Do You Have Rights? If So, Where Do They Come From?

Western civilization has distinguished and prided itself on being centered around human and civil “rights.”

In theocracies and dictatorships of the Middle and Far East, rights are nearly nonexistent with gays being thrown off roofs, women threatened with capital punishment if they’re not covered head to toe, and child molestation made “legal.” Not to mention the total surveillance, social credit score restrictions, and live organ harvesting in China.

Now in the UK, over 12,000 people are being jailed per year for dissident social media posts. The European Union is being turned into a socialist police state, and it’s the same in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

In America — the former “shining light on the hill,” home of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — censorship, election fraud, increased surveillance, politicized lawfare, and dictatorial executive orders are common place.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly giving us access to 99% of the knowledge gained by human beings over centuries, but it is almost totally ethically untrained.

Without exaggeration, I propose that the fate of humanity rests in our ability to identify and align with the true north of a universal morality that clarifies and protects human rights.

So we need to pause, take a breath as a civilization, and truly ask ourselves:

In the 13^th century, the Magna Carta made a bold effort to describe a “common law” as the basis for justice and an honoring of some rights of the individual.

… and it was embedded with authoritarian assumptions about the rightful power of feudal lords, popes, and royalty.

The 1776 Declaration of Independence of the 13 United States of America boldly claimed “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

… and it assumed an authoritarian role for the abstraction called “government,” which gave a few people rights that others didn’t have. (Can anyone give away a right they don’t have?)

The 1791 Bill of Rights were the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution. They historically shone the light on protection of free speech, religion, self-defense, privacy, the right to assemble, the right to bear arms, the right to a fair trial, protection against unwarranted search and seizure… and more.

… and the government keeps claiming the right to withdraw those rights, either in case of an emergency or altogether. Even in the 21^st century, the U.S. recognizing these protections of the sovereign being are practically unique in the world. The British Commonwealth doesn’t have free speech or gun ownership protection. Now we’re seeing the cost to the people’s liberty.

The 1948 United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was a formative document influencing laws and treaties worldwide.

… and it reserved to the United Nations the power to enforce or to withdraw the protection of those rights — laying the groundwork for a one-world government envisioned by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers who spawned it.

So, initially there were no rights… just the edicts of the most powerful. Then there was the “rule of law” — but that was decided by whatever individuals held the ring of power. Then some level of enlightened wisdom declared that rights were “unalienable” — which was defined as “intrinsic,” “endowed by their Creator” and “not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away.” That provided some hope of transcending the arbitrary rule of the state, but it still gave agency to “God” — whose description and decrees were of course up for debate, battle, and even crusades.

Despite the claims of some religions, rights are not written in stone by some all-knowing deity.

Is it any wonder that we have been conditioned that it is rude, politically incorrect and just too darned awkward to discuss Politics or Religion in “polite” company. These are exactly what we should be engaging about — with deep listening and respectful expression. If the state is a fiction — an abstract cover for a small group ruling everyone else, and if God is a vague excuse for claiming knowledge and power, can we get beyond them into what rights really are?

My favorite ethical philosopher, Stefan Molyneux, puts it this way: “Morality legitimizes the use of violence in certain circumstances.” In other words, “rights” are claims against others’ destructive behavior that you can then justifiably use force to enforce. It is “right” behavior for the situation.

It is clearly not morally defensible to go around forcing people to do things (e.g. Game of Thrones). However, I have found it to be universally true — by experience, and by logical definition — that nobody wants to be violated against their will. (If someone wants to be violated, then it’s not against their will.)

Yet, if someone attempts to threaten, assault, rob, rape, or murder us, it is in our very instinctive nature to use force if necessary to protect ourselves and others who are under such violation.

From a scientific perspective, every being is an individual torus energy field — distinct unto itself and yet connected with the wholeness of universe.

This is like blood cells that are also toruses circulating in our arteries and veins — distinct when they are healthy and energized — and distorted and clumped when the system is under abuse and out of balance. 

Our human torus energy field is vibrant when we are balanced in temperature, acidity, emotion, rest, nutrition, purpose, and love. We are each electrical circuits passing energy back and forth between space and the material planet to which we are grounded — hence our heartbeat and breath.

If humans are abused, violated or artificially restricted, our natural circuit is being short-circuited.

