Energy & Rhythm

A Philosophical Realm of Experience: The Encompassment of All

Energy & Rhythm is yet another evolution of self.
Energy & Rhythm pushes boundaries en route mind-shifting paradigms of awareness.
Energy & Rhythm signifies the "looking outside-of" and the "upward-into" of What Is
It looks beyond the physical, and into the spiritual; beyond the known, into the unknown. 
It is about transcending the self beyond the matrix. It is about shattering old beliefs and definitions, whilst accepting the unknown.
The fundamental basis of E&R is the dissolution of conventionality, and the resolvement toward the metaphysical creation of existence and beingness #YinYang ~ #WuWei.

To live unto self, free and fluid OR to challenge ills and evolutionize shadow constructs creating fear, prejudice, injustice -- here belies Energy & Rhythm's two contrasting perspectives.

1) the world is perfect and nothing needs to be changed . Everything flows in perfect order, and is continually moving toward a greater state of existence, even if turmoil occurs in the here and now, for it must occur initially, and to great depths as required for there to be a springing up toward a greater state of existence; fathomably termed as entropy
-bashar rubber band analogy
-universal law: what creates an action creates an opposite reaction in return.
-(the science of being great.pdf elaborates on this idea)
-each has their skills, and such skills are what allow music stars to fill stadiums by those who lack such skills.. and such skills of an engineer allow a musician to play their instrument. hence, each benefits from the other.. FOLLOW WHAT YOU ARE PURPOSEFULLY RESONANT TO IN SO FAR AS WHAT BENEFITS ALL. if you are doing a job you dislike, and it is not deemed as a stepping stone for yourself toward something greater and inspiring for you, then you are a part of the problem...it is your duty to follow your north compass; your dream.......for that is what makes the world a better place, by you feeling inspired and thus positive, and thus continually evolving in a challenging yet profound way, with a  good energy paradigm of mind. 
*The benefit of this view is it keeps one optimistic at all times.

2) Injustice and oppression must be countered, fought against, and made right. 
epitome perennial leaders mentality (mention of kleos influence as well as part of this aspect. this serves purpose and life fulfillment.)
-the qur'an reflects this, as does tariq ramadan. BUT the qur'an also reflects that all is in god's hand, and creation itself , and all events that are able to happen (to man whom is able to deal with such due to god does not place on you what you cannot handle) are created by Allah < argues for perspective 1)
-MOREOVER, Gandhi and all universal laws identify this by stating: be the change you wish to see in the world. Michael jackson too: man in the mirror. Thus, this supports perspective 1) that all is right, and if you take care of yourself personally, then the world will be viewed from a perspective of fairness and justice in your eyes. In the end, the infinity of the world is both evil and good. Those who choose to live evil shall experience such, and those who choose to live good shall experience such. Additionally, the good who choose to think thoughts of poverty and injustice will think those thoughts and reflect upon the ills of the world. The greatest way of life is both an art and science.  

So where does the line draw? 
The true ideal is for all to be enabled to pursue their utmost in a most productive manner, enabling all to live constructively and purposefully, & to eliminate systems which inhibit such expression from happening; dogmatic paradigms that do not allow independent thinking and questioning; institutions based upon the memorization of presupposed regurgitation than the reinforcement of unique aptitude.

<basic truths must be set by schooling - and only basic truths. school is to set the TRUTHful foundation for individualism - and not texts which tell untruthful stories. there are gems of honesty in and value in the learning of why America worked the way it worked to become great in a world that made it play that sort of game to have it reach it's current state-- the honesty of the truth is of a valuable lesson, and brings commendable respect ; with that said, )

The children of the world represent the future of mother earth. In reality, the parents are what the kid looks up to first and foremost. Such figures co- create the kid's future through nurturing and environment. in truth, grown-ups who have children indirectly create the future through our kids. albeit, the average parent is part of the system and plays by its rules, therefore the kid's independence and knack for changing the system is poisoned by the parent's lack of individualism to capably influencing their children with individualism and truth by means of educating their kids upon the current system; but that is to the case, for all parents wish their children to do well in school, and at that, the children fulfills his/her parents' obligation of buying into the same old system that the parents are succumbed into. This perspective fits the paradigm that all is perfect in the moment, and nothing needs to be changed by man who is comfortable, for the process of creation will take care of itself. At that, the individual who is living in depths of sorrow and poverty is likely to remain in depths of sorrow and poverty, yet for some, as they are, are the exception of eccentric heroism.
