The media of the U.S. features certain controversies, including political controversies between parties or involving certain politicians, to attract large audiences. From presidential assassinations through the Watergate controversy to presidential sex scandals and beyond, U.S. politics have are long record of controversy. The recent "pre-emptive liberations" of both Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military have propelled the U.S. into the spotlight of international controversy perhaps like never before- even if the media in America has virtually ignored such controversies to feature others more suitable for their commercial interests.
      I personally consider all of those examples as relatively minor instances of controversy compared to the controversies I am focusing on later- relating fundamentally to both freedom and prosperity. Those will be detailed only after some basics are clarified.
      Before I focus on the basic "S.O.U.L." distinctions, I will note this: while the U.S. has not always been prosperous, it has consistently been associated with the more rebellious and innovative aspects of freedom. Free markets- at least compared to much of the world at any given time- fostered innovations that have supported unrivaled prosperity for the U.S. However, some consider certain recent events to evidence a new desperation among certain factions of the U.S.
      Why the trend away from traditional freedoms? Has prosperity been taken for granted- and is it even possible that the prosperity of the U.S. soon could be waning or is already?
      I return to these questions on the way to clarifying the emerging opportunities for freedom and prosperity. First, here is the origin of S.O.U.L.

      What is S.O.U.L.?
      "Sovereign Organic Unincorporated Life" is a rather long phrase with rather long words. "Life," as the simplest, is therefore the first S.O.U.L. distinction I will address in detail. Here is the full list of the distinctions, each of which I will further clarify.
      Sovereign vs. subordinate (i.e. instructed, delegated, partisan, or dependent)
      Organic vs. conceptual (i.e. alleged, proposed, labeled, named, expressed)
      Unincorporated vs. subsidiary (i.e. franchise, agent, officer, affiliate, representative)
      Life vs. record (as in "live" vs. a "recording," evidence, indicator, representation)
      To a great extent, these are indeed four facets of a single distinction. In simple terms, that distinction might be summarized in the word "genuine." In legal terms, that distinction goes by the labels "de jure" and "de facto," that is, "in truth" and "in fiction/presumption," more or less.
      If you are confident that you fully comprehend these distinctions already, I urge you to
      mark this place as one to come back to if you jump ahead. Of course, you can also refer back to this section later, and you would understand it differently after reading the later examples.
      If you skip ahead, the self-evidence of the later (more relevant) items may seem not only controversial but questionable. As long as you are committed to actually questioning them until they are clearly self-evident one way or the other, you may not need to read the next section or refer back to it. However, as many people are rather hypnotized by their beliefs, I offer the next section to foster a solid foundation of clear perception, to re-orient you away from the complicated or confused and towards the simple and distinct. Of course, the importance of clarity as we later address issues of freedom and prosperity may already be clear to you.
      For instance, if it is already self-evident to you how prosperity is limited by identity as a subsidiary, that is typical. However, unless you are specifically aware experientially of how you  have been a subordinate subsidiary and how you became or returned to being an unincorporated sovereign, I suggest you read below without first skipping ahead. If you do not immediately see the self-evidence of some remark, I urge you to continue reading the subsequent examples, even if you first pause to reconsider a passage. While it is ideal to undersatnd each detail in sequence, the cumulative effect of understanding many examples is the main issue.
       
      What is a Sovereign, Organic, Unincorporated Life?
      Here is a record of words (groups of shapes corresponding to sounds and meanings) created by me. The record is not me, not my life, but the evidence of my life, my thoughts, my past actions- such as typing. What you see now is not the act of my typing, but the results of my actions, a record left by my living.
      The first S.O.U.L. distinction is simply between life itself and any indication of life- such as a path of footprints or a movement of "a" shadow. The art I create or the house I build is just a residual indicator of my ever-changing life.
      When I share these words with you intentionally, that is the interacting of our lives. In this case, the intention itself is alive, while the words are just a medium and record of an intending. If my intention were not to expose this to you, or if I was entirely oblivious to you,  that oblivion or that intending would be distinct from any record evidencing or indicating it.
      Intent, while a facet of life, is not the issue. The reality that "the typing" (the typed characters) is the intentional recording of my act of typing is incidental. Your perceiving, understanding, and interpreting of these symbols (or a path of footrpints) is not incidental. That is your life.

