When will you translate your content (YouTube) to Spanish? We desperately need this level of insight and wisdom! Please guys! We have AI, translation and voice production is insanely low now. Please consider it 😭🙏 I'm from Peru and we are sick and tired of corrupt politicians. 200 years of corruption has taken a toll on us.
All systems of governance that necessitate violent coercion are inherently immoral, ecologically degenerative and involve the oppression of a minority using assault, kidnapping ( "arrest"/"incarceration"), theft ("taxation") and murder ("warfare").
What did the inhabitants of New France make of the Europeans who began to arrive on their shores in the sixteenth century?
At that time, the region that came to be known as New France was inhabited largely by speakers of Montagnais-Naskapi, Algonkian and Iroquoian (Potawatomi) languages. Those closer to the coast were often fishers, foresters and hunters, though most also practiced horticulture (and regenerative agro-forestry); the Wendat (Huron), concentrated in major river valleys further inland, growing maize, squash and beans around fortified towns..
..While French assessments of the character of (what they described as) ‘savages’ tended to be decidedly mixed, the indigenous assessment of French character was distinctly less so.
Father Pierre Biard, for example, was a former theology professor assigned in 1608 to evangelize the Algonkian-speaking Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia, who had lived for some time next to a French fort.
Biard did not think much of the Mi’kmagq, but reported that the feeling was mutual:
“They consider themselves better than the French: “For,” they say, “you are always fighting and quarrelling among yourselves; we live peaceably. You are envious and are all the time slandering each other; you are thieves and deceivers; you are covetous, and are neither generous nor kind; as for us, if we have a morsel of bread we share it with our neighbor.” They are saying these and like things continually.’“
What seemed to irritate Biard the most was that the Mi’kmaq would constantly assert that they were, as a result, ‘richer’ than the French. The French had more material possessions, the Mi’kmaq conceded; but they had other, greater assets: ease, comfort and time.
Twenty years later Brother Gabriel Sagard, a Recollect Friar,” wrote similar things of the Wendat nation. Sagard was at first highly critical of Wendat life, which he described as inherently sinful (he was obsessed with the idea that Wendat women were all intent on seducing him), but by the end of his sojourn he had come to the conclusion their social arrangements were in many ways superior to those at home in France.
In the following passages he was clearly echoing Wendat opinion:
“They have no lawsuits and take little pains to acquire the goods of this life, for which we Christians torment ourselves so much, and for our excessive and insatiable greed in acquiring them we are justly and with reason reproved by their quiet life and tranquil dispositions.”
Much like Biard’s Mi’kmaq, the Wendat were particularly offended by the French lack of generosity to one another:
‘They reciprocate hospitality and give such assistance to one another that the necessities of all are provided for without there being any indigent beggar in their towns and villages; and they considered it a very bad thing when they heard it said that there were in France a great many of these needy beggars, and thought that this was for lack of charity in us, and blamed us for it severely.’
Sagard’s account of his stay among the Wendat became an influential bestseller in France and across Europe: both Locke and Voltaire cited Le grand voyage du pays des Hurons as a principal source for their descriptions of Turtle Island (indigenous) societies. The multi-authored and much more extensive Jesuit Relations, which appeared between 1633 and 1673, were also widely read and debated in Europe, and include many a similar remonstrance aimed at the French by Wendat observers..
I feel it is worth highlighting here that, the indigenous Turtle Islander’s attitudes are likely to be far closer to many of our attitudes (as modern day people) than seventeenth-century European ones.
These differing views on individual liberty are especially striking. Nowadays, it’s almost impossible for anyone living in a so called ‘liberal democracy’ to say they are against freedom — at least in the abstract (in practice, of course, our ideas are usually much more nuanced). This is one of the lasting legacies of the Enlightenment and of the American and French Revolutions. Personal freedom, we tend to believe, is inherently good (even if some of us also feel that a society based on total individual liberty — one which took it so far as to eliminate police, prisons or any sort of apparatus of coercion — would instantly collapse into violent chaos). Seventeenth-century Jesuits most certainly did not share this assumption. They tended to view individual liberty as animalistic. In 1642, the Jesuit missionary Le Jeune wrote of the Montagnais-Naskapi:
“They imagine that they ought by right of birth, to enjoy the liberty of wild ass colts, rendering no homage to any one whomsoever, except when they like. They have reproached me a hundred times because we fear our Captains, while they laugh at and make sport of theirs. All the authority of their chief is in his tongue’s end; for he is powerful in so far as he is eloquent; and, even if he kills himself talking and haranguing, he will not be obeyed unless he pleases the Savages.
