I have too many physical projects on the go related to creating Bio-Cultural Refugia (community scale food forest designs) right now to engage in private messages with all the people reaching out to me right now. Feel free to ask the question here if you wish. I will respond when I can if it is pertinent to this topic.
Also, did you read these essays that further elucidate on the true nature of statism and the continuity of colonialism?
Not yet, but I will, thank you for sharing. You can answer the question there, I have too many notifications (posts, likes, replies and comments) that the conversation won't be good and direct here.
As I read (and re-read) this very educational book, it provided a lot of material which correlates, lends credence toward and further confirms the legitimacy of other accounts which were provided in another excellent book titled The Dawn Of Everything (by David Graeber).
"The Mi’kmaq in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia scoffed at the notion of European superiority.
If Christian civilization was so wonderful, why were its inhabitants all trying to settle somewhere else?”
– page 49
“Deganawidah laid out the new alliance’s rules of operation in the Haudenosaunee constitution: the Great Law of Peace. When issues came up before the alliance, the Tododaho would summon the fifty sachems who represented the clans of the Five Nations. Different nations had different numbers of sachems, but the inequality meant little because all decisions had to be unanimous; the Five Nations regarded consensus as a social ideal…
...Striking to the contemporary eye, the 117 codicils of the Great Law were concerned as much with establishing the limits on the great council’s powers as on granting them. Its jurisdiction was strictly limited to relations among the nations and outside groups; internal affairs were the province of the individual nations. Although the council negotiated peace treaties, it could not declare war — that was left to the initiative of the leaders of each of Haudenosaunee’ s constituent nations. According to the Great Law, when the council of sachems was deciding upon “an especially important matter or a great emergency,” its members had to “submit the matter to the decision of their people” in a kind of referendum.
In creating such checks on authority, the league was just the most formal expression of a region-wide tradition. The sachems of Indian groups on the eastern seaboard were absolute monarchs in theory. In practice, wrote colonial leader Roger Williams, “they will not conclude of ought. . .unto which the people are averse.” The league was predicated, in short, on the consent of the governed, without which the entire enterprise would collapse. Compared to the despotic societies that were the norm in Europe and Asia, Haudenosaunee was a libertarian dream.
In the same sense, it was also a feminist dream: the Five Nations were largely governed internally by the female clan heads, and the Great Law explicitly ordered council members to heed “the warnings of your women relatives.” Failure to do so would lead to their removal. The equality granted to women was not the kind envisioned by contemporary Western feminists — men and women were not treated as equivalent. Rather, the sexes were assigned to two separate social domains, neither subordinate to the other. No woman could be a war chief; no man could lead a clan. Anthropologists debate the extent of women’s clout under this “separate-but-equal” arrangement, but according to University of Toledo historian Barbara Mann, author of Iroquoian Women: The Gantowisas (2004), the female-led clan councils set the agenda of the League — “men could not consider a matter not sent to them by the women.” Women, who held title to all the land and its produce, could vote down decisions by the male leaders of the League and demand that an issue be reconsidered. Under this regime women were so much better off than their counterparts in Europe that nineteenth-century U.S. feminists like Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Matilda Joslyn Gage, all of whom lived in Haudenosaunee country, drew inspiration from their lot.”
"Benjamin Franklin was equally familiar with Native American life; as a diplomat, he negotiated with the Haudenosaunee in 1753. Among his closest friends was Conrad Weiser, an adopted Mohawk, and the Indians’ unofficial host at the talks. And one of the mainstays of Franklin’s printing business was the publication of Indian treaties, then viewed as critical state documents.
As Franklin and many others noted, Indian life — not only among the Haudenosaunee, but throughout the Northeast — was characterized by a level of personal autonomy unknown in Europe. Franklin’s ancestors may have emigrated from Europe to escape oppressive rules, but colonial societies were still vastly more coercive and class-ridden than indigenous villages. “Every man is free,” the frontiersman Robert Rogers told a disbelieving British audience, referring to Indian villages. In these places, he said, no other person, white or Indian, sachem or slave, “has any right to deprive [anyone] of his freedom.” As for the Haudenosaunee, colonial administrator Cadwallader Colden declared in 1749, they had “such absolute Notions of Liberty, that they allow of no Kind of Superiority of one over another, and banish all Servitude from their Territories.” (Colden, who later became vice governor of New York, was an adoptee of the Mohawks.)