      "Organic v. conceptual" may actually be even easier. Of course, organic refers to organisms, or a single organism, as well as certain types of chemicals and so on frequently found in and/or originating in living organisms. "Living" and "organism" are rather redundant, but organic can also refer to certain types of records; my memory of seeing a face is organic while a written description of the face is conceptual.
      A written description could leave out virtually all the information that a memory would record, and yet still be accurate. This distinction involves something being not only "true," but also "complete."
      "Organic," in this sense, means whole, not edited or refined, and not embellished. Consider "organic" as a reference to food.
      Perhaps the most common example of the "conceptual" is language, or more specifically, the name. The written symbols "orange" and the sound corresponding to those symbols is neither the actual color or the actual fruit. The name is not the thing. A name is like a map.
      The map, while useful, is simply a recording of a select few details of the actual "geographed" reality. Indeed, map-making is the emphasizing of certain details deemed most useful for a certain purpose, such as getting from one location to another.
      The map is a conceptual description of the organic terrain. If there is a difference between the map and the organic terrain, there is no question of the terrain being wrong or "inaccurate." Further, if the map and the territory do correspond, it is meaningless to say that the territory is "correct."
      A map has the distinction of fallibility, the potential for error. Indeed, because of the omission of the vast majority of information about the territory from the mapped recording, maps are always wrong. The issue is simply whether any of the information on it is useful, and even that is always relative to some (organic) purpose.
      In reference to names, labels, and titles, we know that during one's life one is likely to be called many names, some personal and some categorical. Indeed, "the last name" or family name  itself only idenitifies a category. Like the potential for error in a map, just because two people both share the name "Smith" does not make them family.
      Likewise, if two or more people are all named "John Smith," that obviously does not "make" them the same organic life. Further, unlike most organic features, one can easily change names, such as adding a name at the time of marriage.
      While a name or any other identifier is not an organic feature, there are many, including  fingerprint, blood type, and genetic (DNA) sequence as well as physique, height, weight, and gender. Whatever descriptions, maps, or recordings one might make of such things, such as a photograph, these organic features are not conceptual, but pure, raw, real, living.
      Further examples include present location and also place of birth, not the name of the place, but the actual place which may be indicated by latitude and longitude or simply by name. The time of birth, though not quite unique even when combined with place of birth, is much more specific and organic than a name. That time is distinct from the indicators of the time such as various numbers or a chart (map) positioning various planets and stars for that time or date.
      In fact, all these distinctions are themselves conceptual, but the reality that one quality is distinct from another is accurate and useful. However, our perception of some utility is conceptual, and can be false, while the utility or aptness of some concept or tool or description is independent of our perception- one might even say organic.
      So, only if we are clear not only about our preferences but about the available resources appropriate to actualize those preferences, then we can "bring to life" our conceptions. Indeed, only if we are clear about our circumstances and the resources available for us to use, then we, the organic lives, conceive the conceptual "preferences."
      If it seems to you that I am presenting "conceptual" as one category of "organic," I would not disagree. Again, even "organic" is a concept. This does not reduce their utility as distinctions.
      This utility will be even more clear in the following as well as in the later section focusing on the U.S.