..From the beginning of the world to the coming of the French, the Savages have never known what it was so solemnly to forbid anything to their people, under any penalty, however slight. They are free people, each of whom considers himself of as much consequence as the others; and they submit to their chiefs only in so far as it pleases them.”
In the considered opinion of the Montagnais-Naskapi, however, the French were little better than slaves, living in constant terror of their superiors. Such criticism appears regularly in Jesuit accounts; what’s more, it comes not just from those who lived in nomadic bands, but equally from townsfolk like the Wendat. The missionaries, moreover, were willing to concede that this wasn’t all just rhetoric on the Americans’ part. Even Wendat statesmen couldn’t compel anyone to do anything they didn’t wish to do. As Father Lallemant, whose correspondence provided an initial model for The Jesuit Relations, noted of the Wendat in 1644:
I do not believe that there is any people on earth freer than they, and less able to allow the subjection of their wills to any power whatever — so much so that Fathers here have no control over their children, or Captains over their subjects, or the Laws of the country over any of them, except in so far as each is pleased to submit to them. There is no punishment which is inflicted on the guilty, and no criminal who is not sure that his life and property are in no danger…”
Lallemant’s account gives a sense of just how politically challenging some of the material to be found in the Jesuit Relations must have been to European audiences of the time, and why so many found it fascinating.
After expanding on how scandalous it was that even murderers should get off scot-free, the good father did admit that, when considered as a means of keeping the peace, the Wendat system of justice was not ineffective. Actually, it worked surprisingly well.
Rather than punish culprits, the Wendat insisted the culprit’s entire lineage or clan pay compensation. This made it everyone’s responsibility to keep their kindred under control. ‘It is not the guilty who suffer the penalty,’ Lallemant explains, but rather ‘the public that must make amends for the offences of individuals.’ If a Huron had killed an Algonquin or another Huron, the whole country assembled to agree the number of gifts due to the grieving relatives, ‘to stay the vengeance that they might take’.
Wendat ‘captains’, as Lallemant then goes on to describe, ‘urge their subjects to provide what is needed; no one is compelled to it, but those who are willing bring publicly what they wish to contribute; it seems as if they vied with one another according to the amount of their wealth, and as the desire of glory and of appearing solicitous for the public welfare urges them to do on like occasions.’ More remarkable still, he concedes: ‘this form of justice restrains all these peoples, and seems more effectually to repress disorders than the personal punishment of criminals does in France,’ despite being ‘a very mild proceeding, which leaves individuals in such a spirit of liberty that they never submit to any Laws and obey no other impulse than that of their own will’.
The Jesuits all continually emphasized, merely holding political office did not give anyone the right to give anybody orders either. Or, to be completely accurate, an office holder could give all the orders he or she liked, but no one was under any particular obligation to follow them.
To the Jesuits, of course, all this was outrageous. In fact, their attitude towards indigenous ideals of liberty is the exact opposite of the attitude most French people or Canadians tend to hold today: that, in principle, freedom is an altogether admirable ideal. Father Lallemant, though, was willing to admit that in practice such a system worked quite well; it created ‘much less disorder than there is in France’ — but, as he noted, the Jesuits were opposed to freedom in principle:
“This, without doubt, is a disposition quite contrary to the spirit of the Faith, which requires us to submit not only our wills, but our minds, our judgments, and all the sentiments of man to a power unknown to our senses, to a Law that is not of earth, and that is entirely opposed to the laws and sentiments of corrupt nature. Add to this that the laws of the Country, which to them seem most just, attack the purity of the Christian life in a thousand ways, especially as regards their marriages.”
The Jesuit Relations are full of this sort of thing: scandalized missionaries frequently reported that American women were considered to have full control over their own bodies, and that therefore unmarried women had sexual liberty and married women could divorce at will. This, for the Jesuits, was an outrage. Such sinful conduct, they believed, was just the extension of a more general principle of freedom, rooted in natural dispositions, which they saw as inherently pernicious. The ‘wicked liberty of the savages’, one insisted, was the single greatest impediment to their ‘submitting to the yoke of the law of God’ (aka the orders given by the church). Even finding terms to translate concepts like ‘lord’, ‘commandment’ or ‘obedience’ into indigenous languages was extremely difficult; explaining the underlying theological concepts, well-nigh impossible.”