Rogers and Colden admired these Indians, but not every European did. “The Savage does not know what it is to obey,” complained the French explorer Nicolas Perrot in the 1670s. Indians “think every one ought to be left to his own Opinion, without being thwarted,” the Jesuit Louis Hennepin wrote twenty years later. The Indians, he grumbled, “believe what they please and no more” — a practice dangerous, in Hennepin’s view, to a well-ordered society. “There is nothing so difficult to control as the tribes of America,” another Jesuit unhappily observed. “All these barbarians have the law of wild asses — they are born, live, and die in a liberty without restraint; they do not know what is meant by bridle and bit.”
Indian insistence on personal liberty was accompanied by an equal insistence on social equality. Northeastern Indians were appalled by the European propensity to divide themselves into social classes, with those on the lower rungs of the hierarchy compelled to defer to those on the upper. The French adventurer Louis Armand de Lorn d’Arce, Baron of Lahontan, lived in French Canada between 1683 and 1694 and frequently visited the Huron. When the baron expatiated upon the superior practices of Europe, the Indians were baffled.
'When an Indian Child has been brought up among us [Franklin lamented in 1753], taught our language and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and makes one Indian Ramble with them, there is no perswading him ever to return. [But] when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho’ ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life. . .and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, when there is no reclaiming them.'
Influenced by their proximity to Indians — by being around living, breathing role models of human liberty — European colonists adopted their insubordinate attitudes, which “troubled the power elite of France,” the historian Cornelius J. Jaenen observed. Baron d’Arce was an example, despite his noble title; as the passage he italicized suggests, his account highlighted Indian freedoms as an incitement toward rebellion. In Voltaire’s Candide, the eponymous hero is saved from death at the hands of an imaginary group of Indians only when they discover that he is not, as they think, a priest; the author’s sympathy with the anticlerical, antiauthoritarian views of Indians he called “Oreillons” is obvious. Both the clergy and Louis XIV, the king whom Baron d’Arce was goading, tried to suppress these dangerous ideas by instructing French officials to force a French education upon the Indians, complete with lessons in deferring to their social betters. The attempts, Jaenen reported, were “everywhere unsuccessful.”
In the most direct way, Indian liberty made indigenous villages into competitors for colonists’ allegiance. Colonial societies could not become too oppressive, because their members — surrounded by examples of free life — always had the option to vote with their feet. It is likely that the first British villages in North America, thousands of miles from the House of Lords, would have lost some of the brutally graded social hierarchy that characterized European life. But it is also clear that they were infused by the democratic, informal brashness of Native American culture. That spirit alarmed and discomfited many Europeans, toff and peasant alike. But it is also clear that many others found it a deeply attractive vision of human possibility.
The Huron, he reported in an account to his American years, could not understand why:
'one Man should have more than another, and that the Rich should have more Respect than the Poor. ... They brand us for Slaves, and call us miserable Souls, whose Life is not worth having, alleging, That we degrade ourselves in subjecting our selves to one Man [a king] who possesses the whole Power, and is bound by no Law but his own Will.... [Individual Indians] value themselves above anything that you can imagine, and this is the reason they always give for’t, That one’s as much Master as another, and since Men are all made of the same Clay there should be no Distinction or Superiority among them.' [Emphasis in original.]
The essayist Montaigne had noted the same antiauthoritarian attitudes a century earlier. Indians who visited France, he wrote, “noticed among us some men gorged to the full with things of every sort while their other halves were beggars at their doors, emaciated with hunger and poverty. They found it strange that these poverty-stricken halves should suffer [that is, tolerate] such injustice, and that they did not take the others by the throat or set fire to their houses.”
I asked seven anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians if they would rather have been a typical citizen of Europe or the Haudenosaunee in 1491. None was delighted by the question, because it asked them to judge the past by the standards of today — a fallacy disparaged as “presentism” by social scientists.
But every one of the seven chose the Indians. Some early colonists gave the same answer. The leaders of Jamestown tried to persuade Indians to transform themselves into Europeans. Embarrassingly, almost all of the traffic was the other way — scores of English joined the locals despite promises of dire punishment. The same thing happened in New England. Puritan leaders were horrified when some members of a rival English settlement began living with the Massachusett Indians.