      "Sovereign" means self-guided or, literally, self-ruling. "Subordinate" means following rules instituted and enforced by someone else. When confronted with contradictory rules or conflicting instructions from different supervisors, the subordinate typically experiences this complication as confusing, frustrating, and even paralyzing. The sovereign is free of such conflicts and troubles.
      A delegate refers to someone who has accepted the responsibility of carrying out someone else's wishes. This includes employees as well as slaves. The fact that someone may volunteer to be a delegate, even seeking out someone to supervise and employ them, does not change the delegate's similarity to a slave. However, an employee, unlike a slave, always has the option of quitting without danger of punishment. Of course, quitting under certain circumstances might terminate one's license or insurance coverage, but that is the voluntary risk that an employee may take as he or she withdraws from a relationship as a delegate or subordinate.
      There is no specific conflict which is inevitable between the rules one might choose as a soveriegn and the rules that may apply to a specific delegated position. However, a construction crew member who is following rules that he or she does not understand can severely compromise the integrity of the project and still be following the rules. The sovereign, though not competent by default, is more likely to distinguish between merely adhering to code recommendations and what is best, for code recommendations are irrelevant to the soevereign, who is typically only concerned with what is best.
      This simpler approach does not guarantee competence, but favors it strongly. The sovereign would never say "I followed the rules, so you have no grounds to complain," or "oops, I misunderstood the rules, sorry." The sovereign does not defer responsibility to some supervisors or rulers. Only a subordinate would say "if you don't like what I did, talk to the ones who make the rules."
      Generally, one is subordinate or dependent until at least age 7 and only becomes sovereign after reaching age 14, 18, 21 or even later. The age is not the primary issue, but sovereign action. Rather than depending on a single person or organization, sovereigns act responsibly to support themselves. This is not self-sufficiency, but interdependence.
      Blame and anger for the alleged failures of a �provider� is a sign of dependence, as is defending one�s self verbally or otherwise arguing, which is typically done to avoid punishment and/or solicit agreement from a �provider.� Sovereigns have no concern about "the appearance of quality," but only with quality. Subordinate dependents may frequently deceive or misdirect in order to appear compliant. Finally, they may themselves be obsessed with the compliance and punishing of their "inferiors," any other subordinates which they may supervise.
      Sovereigns may delegate tasks to others, but never for the purpose of justifying a punishment or mere compliance (avoiding a penalty). Sovereigns are solely interested in organic performance.
      Sovereigns typically recognize only a few categories of people: their partners, prospective partners, and others. The activities of �others� are of little or no interest to sovereigns, since they tend to focus on accessing rewards through partnering.
      Dependents seek to maintain eligibility through compliance. Sovereigns seek to earn rewards through performance, and thus they sometimes favor partnering for the purposes of mutual benefit beyond what the individual sovereigns could obtain alone. Subordinates typically see themselves as competitors against other subordinates seeking the limited favors of the providers, especially when they do not produce anything themselves.
      The approval of others is completely irrelevant to the sovereign, and only relevant to the dependent when relating to the approval of their "provider." Thus dependents are willing to resort to desperate measures such as extortion and invasion or theft, especially if so instructed by their providers. If challenged about their actions, subordinate dependents may state that their supervisors are the only ones responsible for the results, and often even believe that.
      Dependents, likewise, when interacting with by a provider, may claim responsibility for the actions of their "subordinates." This could be taking all the credit or all the guilt.
      Sovereigns accept complete responsibility only for their own actions and any beliefs they may have been holding. While they may remedy someone else's error, such as that of their partner, they do so without the psychological experience of guilt or shame- even when the error is their own. Remedy, not who is to blame, would be the only thing relevant to the sovereign.
      If a certain partner proves to be unreliable or incompetent, the sovereign withdraws or seeks a competent, reliable partner. A sovereign may even consider training the prior partner with the new expert, but never as a priority over the participation of the more competent partner.
      Incidentally, sovereigns would never invest energy into condemning dependents as unfavorable in their choice of behaviors. Sovereigns simply "qualify" partners without regard for someone's past history as a dependent (or provider), but focus instead on their immediate potential to partner, on competence to achieve mutually favorable ends. Providers, incidentally, may themselves be either dependents or sovereigns, or even some of each.

      "Unincorporated v. subsidiary" is last so that the more simple distinctions would ease in the description of this one. This may be the least self-evident of the S.O.U.L. distinctions as well as the most important foundation for the later segments and purposes.
      Clearly, this distinction is similar to "sovereign/subordinate," but while "dependency" can be organic as in the case of an infant, incorporation (or its absence) is purely conceptual. In this regard, all of the previous content was a foundation for this distinction, just as these distinctions are foundations for the later more direct exploration of emerging opportunities for freedom and prosperity.
      The term "unincorporated" is rather meaningless without first understanding the concept "incorporated," which simply means something assembled to act as a part of some larger "body" or "corpse." I call this larger body "the parent corporation" and I call the subsidiary a franchise or licensee, meaning authorized by the officers of the parent corporation to act as an affiliate branch or subsidiary of the parent corporation.
      Let's be very clear that when we refer to corporation, we mean a body or group of people, or more particuarly, the operations or actions of those people. A corporation is sometimes called an operation, and that is perhaps the most literally accurate description of a corporation.
      Those organized activities are jointly termed "the operation." The name of a corporation refers not only to the operations of that group of people but also to the people themselves. These people assemble for some common goal and under some common name, the name of the joint operation(s)/operators.
      Often, the organization or organizing of these people is based on some written agreement or contract. Based on that contract, each of the people incorporate their own activities under the same name. One's activities become part of the corporate activities of the group organized by the founder(s). The founder(s) and the other participants organize their activities according to the contract, typically including ways that they can change the contract.