 (for epitome leaders, as rare as they are, are the exception. But how do epitome perennial leaders strengthen themselves as such, with such truth and perspective to create themselves as shining bright lights? It is spiritualism and knowledge of self that makes them shine bright with visions and courage and truth < Islam touches unto such. Bashar touches unto such i.e. Christ conscious. don't follow me follow me, but follow me as in act in the way i do [for you to be like me]; not follow my lead to where i will take you.. Follow your own path, but do so with the perspective I use on my path -- love honesty compassion -Jesus)

tariq ramadan, che guevara, jfk, (gandhi?) : Men who serve as lights to shine unto those less fortunate, and bring them hope through valued perspective, courage, and vision. they did not specifically live in the circumstances for whom they wish to plead the cases of ... this does NOT follow living unto self-free and fluid from wanting to change how the world is currently because everything is perfect Perspective 1). 
MLK JR, Malcolm X, (gandhi?): Men who came from the circumstances they plead the case for.. 
Romanticism of great leaders is the greatest enemy of their vision. Romantic illustration dulls the mind. They shall not be romanticized, such leaders. They not only represent upright character, but represent the being of the self which shall be expressed from within each of us. They should be Studied thoroughly, and acknowledged as humans, only with a different perspective on life. A perspective that may be adopted by all, and thus implemented by all among their own unique journey and path, similarly to how such leaders represented their thoughts and visions in their ways unto their unique own environments and circumstances. Macro universals may be found among the micro specifics for each case in point.
The values and morals of such a perspective may extend into all industries. from creation of a macro-chip using polluted aluminum or product, to the exploitation of its creation by Indian slave workers (apple is guilty of such, among others)--to the infrastructural businessman's acumen of getting rich off of the destruction and turmoil created in others' lives (raytheon, thales, northup grumman, etc. - whom make money off of the use of military weaponry and drones... this must stop, and equally their profits). There is a direct correlation between the leaders of such corporations and the political decisions being made. It is obvious. There is interlinked relations in war-mongering for profit, and the political decisions to continually war monger in other nations (unadmitted and unspoken of through profit, but through "democracy" "freedom" "justice" facades).. 
To eliminate egoism is unrealistic. Egoism exists for a specific purpose. -------------(Bashar definition of ego) | Qur'an definition of ego..

is the world perfect and no system shall be changed?
shall the fight for injustice be taken up , and the world systems be challenged, in so far as all is NOT perfect?
When the individual is strengthened enough to not fall for fancies, and to remain moral and principled within the self may things then evolve upward toward greater good.
A Just Leader-----------It is when you have power and you continue to be just; when you are just, this becomes such a high reward. The opposite of justice is 'Thul'. Sin is a (thul) against one's self. When i commit a sin, i am actually doing an injustice to myself. Even if i never hurt another person, Allah says that it is a 'Thul' against my ownself. We have to be supportive in fighting these causes against injustice. When you help another person you're actually helping yourself........ -Yasmin Mogahed
What reinforces the want of an individual to act righteously? The universe. If their penalties are in the afterlife, then the realism of the afterlife's wrath surely is not convincible enough for some to not heed. and most seemingly allows the CEOs and war mongering billionaires to live just fine albeit knowing the truth of their actions upon innocent folks, and their continual negative influence and creation upon and on economically distraught nations.... 
the universal laws may seemingly bring immediate consequences to lives of such folks, directly, so that they would stop their wrongful acts. And yet one may claim universal consequential disciplining does not happen, for "I do not need to be a witness of their lives on a daily basis to state this, for their intelligence would have already, throughout histories epochs of evil men, shown that such acts bring terror to the self through whatever avenue", and thus they stop completely due to such direct results and action-sow consequences. But in due time, the wisdom of man recognizes patterns of success and failure based on life principles and laws.  (shura annua banquet tariq ramdan- 39:00 on trusting the self).

Moreover, this would inhibit their justification of war-mongering - what they use to justify their killing to have themselves feel OK about it. Because they do. they do not look at the dark side of their actions the way eye-witnesses do. "THEY" are not viewing themselves as evil folks. they are beings in the right with justifications deemed rationale by their own standards. and seemingly, they rightfully justify such, and get away with it. thus, that capability and enabling for them to do so without heeding a change of action due to direct consequences, is a part of creation that is valuable and exists, -- and this goes toward perspective 1) that all things are perfect, for all things are created by The Creator, and thus, all is according to His Plan.. 
add video on Pantheism and what it means.....or a quote on pantheism.