..So accepted now around the world is the idea of the implicit equality and liberty of all people that it is hard to grasp what a profound change in human society it represented. But it is only a little exaggeration to claim that everywhere that liberty is cherished — Britain to Bangladesh, Sweden to Soweto — people are children of the Haudenosaunee and their neighbors. Imagine — here let me now address non-Indian readers — somehow meeting a member of the Haudenosaunee from 1491. Is it too much to speculate that beneath the swirling tattoos, asymmetrically trimmed hair, and bedizened robes, you would recognize someone much closer to yourself, at least in certain respects, than your own ancestors?"
Thank you for this, such important and comprehensive information. Saving this so I can share it with other people. I'm tired of people, when they hear of Canada's atrocities, responding with "well, it's not as bad as the states." It was still built on genocide. I remember learning about residential school in high school history class, and yet we were still taught to be proud of being canadian.
Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.
I appreciate you sharing this info in your circles.
Yes the cognitive dissonance is very prevalent and striking to behold once you take a step back from the conditioning and look at the behavior of the government and it's minions without the Stockholm Syndrome we were raised to internalize.
For more on that, read my essay on Implanted Sociopolitical Identities.
Exactly why I celebrate "Independence Day" - NOT "July 4th" but INDEPENDENCE DAY - not because it represents the "founding of the country", which of course is completely untrue, but because it represents the day some people told the reigning authority to shove it up its ass and that they were perfectly fine abiding solely by "natural law" rather than the whimsy of others.
Of course, many of those same signers of that document betrayed themselves and the people who shared the belief in independence when they unilaterally created a new document by which the elites would once again be granted special powers, through authority that they themselves did not have to bequeath to those elites, and the proles would once again be subject to the authority of the elites. It was nice for eleven years, anyway. *sigh*
I'm finding it more and more difficult to "celebrate" any kind of "holiday" that has government force and tyranny as it's foundation. These monsters know that much of the public is becoming aware of them (especially today's grade school children of all people! Amazing). We can see only desperation from governments and corporations all over the world. They know they've gone too far. They know we see them. The question is... how far are they willing to go to convince us (dupe us) into believing in them again?
Marx on the State as an Instrument of Class Domination:
"The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
"
“The state, which at first arises from the need to hold class antagonisms in check, but at the same time arises in the midst of the conflict of these classes, is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class,"
The state is "merely the organised power of one class for the oppression of another”
Thanks, and it is worth noting that the same is true of all Statist regimes, whether it be the United States, or any other involuntary governance structure on Earth.
Each and everyone of them required institutionalized theft, genocide, violent coercion and other organized crime activities in order to create the countries we all live in (and those things are continually required to perpetuate statist regimes' existences).
So much of what I said above in the post also applies for the "colony" of The United States as well. Both that statist regime and "Canada" are a direct result of millions of people acting upon the Romanus Pontifex and The Doctrine Of Discovery (for more info: https://archive.org/details/doctrineofdiscovery ).
Excellent summary of the travesty that is our Canadian government. I hope this gets thousands of views/likes/shares, but I'm not holding my breath. I can only do my part. It's getting more and more difficult for me to justify paying taxes and earning an income in a system that is actively trying to murder me and my loved ones.
Have you heard of Derrick Jensen and his 2 volume Endgame book 'End of Civilization' and 'Resistance'? Here's the Premises excerpt which describes virtually everything you've outlined here: https://derrickjensen.org/endgame/premises/
He exhaustively researched and covers in his books how civilization as we define it has never actually been civilized. That is, it has always served the masters, not the people.
I have not read any of that Derrick Jenson material you list but I have appreciated his insights in other works in the past so i`ll look into reading those when I can.
I appreciate you helping me share this content to raise awareness.
Your critique of Statism and colonial violence is a wake up call. More people need to hear this truth, I just restacked this, thank you for sharing.
I also have a personal question I wanted to ask, I left it inbox, when you have time please check it out.
I appreciate your comment and thanks for sharing.
I have too many physical projects on the go related to creating Bio-Cultural Refugia (community scale food forest designs) right now to engage in private messages with all the people reaching out to me right now. Feel free to ask the question here if you wish. I will respond when I can if it is pertinent to this topic.
Also, did you read these essays that further elucidate on the true nature of statism and the continuity of colonialism?