      Ultimately, incorporating is a contractual act of accepting potential benefits of membership in the larger group. These potential benefits are accepted in exchange for adhering to rules, procedures, and obligations appling to members. Typically, such membership activities include the sacrifice of time and money, including a portion of earnings, for the benefit of the parent corporation. Thus, the incorporated subsidiary depends on the parent at least in part, just as the parent depends on the activities of their franchises, agents, and representatives, especially their sharing of profit with the parent.
      The primary difference between a subsidiary and a delegate is that a delegate is offered the position while prospective subsidiaries or licensees or franchises are typically applying to the parent corporation for scarce privileges. Generally, this is not significant. For instance, delegates may also agree to adhere to certain rules or standards. However, delegates typically do not agree to accept liability for penalties if they fail to do so- other than declining continuing benefit. Subsidiaries are also typically investing exclusively in the business of the parent corporation.
      For instance, a private attorney may be delegated (retained) to work for numerous clients as long as no two clients are opposing parties in a pending controversy. In this case, the clients usually come to the attorney and thus the attorney is in a favorable position to set the terms of the agreement or decline the offer of the prospective clients. Such an attorney is not forming a corporation consisting of his or her clients in which each client shares in the rewards of the others. The attorney is incorporating their various interests into his or her business, rather than incorporating his or her own interests into some other enterprise.
      However, a legal professional may contract to practice or perform only for a certain parent corporation (such as a law firm). If hired as a full-time employee or contractor by that corporation and licensed to represent only that single client, that legal assistant or associate is not "a delegate" so much as a member agent. The parent corporation sets the rules, and while the agents may quit, they are basically offering their service to the parent, requesting admission into the membership of the corporation, appealing or begging for access to the resources of the organization. In this manner, the subsidiary applicant may contract to accept restrictions which they may not fully understand and which further may be subject to change without the approval of the subsidiary and even without notice. In other words, the parent may control the terms of the agreement completely- like a provider and a dependent.
      The subsidiary is acting or operating as a corporation. The subsidiary corporation is the member or subject of a parent enterprise.
      An organic life operating as an unincorporated sovereign simply acts freely, without prior obligations from a primary contract with a parent which has approved the party as a member. There is no pre-existing allegiance of dependency which might compromise the services to any business partners, such as a referal fee or commission from a certain company. Certainly, the sovereign may have their own pre-existing interests which may conflict with the interests of any business associates, but in that case, the sovereign would simply decline to do business with that party- naturally.

      A Sovereign Organic Unincorporated Life would only agree to a partnering or contract that involved no conflicts of interest and indeed maximized the interests of the sovereign through a preponderence of mutual interest. That is, every investment of time and other resources by the sovereign involves the sacrifice of less interesting investments for the one maximizing the potential benefit to the sovereign. If that involves any others, the sovereign will always involve those only with the greatest perceived commonality of interest, so as not to compromise the sovereign's own (perceived) interests and indeed to maximize them.
       
      Quite distinct is the subsidiary of a corporation. An acting subsidiary may also have a personal conflict of interest with a client of the corporation and still be liable or obligated to perform in the interests of the parent, which means perform services for the customers of the parent. Of course, the parent corporation itself may also have conflicting interests with those of the client- and this may even be unknown to the subsidiary.
      The subsidiary's exclusive, priority  allegiance to the parent makes it virtually impossible for them to act in the best interests of any other party who does not have the exact same interests as the parent corporation, for the subsidiary is in the service of the providing parent first and of the customer or consumer only secondarily- if at all. Obviously, any given subsidiary may volunteer to decline providing a given service or even withdraw from the parent corporation, but if the subsidiary is desperately depending exclusively on the parent, the potential for dis-service to the customers or consumers is significant.
      While all this is not so simple as the distinction between the living fruit called an orange and a recording of the sound of the word "orange," it is still quite clear. Simply, the S.O.U.L. is free from concern with controversy. This crucial distinction is between the unincoporated sovereign and the subsidiary subject. The subsidiary is subject to controversy or conflict between serving the interests of both some other party and also the parent, provider, or concept.
      Indeed, if a sovereign is requested to perform some service that the sovereign does not see as in the organic interest of the requesting party, then a sovereign would decline and return to minding his or her own business. A S.O.U.L. won't sell people drugs just because they get a commission from the pharmaceutical manufacturer; the S.O.U.L. would only provide medicine or treatment that fits the best interest of the other party as perceived by the S.O.U.L.- and their perception is not clouded by pre-existing allegiances. If the "patient" and the S.O.U.L. do not agree on the most appropriate action, the S.O.U.L. withdraws- to independently pursue their own interests, minding their own business. The subsidiary doesn't have their own business, but just a branch of someone else's!
      The sovereign is unbound by concern about controversy, focused exclusively on success, performance, results. Only if controversy compromises the sovereign's interests does the sovereign even consider that their activities may seem to others to be controversial. Controversy itself is never the organic objective of the sovereign. The organic objective of a S.O.U.L. includes freedom and prosperity, particularly their own freedom and prosperity, but also freedom and prosperity of their partners and even prospective partners, which hypothetically include not only all humanity, even those unborn, but also the earth as a whole and even life itself.