Albeit he preaches that they will feel their wraths for such (both in this world and the next), but that is not powerful enough for them to succumb to, and there has not been any real proof of such; for such men are intelligent and would have heeded such long ago. for it is the most vulnerable and mind-ridden which fall under the spell of priests. (hence, lead me i am a priest, rather than the priest seeing the example of I am imperfect, but try to perfect, and LEARN from me, do not follow me, BUT LEARN from my faults, AND MY good deeds.). thus this deems the question: is religion a means to debilitate the sheep? Seemingly so under the construct of those who do not lead their own perspective lives in an individualistic manner. 
Religion to the one who is deemed an independent and open minded reader, may serve as great discipline and perspective,, but only to the individual who is a law unto self (whom qualifies for: every leader is a reader; rather than: not every reader is a leader.). a reader becomes a leader through individualistic thinking (which initially enables living a life of purpose and courage in following ones own unique path, and heeding signs of their path and purpose on this world through what fulfills them, which obviously isn't being heeded considering so many folk do not thoroughly feel excited to wake up and work 9-5 every day.......again, a trick of the system to make intelligent beings of infinite potential, finite and army ants of the system and the wealthy whom are able to profit off of such worker bees).
The perspective they carry justifies their war-mongering.

World systems shall be challenged to the extent that oneself is courageous enough to challenge a system where that system lacks benefit for the individual based on immoral and unjustified means'. That challenging is worth combating, for the individual fights against the suppression of their individuality and infinite beingness. This is what kids must be taught.: the base of what represents justified validation for what they are owed , and shall never allow to be stripped away from themselves (free of justified self-expression). Albeit, the growth of the individual is based upon versatility among the system, where one "learns about oneself" (haha this is a cop-out. we are all the same. we only learn about ourselves based upon the prejudices and insecurities and fears we have allowed ourselves to have. Folks love traveling because they have been fucked over and cornered with such thoughts, therefore traveling enables them to open up such insecurities and fears and avenues of real perspectives with courtesy...right? I mean isn't the basic formulation of happiness to look into one'self. For we have the all within us. So traveling is more so a catalyst for inner change and response Hence why some people like traveling and others do not find it particularly worthwhile.) . Hence if all was truly correct, would growth of self-exist? yes, it would be through evolution, and not so much through discoveries of limitations based upon ethereal constructs of societal prejudices, thoughts, and systemic construct. Evolution would be much more fluid, exciting. 
The constructs of the system limit such excitement and fluidity, thus folks do not follow their north compass because of the "going against the grain" courage and grit it takes to achieve such in a reality plastered by conformity. In reality, achieving your dreams is fighting against the base infrastructure of a system moduled as a factory to keep constancy a static existence prevalent, in so far as religious dogma exists to maintain fundamental control upon an existential reality. That in itself is revolutionary. And those who shun others from reaching for their north pole, which has dampened their true potential, are the truly delusional ones, for they do not self define as failures, but rather exercise their will in ways supplementing the forsakenness of their highest ideals and greatest calibers. The ones who go for dreams represent a greater realism of truth, of occurrence, than the delusional folk whom view themselves superior in a system where superiority is impossible for existence; for the greater good is unmet, and what is superiority in light of progress but that which is non-existent. They are granting themselves authority among a communist paradigm. How unrealistic than that does it get? The Communist paradigm being that chasing dreams will not take you anywhere, and that I am a superstar on this lowly level where i view myself as having already achieved the dream within self (by not even having the courage to go for it in reality); delusional. And mockery and alienation only reinforce such delusions. And such alienation and mockery is always the result of propaganda, which is what spews out of the most powerful channel in the world: the media. Hence, the elites do not want you to follow your dreams (be our worker bees and ant army to sustain the system of the world in which we pimp and exploit for our own benefits). BUT WE MUST FIGHT FOR OUR DREAMS, if even AGAINST THE SYSTEM, for that will lead to fluidity of excitement & evolution of self, without fears and limitations and challenges and prejudices whence applied on a mass scale... for then we will know the hater is nonexistent, because he himself is a believer in self! That is the War: TO INSPIRE. 
Hence they are "stars", out of this world than what the average public lives in and buys into. They are above the construct of society. They are skilled at the game found within themselves; micro existential entropy toward the light within self. While the rest play in a game in competition with itself; an arena facing macro existential entropy amidst the inner darkness of self. 

Only men of inspiration shall be leaders. Men of INSPIRATION. For INSPIRATION enables vision. too often, men of Vision are solely chosen as leaders, with prejudices and mental paradigms serving visions deemed UNINSPIRING by investors whom live unto self, free and fluid (benefiting from the constructs of shadows and darkness befallen unto war ants and worker bees). From inspiration comes all attributes of a leader: vision, courage... such inspiration shall be that of divine however (not, i am inspired to make this war deal so that we can get rich! no..). and where does divine come from: spiritual resonance within self, and NATURE. Nature is very important. It elevates frequency of the self.