- https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-spiritual-poverty-of-statism
- https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/implanted-sociopolitical-identities
- https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/why-involuntary-governance-structures
- https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/lest-we-forget-war-is-still-a-racket
- https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/the-rise-of-anthropocentrism-bright
- https://gavinmounsey.substack.com/p/embracing-the-gift-economy-as-an
Not yet, but I will, thank you for sharing. You can answer the question there, I have too many notifications (posts, likes, replies and comments) that the conversation won't be good and direct here.
Are you familiar with the history and government / leadership structure of The Haudenosaunee Confederacy?
No. Let me search for it
For some pertinent historical context, here are my observations of and some Select Excerpts from a book called "1491" by Charles C. Mann (https://archive.org/details/1491colonistsindigenousviewsonliberty1 )
As I read (and re-read) this very educational book, it provided a lot of material which correlates, lends credence toward and further confirms the legitimacy of other accounts which were provided in another excellent book titled The Dawn Of Everything (by David Graeber).
"The Mi’kmaq in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia scoffed at the notion of European superiority.
If Christian civilization was so wonderful, why were its inhabitants all trying to settle somewhere else?”
– page 49
“Deganawidah laid out the new alliance’s rules of operation in the Haudenosaunee constitution: the Great Law of Peace. When issues came up before the alliance, the Tododaho would summon the fifty sachems who represented the clans of the Five Nations. Different nations had different numbers of sachems, but the inequality meant little because all decisions had to be unanimous; the Five Nations regarded consensus as a social ideal…
...Striking to the contemporary eye, the 117 codicils of the Great Law were concerned as much with establishing the limits on the great council’s powers as on granting them. Its jurisdiction was strictly limited to relations among the nations and outside groups; internal affairs were the province of the individual nations. Although the council negotiated peace treaties, it could not declare war — that was left to the initiative of the leaders of each of Haudenosaunee’ s constituent nations. According to the Great Law, when the council of sachems was deciding upon “an especially important matter or a great emergency,” its members had to “submit the matter to the decision of their people” in a kind of referendum.
In creating such checks on authority, the league was just the most formal expression of a region-wide tradition. The sachems of Indian groups on the eastern seaboard were absolute monarchs in theory. In practice, wrote colonial leader Roger Williams, “they will not conclude of ought. . .unto which the people are averse.” The league was predicated, in short, on the consent of the governed, without which the entire enterprise would collapse. Compared to the despotic societies that were the norm in Europe and Asia, Haudenosaunee was a libertarian dream.
In the same sense, it was also a feminist dream: the Five Nations were largely governed internally by the female clan heads, and the Great Law explicitly ordered council members to heed “the warnings of your women relatives.” Failure to do so would lead to their removal. The equality granted to women was not the kind envisioned by contemporary Western feminists — men and women were not treated as equivalent. Rather, the sexes were assigned to two separate social domains, neither subordinate to the other. No woman could be a war chief; no man could lead a clan. Anthropologists debate the extent of women’s clout under this “separate-but-equal” arrangement, but according to University of Toledo historian Barbara Mann, author of Iroquoian Women: The Gantowisas (2004), the female-led clan councils set the agenda of the League — “men could not consider a matter not sent to them by the women.” Women, who held title to all the land and its produce, could vote down decisions by the male leaders of the League and demand that an issue be reconsidered. Under this regime women were so much better off than their counterparts in Europe that nineteenth-century U.S. feminists like Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Matilda Joslyn Gage, all of whom lived in Haudenosaunee country, drew inspiration from their lot.”
- pages 359-360
(continued..)
(Continued from comment above)
"Benjamin Franklin was equally familiar with Native American life; as a diplomat, he negotiated with the Haudenosaunee in 1753. Among his closest friends was Conrad Weiser, an adopted Mohawk, and the Indians’ unofficial host at the talks. And one of the mainstays of Franklin’s printing business was the publication of Indian treaties, then viewed as critical state documents.
As Franklin and many others noted, Indian life — not only among the Haudenosaunee, but throughout the Northeast — was characterized by a level of personal autonomy unknown in Europe. Franklin’s ancestors may have emigrated from Europe to escape oppressive rules, but colonial societies were still vastly more coercive and class-ridden than indigenous villages. “Every man is free,” the frontiersman Robert Rogers told a disbelieving British audience, referring to Indian villages. In these places, he said, no other person, white or Indian, sachem or slave, “has any right to deprive [anyone] of his freedom.” As for the Haudenosaunee, colonial administrator Cadwallader Colden declared in 1749, they had “such absolute Notions of Liberty, that they allow of no Kind of Superiority of one over another, and banish all Servitude from their Territories.” (Colden, who later became vice governor of New York, was an adoptee of the Mohawks.)