      This may all be self-evident already. Indeed, all of the following is as well. Recognizing something as self-evident is distinct from understanding the utility of that evidence and that recognition.
       
      So, when we see how the above distinctions apply to certain common cases, the implications become rather foundamental, that is, rather monumental. The cases below all relate to the U.S., though similar patterns are active in relation to other organizations and one can insert one's own examples once the principles are clear. Recognizing a few cases of every principle is significant other examples in transitioning from a mere conceptual understanding of a distinction or principle presented or proposed by some author to actively experiencing the utility and value of one's own direct perception.
      I offer you a delicately-crafted record, a simple indicator, but you alone can bring to life your intelligence for yourself. Naturally, I do this as I consider you a prospective partner- someone who may collaborate with me in ways that optimize my circumstances beyond what I could do myself.
       
      I stated before that the U.S. is known for controversy. However, let's begin with the least controversial elements.
      The U.S. is an organization or operation of certain people. Organized by a group of men from 13 various states in America, the organization began with a "continental congress."
      Again, that congress was organized and attended by representatives of independent states. Each state was itself an organization formed for the pursuit of the mutual interests of its founders. These states evolved from colonies of England, that is, colonies of the King of England, subsidiaries of the British Empire which was basically an imperialist military organization led by a series of Kings.
      To some extent, the acting King of England was one of the founders of each of these colonies that evolved into states. Any King did not found them with the natives of those territories, but with emigrants or colonists or invaders.
      Again, the state is an organization, the corporate action of some people. The land extending along the boundaries of the operations of those people, that state, is a section of America. America is a continent or mass of land. The States of America, which might include Canada or Mexico, are conceptual symbols used by certain humans for their own purposes. The states are corporations and do not literally do anything as they are themselves merely an assembly of deeds of certain people identifying themselves as members.
      States are not alive and thus cannot act. They are mere concepts for the purpose of organizing the action of other people as fits the interests of the founders/formers. In this regard, they are similar to cities. Other settlements, those which are known as "unincorporated," are not members of the association of neighboring city corporations: the state. Cities have founders and rules and officers and business. Unincorporated areas may have founders and even written rules, but they do not have officers conducting the business of a corporation. A city, county, state, or nation is a distinct (incorporated) business. They have locations, but they are not the locations; they are the businesses operating from the various locations. Thus, it is literally most accurate to say "we are now entering the limits of the city" (not entering the city, but just the boundaries of the city) or "we are now leaving the location of (the business called) the state of New York."
      So, returning to the origin of the U.S., the representatives of the 13 neighboring businesses planned and assembled a congress, a business meeting. The participants in each continental congress of these States of America made an agreement. By agreeing, I mean they jointly expressed and consented in unison to the same statement. This "unanimous declaration of the thirteen independent states," as the document was titled by its authors, was recorded in writing and then finally signed by the congressing participants on the 4th of July, 1776.
      This agreement between these representatives of 13 businesses was followed by a more specific document. The participants had already hired a Treasurer of the Continental Congress, who was delegated with the responsibility of attending to the accounting of the business of the congressing participants. With the Articles of Confederation, these participants together created and then individually took back copies of an offer to their various 13 parent corporations. The officers of those 13 parent corporations reviewed the offered contract, and, in each case, approved, accepted, and entered the contract.
      This contract of the 13 parent corporations established a new organization, the shared child of these 13 parents. That new organization was called the United States of America, though it was not a merger of the 13 state businesses into one. The U.S.A. was a distinct business serving those 13 others, which continued to operate independently, though now members of a new derivative corporation. The new federal business had officers and, indirectly, they were officers or employees of each of those 13 states.
      The officials from those 13 states, by entering the contract proposed by the participants of the latest continental congress, delegated a portion of their business or authority to the officials of the new "union." This "union" was a confederacy, that is, a subsidiary jointly serving all of the 13 parents. The officers of that federal union, to my knowledge, did not represent the states so much as the confederation itself.
      More than 10 years after the initial declaration of the agreement between the representatives of the 13 states, a "constitutional convention" was planned and executed on behalf of the same parents and perhaps even on behalf of the 14th business, the confederation. Those convening created and sent a proposal to the primary officers of the partnering states. That proposal, "the Constitution for the United States of America," was reviewed and ratified by the 13 congresses of each of the neighboring businesses.
      The proposed contract of course did not apply to the corporate operations called Canada or France, nor to the populations of distant areas, such as the (speakers of) Navajo or Swahili or Chinese. Only those businesses which explicitly accepted the terms of the new contract were members. Only the officers of this 14th (or 15th) business were obligated to those member organizations and to serving their mutual interests.
      The state officials and private constituents of each state, represented by their state representatives joined together, forming another new organization, this one with three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial). The "reps" of the 13 confederated states authorized or delegated new, subordinate offices among those three branches serving the interests of the 13 confederated businesses. These derivative offices included President, Chief Justice, Senators, and so on. Again, the federal officers were subsidiary servants of the 13 parent corporations. Their functions were to promote any common interests among the member states. Such functions included, first, to consistently negotiate smooth relations between any two or more states and, second, to represent any mutual interests of the 13 members in relation to all non-member organization and people.
      Incidentally, the Treasurer of the "United States of America in Congress assembled" apparently became the subordinate, in the late 1780s, to the new official titled the Secretary of the Treasury (a Department of the United States). This indicates to me the distinct possibility that the new organization, operating under the new contract of the Constitution, effectively took over the 14th business or perhaps even was an expansion of that business.
       