Service self through what is purposeful and brings light to the heart of your spirit. That which excites you. And allow self to live based on Barter: the farmer who is inspired to farm, locate and create a deal with him. I will create you wool, I will create you furniture, for your vegetables. For your fruits. In essence, this barter system encourages the learning of skills similar to how the construct of the industries categorize and encourage certain skills with higher salaries (programming for instance). Evolution is the truest constant. The intangible carries the highest worth. The way of light is the right path, darkness is the father of failure and the mother of destitution.
*********INCLUDE LUOLA QUOTE ON TOLERANCE / BEING OPEN into text... very important, because i define tolerance and being open as going hand in hand with everything being valid, and the person themselves as needing to flow gracefully in accepting everything... This leads to manifestation and inner growth, and less negativity. 

Excerpt from "The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas", by Carl L Becker
It is not enough, said Condorcet, that the rights of man "should be written in the books of philosophers and in the hearts of virtuous men; it is necessary that ignorant or weak men should read them in the example of a great people. America has given us this example. The act which declares its independence is a simple and sublime exposition of those rights so sacred and so long forgotten. ...
Modern democracy has accepted one article of the Jeffersonian philosophy -- that government rests upon the consent of the governed; and this article, in the form of the right of the majority to rule, it has even erected into an article of faith. For this dogma a theoretical foundation had indeed to be found. The simplest, the naive, way to justify majority rule was of course to fall back upon force -- the majority has the power, and therefore the right; we decide matters "by counting heads instead of by breaking them," which seems to mean that it is right for the minority of heads to submit in order to avoid being broken by the majority of hands. This idea may sometimes be seen at work in the minds even of those who professed to defend the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence. ...
The object of society is to achieve the greatest good of all its members; do not ask what rights men have in society, but what benefits they derive from it. In the long run no man can decide for another what is good for that other. Each must decide for himself; and so, if you give each man a voice in deciding what is to be done and how, each man to count for one and none for more than one, the result will be to bring about the greatest good of all, or at least 'the greatest good of the greatest number,' which is perhaps the nearest approximation to the greatest good of all. ... 
If the classic philosophy of the American Declaration of Independence and the French Declaration of Rights proved unacceptable to the nineteenth century, it was thus not because it could be easily made the basis of democratic government, but because it had been, and could again be, so effectively used as a justification of revolutionary movements. ...
"all men are born free and equal, and have certain unalienable rights" -- Massachusetts constitution of 1780
"All men are born equally free and independent" -- New Hampshire constitution of 1784
"All men, when they form a social compact, are equal in rights" -- Kentucky constitution of 1792
these phrases, with at most slight verbal changes, reappear in most of the Western state constitutions.
In the South, after the rise of the anti-slavery controversy, there were good reasons for not doing so; but even there it was found simpler on the whole to edit the phrases than to omit them altogether. Thus, in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky (1799), Mississippi, and Texas (1845), the phrase "All men, when they form a social compact, are equal" was changed to read "All freemen, when they form a social compact, are equal." No danger in affirming that all freemen are equal, and have certain inalienable rights -- particularly the right of property. 
The persistence of the political philosophy of the Declaration in the state constitutions must be mainly attributed to the conventional acceptance of a great tradition; particularly so during the thirty years prior to the Civil War, when political, north and south, were ridiculing as fallacies, as glittering generalities, the very principles which were being proclaimed afresh in nearly every constitution of the time. During these decades, the ideas of the Declaration survived as a living faith chiefly among those who felt that slavery was an evil requiring immediate and desparate remedies. The old Jefferonian anti-slavery sentiment had disappeared, or was rapidly disappearing, in the South. Cotton was king, and the contton planters were determined to maintain their slaves at all hazards. In the North, business interests, depracating agitation as inimical to prosperity, were all for holding fast to the sacred constitution as a prescriptive safeguard of liberty. Liberty they would defend, to be sure -- "Liberty and Union, one and inseparable." ... Every honest man, they thought, must know that slavery was a damnable rime against human nature; and yet the United States, proclaiming as its birthright that all men are created equal, not only persisted in the crime, but defended it as a necessary evil or a positive good, thus crowning national dishonor with a mean hypocrisy.