Rogers and Colden admired these Indians, but not every European did. “The Savage does not know what it is to obey,” complained the French explorer Nicolas Perrot in the 1670s. Indians “think every one ought to be left to his own Opinion, without being thwarted,” the Jesuit Louis Hennepin wrote twenty years later. The Indians, he grumbled, “believe what they please and no more” — a practice dangerous, in Hennepin’s view, to a well-ordered society. “There is nothing so difficult to control as the tribes of America,” another Jesuit unhappily observed. “All these barbarians have the law of wild asses — they are born, live, and die in a liberty without restraint; they do not know what is meant by bridle and bit.”
Indian insistence on personal liberty was accompanied by an equal insistence on social equality. Northeastern Indians were appalled by the European propensity to divide themselves into social classes, with those on the lower rungs of the hierarchy compelled to defer to those on the upper. The French adventurer Louis Armand de Lorn d’Arce, Baron of Lahontan, lived in French Canada between 1683 and 1694 and frequently visited the Huron. When the baron expatiated upon the superior practices of Europe, the Indians were baffled.
'When an Indian Child has been brought up among us [Franklin lamented in 1753], taught our language and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and makes one Indian Ramble with them, there is no perswading him ever to return. [But] when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho’ ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life. . .and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, when there is no reclaiming them.'
Influenced by their proximity to Indians — by being around living, breathing role models of human liberty — European colonists adopted their insubordinate attitudes, which “troubled the power elite of France,” the historian Cornelius J. Jaenen observed. Baron d’Arce was an example, despite his noble title; as the passage he italicized suggests, his account highlighted Indian freedoms as an incitement toward rebellion. In Voltaire’s Candide, the eponymous hero is saved from death at the hands of an imaginary group of Indians only when they discover that he is not, as they think, a priest; the author’s sympathy with the anticlerical, antiauthoritarian views of Indians he called “Oreillons” is obvious. Both the clergy and Louis XIV, the king whom Baron d’Arce was goading, tried to suppress these dangerous ideas by instructing French officials to force a French education upon the Indians, complete with lessons in deferring to their social betters. The attempts, Jaenen reported, were “everywhere unsuccessful.”
In the most direct way, Indian liberty made indigenous villages into competitors for colonists’ allegiance. Colonial societies could not become too oppressive, because their members — surrounded by examples of free life — always had the option to vote with their feet. It is likely that the first British villages in North America, thousands of miles from the House of Lords, would have lost some of the brutally graded social hierarchy that characterized European life. But it is also clear that they were infused by the democratic, informal brashness of Native American culture. That spirit alarmed and discomfited many Europeans, toff and peasant alike. But it is also clear that many others found it a deeply attractive vision of human possibility.
The Huron, he reported in an account to his American years, could not understand why:
'one Man should have more than another, and that the Rich should have more Respect than the Poor. ... They brand us for Slaves, and call us miserable Souls, whose Life is not worth having, alleging, That we degrade ourselves in subjecting our selves to one Man [a king] who possesses the whole Power, and is bound by no Law but his own Will.... [Individual Indians] value themselves above anything that you can imagine, and this is the reason they always give for’t, That one’s as much Master as another, and since Men are all made of the same Clay there should be no Distinction or Superiority among them.' [Emphasis in original.]
The essayist Montaigne had noted the same antiauthoritarian attitudes a century earlier. Indians who visited France, he wrote, “noticed among us some men gorged to the full with things of every sort while their other halves were beggars at their doors, emaciated with hunger and poverty. They found it strange that these poverty-stricken halves should suffer [that is, tolerate] such injustice, and that they did not take the others by the throat or set fire to their houses.”
I asked seven anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians if they would rather have been a typical citizen of Europe or the Haudenosaunee in 1491. None was delighted by the question, because it asked them to judge the past by the standards of today — a fallacy disparaged as “presentism” by social scientists.