The Jesuit Relations provided detailed accounts of the counter-arguments and objections to Christian dogma that they encountered, and numerous missionaries commented on how impressed they were by the intelligence of the Turtle Islanders.
Father Le Jeune, Superior of the Jesuits in Canada in the 1630s, wrote:
There are almost none of them incapable of conversing or reasoning very well, and in good terms, on matters within their knowledge. The councils, held almost every day in the Villages, and on almost all matters, improve their capacity for talking.
Or, in Father Lallemant’s words:
“I can say in truth that, as regards intelligence, they are in no wise inferior to Europeans and to those who dwell in France. I would never have believed that without instruction, nature could have supplied a most ready and vigorous eloquence, which I have admired in many Hurons; or more clear-sightedness in public affairs, or a more discreet management in things to which they are accustomed.”
Another remarked:
They nearly all show more intelligence in their business, speeches, courtesies, intercourse, tricks, and subtleties, than do the shrewdest citizens and merchants in France.
It’s worth noting that the Jesuits were the intellectuals of the Catholic World. They were trained in logic, rhetoric, linguistics, theology, and many other thing besides. But missionaries often found themselves no match for the wit of their indigenous interlocutors.
Graeber and Wengrow note:
Jesuits, then, clearly recognized and acknowledged an intrinsic relation between refusal of arbitrary power, open and inclusive political debate and a taste for reasoned argument. It’s true that Native American political leaders, who in most cases had no means to compel anyone to do anything they had not agreed to do, were famous for their rhetorical powers. Even hardened European generals pursuing genocidal campaigns against indigenous peoples often reported themselves reduced to tears by their powers of eloquence.
One of the key differences between the Haudenosaunee governance structure and the modern say systems of governance that describe themselves as "democracies" is that there were no police, prisons nor compulsory taxation in the Iroquois Confederacy. The democratic council meetings allowed leaders to serve as a voice for their people and make agreements that would be shared with peoples of vast regions, but at the end of the day, the people who lived in the Eastern Woodlands in pre-colonial times (and up until maybe the late 1700-s or early 1800-s) were not compelled into following any law by written threats of violence or imprisonment.
The Jesuit priests and french military officers noticed how free the Huron, Mi'kmaq and other first nation peoples of the Eastern Woodlands were often, while also noting how they had less crime and less poverty and starvation in their communities.
and, the only people who could vote in the 6 nations, were the council of grandmothers. they chose the chiefs and could fire them in an instant if they made an error in judgement. to read the documents of how their form of government really worked was a big impression on me. in the us constitution they replaces the council of grandmothers with appointed judges. big mistake. the crones are charged with making sure any choice is life affirming. they could veto a war, in they so chose. grandmothers care in the future generations.
Non è ‘la volontà del popolo’, ma la volontà dei politici – sollecitata da gruppi di lobbisti professionisti, gruppi di interesse e attivisti – che regna in una democrazia”. , il mio commento comincia da queste frasi ; CERTO CHE NON SI TRATTA DELLA VOLONTA' DEL POPOLO E NESSUN TIPO DI DEMOCRAZIA TANTO MENO QUELLA DIRETTA NE MONARCHIA. O DITTATURA , MA QUALE VOLONTA' DEI PSEUDO POLITICANTI , MA QUALI LOBBISTI E GRUPPI DI INTERESSE ,MAGARI FOSSERO SOLAMENTE LORO ....!! ,MA LA REALTA' E' UN'ALTRA ,QUINDI IL VOTO E IL CONSENSO SI TRATTA DI AUTO - LESIONISMO , DOVE QUALSIASI RAPPRESENTANTE CHE SI METTE A DISPOSIZIONE DELLA POLITICA , DIVENTA SUCCUBE E SERVITORE DEI VERI POTERI DEGLI IMPERIALISMI " GEOPOLITICI ", IN PAROLE SEMPLICI NON POSSONO DECIDERE NIENTE DI TESTA LORO PER I CITTADINI A QUESTO LIVELLO GLI VENGONO PRESENTATI SU TUTTI GLI ARGOMENTI DEI PROTOCOLLI DI UBBIDIENZA ASSOLUTA, PERCHE' LE NAZIONI-STATI 197, TUTTE NON PIU' SOVRANE ,MA "CORPORATION " PRIVATE NON PUBBLICHE DOVE L'ALTA FINANZA E IL POTERE AZIONARIO LE DETENGONO ANCHE ECONOMICAMENTE E COMMERCIALMENTE ESSENDO ISCRITTE DAL 1933-34 ALLA "SEC " WASHINGTON DC USA....!!!!., SOPRATUTTO LA GERMANIA CHE NON AVENDO FIRMATO IL "TRATTATO DI PACE " , NON E' ASSOLUTAMENTE SOVRANA SU NIENTE MA UNA COLONIA USA - BRITANNICA, CONCLUDENDO TUTTI I DIRITTI UMANI E DI RAPPRESENTANZA POLITICA SONO DA TEMPO ABOLITI , DOVE CI ATTENDE UN AGENDA 2030 E L'OMS IN ALLESTIMENTO DI UNA " DITTATURA TECNOCRATICA" , SOPRATUTTO SUI DIRITTI CIVILI E DI VOTO E SANITA', SE NON CI SVEGLIAMO E NON CI UNIAMO IN UNA UNICA UNITA' DI MASSA POPOLARE MONDIALE PER DIRE NO...NO A TUTTA QUESTA TIRANNIA , SAREMO SEMPRE COME ORA CONSIDERATI SOLO MERCE E MANGIATORI INUTILI.
Ermanno Ricci e non ... RICCI ERMANNO .... ( da quattro anni seduto davanti al muro..!!! )
Murray Rothbard - "The only advantage of a democracy is that it provides scope (strictly limited) for peaceful change of state rulers via ballot boxes, instead of requiring bloody revolutions, coup d’etats, etc. Instead of having bloody civil wars over the spoils of state, the robber gangs have their subjects vote every few years as to which gang will rule them. Never, however, do they so much as hint that the people may have a choice as to whether they wish to retain the state system itself."
When will you translate your content (YouTube) to Spanish? We desperately need this level of insight and wisdom! Please guys! We have AI, translation and voice production is insanely low now. Please consider it 😭🙏 I'm from Peru and we are sick and tired of corrupt politicians. 200 years of corruption has taken a toll on us.
Why Democracy (and all other Involuntary Governance Structures) are Not Compatible with The Permaculture Ethical Compass:
https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/why-involuntary-governance-structures?
All systems of governance that necessitate violent coercion are inherently immoral, ecologically degenerative and involve the oppression of a minority using assault, kidnapping ( "arrest"/"incarceration"), theft ("taxation") and murder ("warfare").
the democracy of the 6 nations of the Iroquois Confederacy lasted almost 500 years.
What did the inhabitants of New France make of the Europeans who began to arrive on their shores in the sixteenth century?
At that time, the region that came to be known as New France was inhabited largely by speakers of Montagnais-Naskapi, Algonkian and Iroquoian (Potawatomi) languages. Those closer to the coast were often fishers, foresters and hunters, though most also practiced horticulture (and regenerative agro-forestry); the Wendat (Huron), concentrated in major river valleys further inland, growing maize, squash and beans around fortified towns..
..While French assessments of the character of (what they described as) ‘savages’ tended to be decidedly mixed, the indigenous assessment of French character was distinctly less so.
Father Pierre Biard, for example, was a former theology professor assigned in 1608 to evangelize the Algonkian-speaking Mi’kmaq in Nova Scotia, who had lived for some time next to a French fort.
Biard did not think much of the Mi’kmagq, but reported that the feeling was mutual:
“They consider themselves better than the French: “For,” they say, “you are always fighting and quarrelling among yourselves; we live peaceably. You are envious and are all the time slandering each other; you are thieves and deceivers; you are covetous, and are neither generous nor kind; as for us, if we have a morsel of bread we share it with our neighbor.” They are saying these and like things continually.’“
What seemed to irritate Biard the most was that the Mi’kmaq would constantly assert that they were, as a result, ‘richer’ than the French. The French had more material possessions, the Mi’kmaq conceded; but they had other, greater assets: ease, comfort and time.
Twenty years later Brother Gabriel Sagard, a Recollect Friar,” wrote similar things of the Wendat nation. Sagard was at first highly critical of Wendat life, which he described as inherently sinful (he was obsessed with the idea that Wendat women were all intent on seducing him), but by the end of his sojourn he had come to the conclusion their social arrangements were in many ways superior to those at home in France.