With this crime the abolitionists refused to compromise. Let the Union perish, if it must be so, yes, a thousand times! Honor and righteousness are more precious than law and order. There is a higher allegienace than loyalty to the state. The Constitution, cried Garrison, is a "covenant with death" an "agreement with hell." Neither the Constitution nor the general good is the supreme law of the state, Channing affirmed. "Man has rights by nature. . . . In the order of things they preceded society, lie at its foundation, constitute man's capacity for it, and are the great objects of social institutions." "We should be men first and subjects afterward," said Thoreau. "It is not desirable to cultivate respect for law, so much as for the right. . . . How does it become a man to behave toward the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my governement which is the slave's government also." In justification of their revolt against the established regime, the abolitionists naturally turned to the Declaration of Independence. From the positive law, they appealed to a "higher law." They would obey, not the Constitution, but conscience; they would defend, not the legal rights of American citizens, but the sacred and inalienable rights of all men.
The abolitionists, like the French republicans and the followers of MAzzini in Europe, were but a revolutionary minority. By the great majority, both north and south, they were despised as fanatics and feared as incendiaries. Conservative men in the North did not defend slavery. They recognized it as in itself an evil, and in increasing numbers wished to restrict the spread of the evil, in the hope that, all in good time, it would disappear of its own accord. This they thought might come to pass if men would be patient and reasonable. But they thought that the abolitionists, with criminal disregard of consequences, were creating throughout the country an ugly temper which threatened civil strife and a dissolution of the beloved Union. They therefore refused to recognize rights that were not constitutionally defined, and sought for a solution to the slavery question in correct judicial interpretation. ... "Is it man as he ought to be," asked Rufus Choate, "or man as he is, that we must live with? . . . Do you assume that all men . . . uniformly obey reason? . . . Where on earth is such a fool's paradise as that to be found?"
Southern slave owners were ready to deny the self-evidence truths of the Declaration long before Rufus Choate pronounced them glittering generalities; yet they were at first somewhat embarrassed by the fact that the Declaration had been written by the great Jefferson. Loyalty to Jefferson died hard. But perhaps Jefferson did not mean what he said. "Our forefathers," Governor Hammond explained, "when they proclaimed this truth [that all men were created equal] to be self-evident, were not in the best mood to become philosophers, however well calculated to approve themselves the best of patriots. They were much excited, nay, rather angry." They were angry with George III; and what they meant to assert was only that kings and nobles and Englishmen were no better than simple American freemen. If Jefferson meant more than that it must be ascribed to the fact that he was unduly influenced by the French school of thought. "The phrase was simply a finely sounding one, significant of that sentimental French philosophy, then so current, which was destined to bear such sanguinary consequences."
A God-fearing people, such as the South had now become, could not be expected to follow even Jefferson in subscribing to ideas that were obviously tainted with French atheism. "All this," the Rev. Frederick Ross asserted, "every word of it, every jot and tittle, is the liberty and equality claimed by infidelity. God has cursed it seven times in France since 1793." 
To hint that Jefferson was an atheist who did not mean what he said was nevertheless not an adequate defense of slavery. Practical men in the North could pronounce the words ‘glittering generalities’ and let it go at that. They did not own slaves; they did not even defend slavery, they only accepted it as an existing evil to be dealt with practically. But Southern slave owners, denounced by the abolitionists as criminals, and conscious of a certain air of condescension with which even sensible men in the North regarded their ‘peculiar institution,’ could not keep an easy conscience without a profound conviction that slavery was a positive good. Profound convictions were not to be nourished by contemplating the compromises of the Constitution. Slave owners, as well as abolitionists, needed a higher law; but the higher law which they needed could not be found in the Declaration of Independence. They could adequately meet the abolitionists, who affirmed that slavery was a flagrant breach of the “laws of nature and of nature’s God,” by proving that, on the contrary, slavery was in tune with the cosmic harmonies. They had therefore to work out a social philosophy which would relieve them of all responsibility by reconciling society as it is with society as God in his inscrutable providence had intended it to be.
The key to the new philosophy was found in a re-definition of that ancient and battered but still venerable concept of Nature. Continental writers had already achieved this essential task; and it was Thomas Dew, fresh from German universities, who showed the South that natural law, properly conceived, might still be made the sure foundation of African slavery. Nature, he argued, is clearly the work of God, and man is the product of nature — it is “the nature of man to be almost entirely the creature of circumstances.” Now, since God has permitted men to enslave each other in every stage of human history, slavery must be in accord with the nature of man. Admit that slavery is an evil; yet, since the God of nature is perfect, “evil is not the sole object and end of creation,” but only incidental to some universal good. “Well, then, might we have concluded, from [248] the fact that slavery was the necessary result of the laws of mind and matter, that it marked some benevolent design, and was intended by our Creator for some useful purpose.” And so, sure enough, it turned out, upon an unprejudiced examination of history, that human progress, in every stage of development, had been possible only because superior men gained leisure and opportunity by subjugating their inferiors. Thus God and Nature had decreed slavery as the price of civilization.
