Comment: Now you believe Jefferson was correct -

(See in situ)

Now you believe Jefferson was correct -

No, my critique was directed at your use of dialectic manipulation in this post, the attempt to synthesize even further away from the context. Essentially, at your attempt to institute your own contextual assertions regarding a statement that carries heavy literal and denotative weight. Capitalist philosophy- turn corporate philosophy has already branded within us an implied necessity for aggression and conquest to achieve our success, further strengthened by the instinctual mechanisms of the ID. That devolution of consciousness is willingly propagated by individuals who believe themselves to be superior and is used to motivate collective thought in directions that support their own agendas and not individual ideas subversively. This is the type of hit to conventional world-view men like Rockefeller and Soros live for.

I was upholding the equality that is irrefutably implied by those statements you alleged my critical analysis of - that, "No individual or group is inherently superior to another; No individual or group has the rightful authority to rule another; Each individual is utterly unique, irreplaceable, and sacred." This is in fact the assertion that we are all equal without calling into question the relative values we individually assess with our minds. My critique was one of a pragmatic shifting in the severity of what Jefferson was trying to establish, Nihil Ultra -

What any discredit to that equality implies is a concession for subversive and conspiratorial machinations by those who view their capacities as a right to perform them. Peace requires trust, but trust cannot exist without the equal regard for life.

It never ceases to amaze me - how the allure of Dr. Paul's message regarding a return to the truth of US founding documents continually brings me to a website that is frequented by those who consistently insists those documents are inadequate - but this issue is certainly not as clear-cut and dry as the question of anarchy versus law, which develops itself through the actual and needs only a standing defense. The more the context is changed in documents like the DoI, the further collective consciousness will move away from the principals that bring me here to begin with.