In the following passages he was clearly echoing Wendat opinion:
“They have no lawsuits and take little pains to acquire the goods of this life, for which we Christians torment ourselves so much, and for our excessive and insatiable greed in acquiring them we are justly and with reason reproved by their quiet life and tranquil dispositions.”
Much like Biard’s Mi’kmaq, the Wendat were particularly offended by the French lack of generosity to one another:
‘They reciprocate hospitality and give such assistance to one another that the necessities of all are provided for without there being any indigent beggar in their towns and villages; and they considered it a very bad thing when they heard it said that there were in France a great many of these needy beggars, and thought that this was for lack of charity in us, and blamed us for it severely.’
Sagard’s account of his stay among the Wendat became an influential bestseller in France and across Europe: both Locke and Voltaire cited Le grand voyage du pays des Hurons as a principal source for their descriptions of Turtle Island (indigenous) societies. The multi-authored and much more extensive Jesuit Relations, which appeared between 1633 and 1673, were also widely read and debated in Europe, and include many a similar remonstrance aimed at the French by Wendat observers..
I feel it is worth highlighting here that, the indigenous Turtle Islander’s attitudes are likely to be far closer to many of our attitudes (as modern day people) than seventeenth-century European ones.
These differing views on individual liberty are especially striking. Nowadays, it’s almost impossible for anyone living in a so called ‘liberal democracy’ to say they are against freedom — at least in the abstract (in practice, of course, our ideas are usually much more nuanced). This is one of the lasting legacies of the Enlightenment and of the American and French Revolutions. Personal freedom, we tend to believe, is inherently good (even if some of us also feel that a society based on total individual liberty — one which took it so far as to eliminate police, prisons or any sort of apparatus of coercion — would instantly collapse into violent chaos). Seventeenth-century Jesuits most certainly did not share this assumption. They tended to view individual liberty as animalistic. In 1642, the Jesuit missionary Le Jeune wrote of the Montagnais-Naskapi:
“They imagine that they ought by right of birth, to enjoy the liberty of wild ass colts, rendering no homage to any one whomsoever, except when they like. They have reproached me a hundred times because we fear our Captains, while they laugh at and make sport of theirs. All the authority of their chief is in his tongue’s end; for he is powerful in so far as he is eloquent; and, even if he kills himself talking and haranguing, he will not be obeyed unless he pleases the Savages.
..From the beginning of the world to the coming of the French, the Savages have never known what it was so solemnly to forbid anything to their people, under any penalty, however slight. They are free people, each of whom considers himself of as much consequence as the others; and they submit to their chiefs only in so far as it pleases them.”
(continued in another comment..)
(continued from above comment)
In the considered opinion of the Montagnais-Naskapi, however, the French were little better than slaves, living in constant terror of their superiors. Such criticism appears regularly in Jesuit accounts; what’s more, it comes not just from those who lived in nomadic bands, but equally from townsfolk like the Wendat. The missionaries, moreover, were willing to concede that this wasn’t all just rhetoric on the Americans’ part. Even Wendat statesmen couldn’t compel anyone to do anything they didn’t wish to do. As Father Lallemant, whose correspondence provided an initial model for The Jesuit Relations, noted of the Wendat in 1644:
I do not believe that there is any people on earth freer than they, and less able to allow the subjection of their wills to any power whatever — so much so that Fathers here have no control over their children, or Captains over their subjects, or the Laws of the country over any of them, except in so far as each is pleased to submit to them. There is no punishment which is inflicted on the guilty, and no criminal who is not sure that his life and property are in no danger…”
Lallemant’s account gives a sense of just how politically challenging some of the material to be found in the Jesuit Relations must have been to European audiences of the time, and why so many found it fascinating.
After expanding on how scandalous it was that even murderers should get off scot-free, the good father did admit that, when considered as a means of keeping the peace, the Wendat system of justice was not ineffective. Actually, it worked surprisingly well.
Rather than punish culprits, the Wendat insisted the culprit’s entire lineage or clan pay compensation. This made it everyone’s responsibility to keep their kindred under control. ‘It is not the guilty who suffer the penalty,’ Lallemant explains, but rather ‘the public that must make amends for the offences of individuals.’ If a Huron had killed an Algonquin or another Huron, the whole country assembled to agree the number of gifts due to the grieving relatives, ‘to stay the vengeance that they might take’.