A general principle such as this, which implied that “the actual is the rational,” permitted of extreme conclusions: “Man is born to subjection. . . . The proclivity of the natural man is to domineer or to be subservient”: “It is as much in the order of nature that men should enslave each other as that other animals should prey upon each other.”2 Well, what if the slave should cease to be subservient and begin to prey? Would it not be in the order of nature that the slave should kill his master and run away? And would not the slave who ran away, and the abolitionist who aided him, both be doing God’s will, if God permitted the enterprise to succeed? This was perhaps going too far. It needed to be demonstrated that obedience to the Fugitive Slave Law was more effectively in accord with God’s purpose than the inclination of the slave to run away. The general principle had therefore to be so stated that the positive law of any particular state would make an integral part of the universal law of nature.
“while man is. . . so formed as to feel what affects others, as well as what affects himself, he is, at the same time, so constituted as to feel more intensely what affects himself directly, than what affects him indirectly through others.” His feeling what affects others fits him to live with others, in the social state; but his feeling more intensely what affects himself results in a “tendency to a universal state of conflict, between individual and individual,” which, if not restrained by some controlling power, will end “in a state of universal discord and confusion, destructive of the social state and the ends for which it is ordained. This controlling [251] power. . . is government.”1 Thus society is necessary to satisfy men’s needs, and government is necessary to restrain their wickedness; and both are “natural” because God has so constituted man that he cannot live without them.
As government is essential for the existence of man in society, liberty is essential for his progress and perfection.
To perfect society, it is necessary to develop the faculties, intellectual and moral, with which man is endowed. But the main spring to their development, and, through this, to progress, improvement and civilization, with all their blessings, is the desire of individuals to better their condition. For this purpose, liberty and security are indispensable. Liberty leaves each free to pursue the course he may deem best to promote his interest and happiness, as far as it may be compatible with the primary end for which government is ordained.2
How far individuals may be left thus free will obviously depend upon circumstances — upon the special circumstances external and internal, of the particular community.[252]
It is a great and dangerous error to suppose that all people are equally entitled to liberty. It is a reward to be earned, not a blessing to be gratuitously lavished on all alike; — a reward reserved for the intelligent, the patriotic, the virtuous and deserving; — and not a boon to be bestowed on a people too ignorant, degraded and vicious, to be capable either of appreciating or enjoying it. . . . An all-wise Providence has reserved it, as the noblest and highest reward for the development of our faculties, moral and intellectual. This dispensation seems to be the result of some fixed law. . . . The progress of a people rising from a lower to a higher point in the scale of liberty, is necessarily slow; — and by attempting to precipitate it, we either retard, or permanently defeat it.1
Liberty in this sense, which is (somewhat inconsistently) both the cause and the reward of progress, implies inequality of condition. That there must be, in popular government, “equality of citizens, in the eyes of the law,” Calhoun concedes. But to attempt to establish “equality of condition” would be to “destroy both liberty and progress.”
In order to understand why this is so, it is necessary to bear in mind, that the main spring to progress is, the [253] desire of individuals to better their condition. . . . Now, as individuals differ greatly from each other, in intelligence, sagacity, energy, perseverence, skill, habits of industry and economy, physical power, position and opportunity — the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their conditions, must be a corresponding inequality. . . . The only means by which this result can be prevented are, either to impose such restrictions on the exertions of those who may possess [ability] in a high degree, as will place them on a level with those who do not; or to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions. But to impose such restrictions on them would be destructive of liberty — while to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions, would be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition. . . . and effectually arrest the march of progress.1
From this point of view, the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence were fallacies chiefly because they were derived from a false conception of nature. It might well be that all men are equal in a state of nature, “meaning, by a state of nature, a state of individuality, supposed to have existed prior [254] to the social and political state, and in which men lived apart and independent of each other.” In such a state all men would indeed be free and equal.
But such a state is purely hypothetical. It never did, nor can exist; as it is inconsistent with the preservation and perpetuation of the race. It is, therefore, a great misnomer to call it the state of nature. Instead of being the natural state of man, it is, of all conceivable states, the most opposed to his nature — most repugnant to his feelings, and most incompatible with his wants. His natural state is the social and political — the one for which his Creator made him, and the only one in which he can preserve and perfect his race. . . . It follows, that men, instead of being born in it (the so-called state of nature) are born in the social and political state; and of course, instead of being born free and equal, are born subject, not only to parental authority, but to the laws and institutions of the country where born, and under whose protection they draw their first breath.1
What is the nature of things?