For me, coherent morality around “rights” must obsolete the state and transcend limited definitions of God. Government itself is by definition immoral — a violation of rights — because it gives some individuals rights that others don’t have, steals our resources in the form of taxation, kidnaps our children for imperial war-mongering and stifles free market exchange and currencies. What will be sustainable is voluntary communities based around the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) — which recognizes that no one is allowed to initiate force or fraud against another, except in true self-defense. Those communities will be based on pure legal principles and precedents, all stemming from the NAP. So, the state would not exist and communities would be bound by common agreement on the morality of non-violation. If you don’t agree to that, obviously you are a threat to others, and you will not be allowed to be a part of that community.

The Issue of disagreement about the definition and declaration of God, or the “creator” as the source of our rights can be resolved by recognizing the Unified Field (reality, truth, the ether) itself as the boundless and ever present life force of which we are all a part. In my experience, the Unified Field is teaching us in every millisecond how to align with it through relaxation of posture, freedom and fullness of breath, clarity and alignment with thought and purpose, and harmonious and caring interactions with others. The Unified Field ironically satisfies the criteria for most religious concepts of God as: infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, conscious, caring, and allowing of free will. I suggest that it should be more accurately “Creating” rather than “the Creator” (which illogically isolates some entity outside the Universe and before existence — leading to irrational and dangerous “leaps of faith.”) Apparently it is up to us, as human expressions of that divine, to shape our free will to honor the sovereignty of all others and do as we will, without violating others’ freedom to do as they will. 

In this way, we see that the field — the limitless life force — is rewarding caring action (love) and relentlessly feeding back against violation (karma). So we can obsolete any authoritarian rule, self-organize around non-violation, and recognize that our “right” to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is truly our nature, and we simply need to fulfill those rights by claiming them — while continuously allowing and protecting it for all others.

True rights are always protective (property, security, speech, etc.) rather than aggressive (housing, medical care, welfare, education, etc.). The latter category requires theft from some — immoral initiation of force — in order to “re-distribute” to others.  These are not “rights.” They are coercions, and therefore unethical violations of the NAP. As benevolent as they might sound, they always authorize tyranny.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” Without government, “patriots” become simply moral freedom lovers and would-be tyrants don’t have the right to rule anyone.

Benjamin Franklin wrote, “Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and Nature.” The “laws of God and Nature” are the dynamics of being in harmony with the patterns of life force in the field. These are the moral and scientific principles that become our compass as we fulfill our human potential.

It seems we have three possible forks in our future road:

1. We ride the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)-backed far left agenda (of Obama, Clinton, Soros, Newsom, Cortez, Sanders and Mamdani) into one-world collectivist tyranny.
2. We go along with the Israeli Zionist backed Technocratic Tyranny (of Trump, Adelson, Thiel, Ellison, Rothschild, Netanyahu) agenda into one-world collectivist tyranny. 

(Of course, #1 and #2 are tied together at the top because the CCP is the superpower of choice for the central-banking globalists if they can bring down the U.S. economy and therefore the military.)

3. We recognize the NAP as the Universal Morality that has been missing for humanity to thrive. We transition out of government into a voluntary society with honest money and independent security and justice organizations held accountable to the NAP.

Time to choose… who do you think should rule?

1. One person
2. A small group
3. The majority
4. No one. We should all rule ourselves and all be held personally accountable for not violating the person or property of anyone else.

As Europe, the Commonwealth and the East are gasping in the quicksand of socialism, communism and Sharia law, we have a remarkable opportunity in America to rise above the polarized plane of political power struggle and Transhumanist Technocracy to become once again the beacon — but this time for a “way” of harmony beyond deception, hate and coercion. Fortunately, we have the infinite force of life, truth and the Unified Field with us. As we learn to align with these currents, we realize ourselves as Love, which always eventually prevails because it is what is real and lasting.

Humanity is at a fork in the road, and we can no longer stand there, staring at the map, pondering which direction to take. It is hardly a choice, after all.

One road leads to a global fascist dictatorship that would control every aspect of our lives, including our thoughts.

The other will open the door to freedom and potential on a scale never experienced in the “world” as we have known it. Hard one, isn’t it?

A choice between a prison and a paradise?

— David Icke