      Here begins a transition, now relating to an understanding not just of the general distinctions of organic lives and conceptual organizations of human activity, or of sovereign principals and subordinate subsidiaries. Yes, the citizens were apparently the principals who delegated certain responsibilities to the officials of the businesses of 13 states, and yes those state officials in 1789 did further delegate specific responsibilities to federal officials. However, I note all of the above only to make... a distinction. As you likely know, things have changed.
      Not only did the federal union grow in power in the following decades, but indeed within 100 years, the "union" actually invaded and conquered the territories of several of the founding businesses. Those state organizations had seceded or withdrawn from the federal corporation. However, the invasion of the union was successful and officers of the union then formed new organizations in place of the businesses that had seceded. As unusual as this may seem, the accuracy of the events described above is not in controversy to my knowledge.
      How "the union" had come to be so dominant over the operations and/or populations of "the North" is a question of less relevance to us today than what happened to that federal union in the decades following the American Civil War. How did that federal corporation itself come to join as a partner yet another distinct business and then, between 1933 and 1971, become subordinate and completely incorporated into that latest operation?
      After addressing that issue below, we can clearly see the tremendous significance of incorporating into and acting as a subsidiary of a parent operation. Relative to that context, we can also clearly appreciate the potential advantages of withdrawing from (or declining to join) a parent.
      Freedom, not only in relation to money but time, is available to us now. Prosperity is also available, including both enormous opportunity as well as the definitive settling and clearing away of claims or contracts of indebtedness.
      While this may not be clear to you yet, the next section will answer the questions about the new status of the operation known as THE UNITED STATES, as well as provoke new questions. Some of those you will have to answer for yourself, but perhaps a few clarifications and even tools will interest you.
      A clear understanding of the simple realities of our circumstances including the activities of one of the most prosperous businesses in the world, is available. Again, I write this to you as a potential partner for an operation optimizing the opportunities available to those who understand the emerging opportunities, or at least recognize that they know someone who understands.
       
      For the rest of the content, email me.



      Post your free ad now! Yahoo! Canada Personals
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.