Wendat ‘captains’, as Lallemant then goes on to describe, ‘urge their subjects to provide what is needed; no one is compelled to it, but those who are willing bring publicly what they wish to contribute; it seems as if they vied with one another according to the amount of their wealth, and as the desire of glory and of appearing solicitous for the public welfare urges them to do on like occasions.’ More remarkable still, he concedes: ‘this form of justice restrains all these peoples, and seems more effectually to repress disorders than the personal punishment of criminals does in France,’ despite being ‘a very mild proceeding, which leaves individuals in such a spirit of liberty that they never submit to any Laws and obey no other impulse than that of their own will’.
The Jesuits all continually emphasized, merely holding political office did not give anyone the right to give anybody orders either. Or, to be completely accurate, an office holder could give all the orders he or she liked, but no one was under any particular obligation to follow them.
To the Jesuits, of course, all this was outrageous. In fact, their attitude towards indigenous ideals of liberty is the exact opposite of the attitude most French people or Canadians tend to hold today: that, in principle, freedom is an altogether admirable ideal. Father Lallemant, though, was willing to admit that in practice such a system worked quite well; it created ‘much less disorder than there is in France’ — but, as he noted, the Jesuits were opposed to freedom in principle:
“This, without doubt, is a disposition quite contrary to the spirit of the Faith, which requires us to submit not only our wills, but our minds, our judgments, and all the sentiments of man to a power unknown to our senses, to a Law that is not of earth, and that is entirely opposed to the laws and sentiments of corrupt nature. Add to this that the laws of the Country, which to them seem most just, attack the purity of the Christian life in a thousand ways, especially as regards their marriages.”
The Jesuit Relations are full of this sort of thing: scandalized missionaries frequently reported that American women were considered to have full control over their own bodies, and that therefore unmarried women had sexual liberty and married women could divorce at will. This, for the Jesuits, was an outrage. Such sinful conduct, they believed, was just the extension of a more general principle of freedom, rooted in natural dispositions, which they saw as inherently pernicious. The ‘wicked liberty of the savages’, one insisted, was the single greatest impediment to their ‘submitting to the yoke of the law of God’ (aka the orders given by the church). Even finding terms to translate concepts like ‘lord’, ‘commandment’ or ‘obedience’ into indigenous languages was extremely difficult; explaining the underlying theological concepts, well-nigh impossible.”
The Jesuit Relations provided detailed accounts of the counter-arguments and objections to Christian dogma that they encountered, and numerous missionaries commented on how impressed they were by the intelligence of the Turtle Islanders.
Father Le Jeune, Superior of the Jesuits in Canada in the 1630s, wrote:
There are almost none of them incapable of conversing or reasoning very well, and in good terms, on matters within their knowledge. The councils, held almost every day in the Villages, and on almost all matters, improve their capacity for talking.
Or, in Father Lallemant’s words:
“I can say in truth that, as regards intelligence, they are in no wise inferior to Europeans and to those who dwell in France. I would never have believed that without instruction, nature could have supplied a most ready and vigorous eloquence, which I have admired in many Hurons; or more clear-sightedness in public affairs, or a more discreet management in things to which they are accustomed.”
Another remarked:
They nearly all show more intelligence in their business, speeches, courtesies, intercourse, tricks, and subtleties, than do the shrewdest citizens and merchants in France.
It’s worth noting that the Jesuits were the intellectuals of the Catholic World. They were trained in logic, rhetoric, linguistics, theology, and many other thing besides. But missionaries often found themselves no match for the wit of their indigenous interlocutors.
Graeber and Wengrow note:
Jesuits, then, clearly recognized and acknowledged an intrinsic relation between refusal of arbitrary power, open and inclusive political debate and a taste for reasoned argument. It’s true that Native American political leaders, who in most cases had no means to compel anyone to do anything they had not agreed to do, were famous for their rhetorical powers. Even hardened European generals pursuing genocidal campaigns against indigenous peoples often reported themselves reduced to tears by their powers of eloquence.
yes! the clan system as it naturally is.
I have that book and very much appreciate it presented here. thank you.
One of the key differences between the Haudenosaunee governance structure and the modern say systems of governance that describe themselves as "democracies" is that there were no police, prisons nor compulsory taxation in the Iroquois Confederacy. The democratic council meetings allowed leaders to serve as a voice for their people and make agreements that would be shared with peoples of vast regions, but at the end of the day, the people who lived in the Eastern Woodlands in pre-colonial times (and up until maybe the late 1700-s or early 1800-s) were not compelled into following any law by written threats of violence or imprisonment.
