Once our Federal Constitution had been established, those developments called “The French Revolution,” had divided our republic’s leadership among, first, those solidly committed to that Constitution, such as President George Washington and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton, as, second, compared with the pro-English President John Adam, and those pro-French Revolution partisans such as Thomas Jefferson. Later, President John Adams’ son, Secretary of State, and, later, President John Quincy Adams, who had been a protégé of Benjamin Franklin, emerged, as both U.S. Secretary of State, a one-term President, and the living conscience of patriotism throughout the remainder of his life. The proponents of Hamilton’s and John Quincy Adams’ remained the beacons of our patriotic tradition as American republicans, despite scoundrels such as Andrew Jackson who were tied to their attachment to Britain’s agents Aaron Burr (and, one-time Jefferson Vice-President) and Burr’s successor on Wall Street, Martin van Buren.
Under the indicated, and comparable, centrifugal tendencies within the Presidencies of the U.S.A., the Congress of the United States had often degenerated in its quality of function, that to the effect, that the original intention of our Federal Constitution was corrupted deeply, as it became, more and more, the victim, through expressions of imported European parliamentary opportunism inherent in partisan, centrifugal tendencies within the electoral processes of our nation, as in the errant tendencies of partisan break-away from the original Constitutional intention.
This corrupting trend, is a trend expressed by the increase of the influence of the morally decadent, Europe-like role of partisanship among our Federal institutions. This had become a trend toward “party first,” rather than citizen-ruled law-making within our Legislative bodies.
The notable result of that trend has been the ruin of our constitutional system by legislative and related trends of the degeneration of the proceedings of our law-making institutions, into those kinds of expressions of parliamentary faction which tend to degrade our U.S.A. into a systemic reign of the kind of partisanship, through which the efforts for self-destruction of our political system have gained the power to corrupt whose effects we are suffering presently.
I now begin with the following restatement of those opening remarks:
In all matters of legislative and related practice which bear on shaping the effective intention of our law-making processes, our leading institutions have suffered the form of corruption in which the meaning of “party” has often tended to destroy the independence of the conscience of the elected representatives in our Federal Congress, and the spill-over of those tendencies into the shaping, and, frequently, a misshapen way used for defeating the proper role of the conscience of the individual legislator.
Those corrupting practices have tended to prompt the individual legislator to abandon his proper duty of thinking-through the policies which should be considered in a rigorous fashion, and, to “go along, to get along,” with the particular bias imposed by party, rather than conscience.
That presently customary practice, does not always lead to serious error; however, in matters bearing on the realization of the principles of constitutional law as established by our Federal Constitution’s essential principle, the imitations of the practices of European and comparable parliamentary practices, have a morally corrupting effect on the legislative and related processes.
The types of manifest corruption which the presently, more customary practice promotes, frequently mean the defeat of the national interest, even vital interest, of our republic as a whole. The effect of this element of systemic corruption, is to disorient the citizen to the effect that the citizen, himself, or herself, adapts to the expediency which then tends to corrupt the voter at the base of the social-political process of law-making. Up to a certain limit, the voting citizen himself, or herself, becomes an opportunist who adapts to the tainted system of partisan law-making, in the misguided belief of the citizen, that he or she is attempting “to use the corrupt system” for what the citizen, out of desperation, adopts as the likely means for achieving a benefit from this corrupted process, which the typical citizen often regards as “the system” to which he, or she, must adapt, to gain what the citizen takes as being that citizen’s vital, or comparable self-interest.
Corruption of that sort has the character, not of a mere error, but, rather, a social form of epidemic disease. So, often, a majority among our citizens themselves, becomes the “carrier” of the ugly diseases which the system has come to express, from top to bottom.
It has become, unfortunately, a modern European tradition of (in fact) European imperialism (in particular), to separate economy from physical science. The connection of economy to physical principle, lies in understanding the practical implications of the difference between animal and human behavior: the specific distinction of science-defined lawfulness of animal behavior from human potentialities, lies in the function of creativity specific to mankind, as being in a likeness to the implicit role of the Creator. The celebrated First Chapter of Genesis describes this distinction in a summary way.
The most notable expression of such distinctions, is the fact that the person whom one might imagine as the one seen in a mirror, the person who one is often deceived into believing is the one in the mirror, either is not the real person, or, often, even something worse, something like the beastly predator, as the latter is illustrated by the adherents of that predatory species of monetarism recognized as the type of the Anglo-American monetarist factions of Wall Street, Judge Lowell’s New England, and The City of London.
I refer attention to the address on this subject of human creativity which I gave in Rüsselsheim, Germany, during July 2-3rd.
When we have taken into account, a reasonable sampling of human knowledge of both the universe and the human species which I had presented, on the subject of human creativity, in that Rüsselsheim address, the image of the human individual is far removed from, and of a much higher order than the typical image in the mirror. Then, the image of one’s power to do soars as a greatly higher authority than the mere shadow which is regarded as the customary face in the mirror. It can be fairly said, on that account, that we are what we do, rather than what we merely appear to be.
The acceptance of the properly chosen implications of that regard for the truly intended nature of truly creative man, of the action of the truly creative individual, serves as the moral force attributable to the true nature of the actually competent knowledge of the image of the nature of the adequately qualified human individual as seen in that mirror of reality.
The image in that mirror, is defined in coherence with the actually creative potential of the individual, as that distinction is represented as the image of the actually creative-universal human individual, the individual who discovers the means for the revolutionary leaps to a higher state of being brought about by the still mortal biological individual whose immortality lies in the contributions made by the human mind to the advancement of the role of humanity in the future history of mankind generally.
It is those conceptions which reflect that distinctive principle of the immortal human soul which is the model reflected as the intention of the Preamble of the U.S.A.’s original Federal Constitution. It is the image of that which we must come to regard of the immortality of the human which expresses the forward motion of that universal principle.