"Since modern philosophy has strangely abused the word nature, it is necessary to determine its true sense. The nature or essence of every being is that which makes it what it is, and without which it would not be that being. . . . God has created these beings with the most perfect natures, and has placed them in certain necessary relations, relations that is to say most appropriate to the attainment of their ends."
The instinct of man leads him to form societies; and these societies, since they exist, are “in the nature of man.” Like man himself, society has “existence for its object, and it must naturally tend toward its own conservation, toward its own perfection, as man by his nature tends toward existence and happiness.”1
If, then, society as it has developed and as it exists is the very work of nature, how absurd to say, as Rousseau and the Philosophers said: Go to, we will reconstruct society along rational lines, according to the nature of man. Men might as well try to change their own skins as to try, with conscious deliberation, to reconstruct society. “It is not for man to construct society; it is for society to fashion man.”2 Rousseau did not understand this profound truth; and because he did not understand this, he did not understand the true source of law and social authority. The source of law is no doubt the “general will,” as Rousseau maintained; but he misconceived the meaning of the general will, just as he misconceived the meaning of nature. The “general will” is not the mere sum of individual wills, determined by no matter what hocus pocus of compact or [262] ballot box. “Every being has a will, if it be intelligent, a tendency, if it be material, to attain its end. . . . Political and natural society has an end, which is the production or the conservation of beings.” Therefore political society “wills the laws or necessary relations between beings; if it wills them, it produces them, or is itself produced by them, since the general will is necessarily efficacious.”1 This is a way of saying that the general will is the sum of those natural influences which shape the life of a people; and since it is God who creates nature and works through it, the general will is the same as the will of God. Thus Bonald sets up, for the purpose of keeping the individual in his place, a doctrine of the social will which functions without regard to what the individual consciously wills. “Man exists only for society, and society shapes him for its own purposes.”2
Law, like language, is a natural moral product of a people, no more than the persistent custom of a nation, springing organically from its past and present life. The business of the legislator is therefore not to “make” law, but to discover, through historical research, what it is.
The state itself, according to Savigny, is no more to be created by conscious deliberation than law or language. It also springs organically from the life and history of a people. It originates in “a higher necessity, in a creative power working from within. . . . The generation of the state is thus also an aspect of the generation of law, and it is certainly the highest degree of that generation.”
... "the institutions of any nation were properly but an expression of the life of the people, no more than the crystallization of its tradition, the cumulative deposit of its experience, the résumé of its history. It implied that every people has, therefore, at any given time, the social order which nature has given [266] it, the order which is on the whole best suited to its peculiar genius and circumstance, the order which is accordingly the embodiment of that freedom which it has achieved and the starting point for such further freedom as it may hope to attain.
the progress of mankind was strictly conditioned by the ‘individuality of nations.’ ... each one at some period taking the lead and contributing something distinctive, something proper to its peculiar genius, to the common possession.
Ranke ... does not seek for that which is common to all peoples, but for that which is distinctive in each people. His interest in universal history never disturbs his faith in the ‘individuality of nations’; and hence he does not identify humanity with the universal man, with “man in general,” but with the particular nation (or great men speaking for the nation), at the moment when it most clearly exhibits the nation’s peculiar genius or individuality. When it does this “it enters into relations so intimate [270] with all the powers of the world that its history, in a certain sense, expands into universal history.” 
In each state, he says, “some particular moral or intellectual principle predominates: a principle prescribed by an inherent necessity, expressed in determinate forms, and giving birth to a peculiar condition of society or character of civilization.” The historian will note these distinctive characteristics of the different nations, and record the events in which they find expression; and he will do well to record them just as they occurred,1 bad and good together, since thus it is and not otherwise that God has made men and nations, through whose actions he indeed reveals himself. This is after all the ultimate truth, that history is God’s work, which we must submit to, but which we may seek to understand in order that we may submit to it intelligently.
Natural rights in the sense of the Declaration of Independence, could not be a possession of the individual who was thus securely imprisoned in the social process. Rights he still did possess, rights that were even “natural” and God-given in their way; but they were not something to be fought for and won. Since the rights which God and nature gave him were little more than the privileges, or absence of privileges, which the positive law conferred, it was indeed not always easy to tell the difference between rights and wrongs. Perhaps there was consolation in thinking that one’s rights or wrongs, such as they were, were useful to that “society” which “shapes man for its own purposes”; and so long as the individual could be sure the purpose was beneficent, and would benefit some one in the long run, he might be content to sacrifice himself for the ultimate good which God could see even if he himself could not. But if the [274] social process should some time cease to be visualized as the progressive realization of God’s purpose, the individual was likely to find his prison rather stuffy, might even find it impossible to associate the idea of rights in any sense with conditions that had every appearance of being ugly and meaningless.