The Jesuit priests and french military officers noticed how free the Huron, Mi'kmaq and other first nation peoples of the Eastern Woodlands were often, while also noting how they had less crime and less poverty and starvation in their communities.
and, the only people who could vote in the 6 nations, were the council of grandmothers. they chose the chiefs and could fire them in an instant if they made an error in judgement. to read the documents of how their form of government really worked was a big impression on me. in the us constitution they replaces the council of grandmothers with appointed judges. big mistake. the crones are charged with making sure any choice is life affirming. they could veto a war, in they so chose. grandmothers care in the future generations.
Non è ‘la volontà del popolo’, ma la volontà dei politici – sollecitata da gruppi di lobbisti professionisti, gruppi di interesse e attivisti – che regna in una democrazia”. , il mio commento comincia da queste frasi ; CERTO CHE NON SI TRATTA DELLA VOLONTA' DEL POPOLO E NESSUN TIPO DI DEMOCRAZIA TANTO MENO QUELLA DIRETTA NE MONARCHIA. O DITTATURA , MA QUALE VOLONTA' DEI PSEUDO POLITICANTI , MA QUALI LOBBISTI E GRUPPI DI INTERESSE ,MAGARI FOSSERO SOLAMENTE LORO ....!! ,MA LA REALTA' E' UN'ALTRA ,QUINDI IL VOTO E IL CONSENSO SI TRATTA DI AUTO - LESIONISMO , DOVE QUALSIASI RAPPRESENTANTE CHE SI METTE A DISPOSIZIONE DELLA POLITICA , DIVENTA SUCCUBE E SERVITORE DEI VERI POTERI DEGLI IMPERIALISMI " GEOPOLITICI ", IN PAROLE SEMPLICI NON POSSONO DECIDERE NIENTE DI TESTA LORO PER I CITTADINI A QUESTO LIVELLO GLI VENGONO PRESENTATI SU TUTTI GLI ARGOMENTI DEI PROTOCOLLI DI UBBIDIENZA ASSOLUTA, PERCHE' LE NAZIONI-STATI 197, TUTTE NON PIU' SOVRANE ,MA "CORPORATION " PRIVATE NON PUBBLICHE DOVE L'ALTA FINANZA E IL POTERE AZIONARIO LE DETENGONO ANCHE ECONOMICAMENTE E COMMERCIALMENTE ESSENDO ISCRITTE DAL 1933-34 ALLA "SEC " WASHINGTON DC USA....!!!!., SOPRATUTTO LA GERMANIA CHE NON AVENDO FIRMATO IL "TRATTATO DI PACE " , NON E' ASSOLUTAMENTE SOVRANA SU NIENTE MA UNA COLONIA USA - BRITANNICA, CONCLUDENDO TUTTI I DIRITTI UMANI E DI RAPPRESENTANZA POLITICA SONO DA TEMPO ABOLITI , DOVE CI ATTENDE UN AGENDA 2030 E L'OMS IN ALLESTIMENTO DI UNA " DITTATURA TECNOCRATICA" , SOPRATUTTO SUI DIRITTI CIVILI E DI VOTO E SANITA', SE NON CI SVEGLIAMO E NON CI UNIAMO IN UNA UNICA UNITA' DI MASSA POPOLARE MONDIALE PER DIRE NO...NO A TUTTA QUESTA TIRANNIA , SAREMO SEMPRE COME ORA CONSIDERATI SOLO MERCE E MANGIATORI INUTILI.
Ermanno Ricci e non ... RICCI ERMANNO .... ( da quattro anni seduto davanti al muro..!!! )
Murray Rothbard - "The only advantage of a democracy is that it provides scope (strictly limited) for peaceful change of state rulers via ballot boxes, instead of requiring bloody revolutions, coup d’etats, etc. Instead of having bloody civil wars over the spoils of state, the robber gangs have their subjects vote every few years as to which gang will rule them. Never, however, do they so much as hint that the people may have a choice as to whether they wish to retain the state system itself."
The evolution of Ideology continues with its covert administration;
So that the enslaved can feel as though they are the masters;
The life choices they make fully expressing their autonomy;
And when generations pass so shall the discomforts of heresy;
The practice of asking questions becoming an unnecessary act;