The Solution: A Speech by Schaeffer Cox

Many thanks to Captain Ranty for finding this great video (see below) of a speech by a young American called Schaeffer Cox. It's entitled 'The Solution' and gives several sugestions on positive things that can be done in the face of the agenda we see unfolding. He's certainly an inspiration and I thoroughly enjoyed the whole speech.


Whilst I was watching I jotted down one or two notes on some of the points he was making. The first thing I noted was his suggestion that our 'enemy' seem keen to get us 'to do useless things'. This certainly struck a chord. We often see many of those (myself included) who have begun to wake up wasting endless time discussing some small example of the agenda in action when we should really be concentrating on solutions such as those shown in the speech. Then there are all the various 'rabbit holes' such as planet X or the alien agenda carefully designed to keep those who get sucked in going round and round in circles.


The second thing I noted was his statement that, 'the enemy is anyone who would threaten or connive to take away our liberty'. This is most certainly true though I would differentiate between the elites giving the orders and the brainwashed puppets who generally have to implement them. It's hoped that the latter can be reached with truth and reason.


He also said we should focus on 'not so much about what we hate and are against but what we love and are for'. This has tremendous psychological advantages and whilst it isn't always easy to do it's certainly something we should aspire to do.


The 'liberty bell system' is a fantastic idea. How I'd love to be involved in something like that here in Britain. I don't doubt that there are still plenty of communities here where something such as this could be made to work but, sadly, the chance of it happening in the inner city area I live in is close to zero.


His interpretation of what constitutes Common Law intrigued me. He stated it was 'do all that you have agreed to do and don't encroach on other people or their property.' I had to check the dictionary definition of encroach. I found two which were:


'To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily.'


'To intrude gradually, stealthily, or insidiously upon the rights, property, etc., of another'


The version I've generally come across in Britain is 'thou shalt not cause harm or loss' with the addition that you should be 'straight' in all business dealings. I felt that Schaeffers version lacked a little in that it didn't emphasise that no harm should be done to another. However I did like the 'do all you have agreed to do' part perhaps with the addition of the 'business dealings' bit. I'm no expert but I think that 'do all you have agreed to do' bit refers to business dealings but if anyone knows better please let me know in the comments. From now on if someone asks me to define Common Law I will say:


'Thou shalt not cause harm or loss and thou shalt do all that you have agreed to do (in business dealings).'


I think he said it was his father who told him that 'if you don't control yourself someone else will control you.' Never a truer word spoken in these days of the encroaching police state.


The statement I really loved was the following:


'Put right and wrong above legal and illegal because when tyranny becomes law rebellion becomes duty. But it is not rebellion at all it is submission to the higher law that government is in rebellion to. We're not the rebels, they're the rebels.'


This is indeed why we need to resist those who would subsume us in the EU and any proposed World Government. It's the Brown's, Blair's, Mandelson's and Milliband's who are the rebels, not us.


I really wish I could agree with his idea that 'we don't need to gun down the beast because liberty always wins and tyranny self destructs.' Alan Watt talks a lot about how the 'elites' often shift their centres of power. Many of the empires that have apparently self destructed were destroyed from within. We can see that very process happening today. That doesn't mean we can't or won't win though just that we do need to work hard to ensure it happens.


Although there is a difference between the American constitution and our own I still think the next pronouncement also has validity for us here in Britain.


'Protect the seeds of liberty inherent in our constitution and carry them through the smoke and fire of the turmoil to come and plant them in the fertile soil when the smoke clears so there can be hope for a better day after the horrible position our government has placed us in.'


As I mentioned in the 'Treaty of Verona' post there may well be some elements of our constitution we need to look at 'once the smoke clears'. However there is still enough in there to protect us and it is to our constitution we should refer when faced with those attempting to enforce their New World Order.


Finally we come to the declaration. Again this is specific to America and its constitution but I think it would be great if we had a declaration of our own. One that would serve a similar purpose to the one described in the speech. I reproduce the declaration in full below but in the next few days I intend to have a try at altering it to suit our needs. I've no great confidence that I'll do an adequate job so if anyone else fancies a go please put your attempt in the comments section below.


'Let it be known, that we the people of Alaska stand in recognition of the true principle that whenever a government abandons the purpose for which we have created it and even becomes hostile towards that it was once a defender of it is no longer a fit steward of the political power that is inherent in the people and lent to this government with strict conditions. These conditions are clearly defined in the United States constitution and understood by the common man. Furthermore, to the extent that our government violates these conditions they nullify their own authority at which point it is our right and duty to entrust this power to new stewards who will not depart from the laws that we have given them. This being the case, let it be known that should our government seek to further tax, restrict, register firearms or otherwise impose on the right that shall not be infringed thus impairing our ability to exercise the God given right to self defense which precedes all human legislation and is superior to it. That the duty of us good and faithful people will not be to obey them but to alter or abolish them and institute new governments, laying its foundation on such principles and organising its powers in such form as to us seem most likely to affect our safety and happiness.'


I'll be keeping an eye on Schaeffer Cox and what he gets up to in the future. We could certainly do with a few like him here in Britain.