At the same time the fruitful discoveries of natural science, particularly the great discovery of Darwin, were convincing the learned world that the origin, differentiation, and modification of all forms of life on the globe were the result of natural forces in a material sense; and that the operation of these forces might be formulated in terms of abstract laws which would neatly and sufficiently account for the organic world, just as the physical sciences were able to account for the physical world. When so much the greater part of the universe showed itself amenable to the reign of a purely material natural law, it was difficult to suppose that man (a creature in many respects astonishingly like the higher forms of apes) could have been permitted to live under a special dispensation. It was much simpler to assume one origin for all life and one law for all growth; simpler to assume that man was only the most highly organized of the creatures (the missing link would doubtless shortly be found), and to think of his history accordingly, as only a more subtly negotiated struggle for existence and survival.
n this view of things, neither God nor the Transcendent Idea seemed any longer a necessary part of the social process. The social process would go on very well by itself. But what its purpose was, or whether it would ever come to any good end, who could say? Herbert Spencer, having replaced God by the Unknowable, could only affirm that the social process was one phase of the evolution of all things “from an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity.” This might be illuminating, but it was not the same thing as Ranke’s idea that ultimate purposes could safely be left to God, or as Hegel’s notion that the Transcendent Idea was working steadily toward Freedom. Yet it left the individual more diminished than ever, and more helplessly bound. In a universe in which man seemed only a chance deposit on the surface of the world, and the social process no more than a resolution of blind force, the ‘right’ and the ‘fact’ were indeed indistinguishable; in such a universe the rights which nature gave to man were easily thought of as measured by the power he could exert. Aggressive nationalism found this idea convenient for the exploitation of backward races; while militant socialists, proclaiming anew the social revolution, and giving but a passing glance at the old revolutionary doctrine of the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man, found their ‘higher law’ in nature and natural law indeed, but in natural law reconceived in terms of the Marxian doctrine of the class conflict.
To ask whether the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence is true or false is essentially a meaningless question. When honest men are impelled to withdraw their allegiance to the established law or custom of the community, still more when they are persuaded that such law or custom is too iniquitous to be longer tolerated, they seek for some principle more generally valid, some ‘law’ of higher authority, than the established law or custom of the community. To this higher law or more generally valid principle they then appeal in justification of actions which the community condemns as immoral or criminal. They formulate the law or principle in such a way that it is, or seems to them to be, rationally defensible. To them it is ‘true’ because it brings their actions into harmony with a rightly ordered universe, and enables them to think of themselves as having chosen the nobler part, as having withdrawn from a corrupt world in order to serve God or Humanity or a force that makes for the highest good.
In different times this higher law has taken on different forms — the law of God revealed in Scripture, or in the inner light of conscience, or in nature; in nature conceived as subject to rational control, or in nature conceived as blind force subjecting men and things to its compulsion. The natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence was one formulation of this idea of a higher law. It furnished at once a justification and a profound emotional inspiration for the revolutionary movements of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Founded upon a superficial knowledge of history it was, certainly; and upon a naïve faith in the instinctive virtues of human kind.Yet it was a humane and engaging faith. At its best it preached toleration in place of persecution, goodwill in place of hate, peace in place of war. It taught that beneath all local and temporary diversity, beneath the superficial traits and talents that distinguish men and nations, all men are equal in the possession of a common humanity; and to the end that concord might prevail on the earth instead of strife, it invited men to promote in themselves the humanity which bound them to their fellows, and to shape their conduct and their institutions in harmony with it.
This faith could not survive the harsh realities of the modern world. Throughout the nineteenth century the trend of action, and the trend of thought which follows and serves action, gave an appearance of unreality to the favorite ideas of the age of enlightenment. Nationalism and industrialism, easily passing over into an aggressive imperialism, a more trenchant scientific criticism steadily dissolving its own ‘universal and eternal laws’ into a multiplicity of incomplete and temporary hypotheses — these provided an atmosphere in which faith in Humanity could only gasp for breath. “I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians,” said Joseph de Maistre, “but as for Man, I declare I never met him in my life; if he exists, it is without my knowledge.”1 Generally speaking, the nineteenth century doubted the existence of Man. Men it knew, and nations, but not Man. Man in General was not often inquired after. Friends of the Human Race were rarely to be found. Humanity was commonly abandoned to its own devices.