But every one of the seven chose the Indians. Some early colonists gave the same answer. The leaders of Jamestown tried to persuade Indians to transform themselves into Europeans. Embarrassingly, almost all of the traffic was the other way — scores of English joined the locals despite promises of dire punishment. The same thing happened in New England. Puritan leaders were horrified when some members of a rival English settlement began living with the Massachusett Indians.
..So accepted now around the world is the idea of the implicit equality and liberty of all people that it is hard to grasp what a profound change in human society it represented. But it is only a little exaggeration to claim that everywhere that liberty is cherished — Britain to Bangladesh, Sweden to Soweto — people are children of the Haudenosaunee and their neighbors. Imagine — here let me now address non-Indian readers — somehow meeting a member of the Haudenosaunee from 1491. Is it too much to speculate that beneath the swirling tattoos, asymmetrically trimmed hair, and bedizened robes, you would recognize someone much closer to yourself, at least in certain respects, than your own ancestors?"
- pages 363-366
Thank you for this, such important and comprehensive information. Saving this so I can share it with other people. I'm tired of people, when they hear of Canada's atrocities, responding with "well, it's not as bad as the states." It was still built on genocide. I remember learning about residential school in high school history class, and yet we were still taught to be proud of being canadian.
Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment.
I appreciate you sharing this info in your circles.
Yes the cognitive dissonance is very prevalent and striking to behold once you take a step back from the conditioning and look at the behavior of the government and it's minions without the Stockholm Syndrome we were raised to internalize.
For more on that, read my essay on Implanted Sociopolitical Identities.
Exactly why I celebrate "Independence Day" - NOT "July 4th" but INDEPENDENCE DAY - not because it represents the "founding of the country", which of course is completely untrue, but because it represents the day some people told the reigning authority to shove it up its ass and that they were perfectly fine abiding solely by "natural law" rather than the whimsy of others.
Of course, many of those same signers of that document betrayed themselves and the people who shared the belief in independence when they unilaterally created a new document by which the elites would once again be granted special powers, through authority that they themselves did not have to bequeath to those elites, and the proles would once again be subject to the authority of the elites. It was nice for eleven years, anyway. *sigh*
I'm finding it more and more difficult to "celebrate" any kind of "holiday" that has government force and tyranny as it's foundation. These monsters know that much of the public is becoming aware of them (especially today's grade school children of all people! Amazing). We can see only desperation from governments and corporations all over the world. They know they've gone too far. They know we see them. The question is... how far are they willing to go to convince us (dupe us) into believing in them again?
Marx on the State as an Instrument of Class Domination:
"The executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."
"
“The state, which at first arises from the need to hold class antagonisms in check, but at the same time arises in the midst of the conflict of these classes, is, as a rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which, through the medium of the state, becomes also the politically dominant class,"
The state is "merely the organised power of one class for the oppression of another”
Wow that got my blood boiling.
Great history on the Canadian colony
Thanks, and it is worth noting that the same is true of all Statist regimes, whether it be the United States, or any other involuntary governance structure on Earth.
Each and everyone of them required institutionalized theft, genocide, violent coercion and other organized crime activities in order to create the countries we all live in (and those things are continually required to perpetuate statist regimes' existences).
So much of what I said above in the post also applies for the "colony" of The United States as well. Both that statist regime and "Canada" are a direct result of millions of people acting upon the Romanus Pontifex and The Doctrine Of Discovery (for more info: https://archive.org/details/doctrineofdiscovery ).
Excellent summary of the travesty that is our Canadian government. I hope this gets thousands of views/likes/shares, but I'm not holding my breath. I can only do my part. It's getting more and more difficult for me to justify paying taxes and earning an income in a system that is actively trying to murder me and my loved ones.
Have you heard of Derrick Jensen and his 2 volume Endgame book 'End of Civilization' and 'Resistance'? Here's the Premises excerpt which describes virtually everything you've outlined here: https://derrickjensen.org/endgame/premises/
He also offers and excellent book called Deep Green Resistance which is offered free online to read here: https://deepgreenresistance.net/en/preface/deep-green-resistance/
He exhaustively researched and covers in his books how civilization as we define it has never actually been civilized. That is, it has always served the masters, not the people.
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
I have not read any of that Derrick Jenson material you list but I have appreciated his insights in other works in the past so i`ll look into reading those when I can.
I appreciate you helping me share this content to raise awareness.