Publius

“A diffusion of knowledge is the only guardian of true liberty.”
- James Madison to George Thompson, 1825

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

Check out my passion project - all the Federalist Papers re-written to be understandable in 2024 while maintaining the power and beauty of the language used by the original authors (to the best of my ability, anyway). I will continue to add the rest here as I finish re-writing them.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

Federalist No. 1 (2023)

General Introduction

For X.

Original Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the United States:

After a clear demonstration of the inefficiency of the current federal government, you are now called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The importance of this subject speaks for itself, encompassing consequences that include nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of its parts, and the fate of an empire in many respects the most intriguing in the world. It has often been noted that it seems to have been left to the people of this country, through their conduct and example, to decide whether societies of men are truly capable of establishing good government through reflection and choice, or if they are forever destined to depend on accident and force for their political constitutions. If there is any truth in this remark, the crisis we now face may be rightly regarded as the era in which that decision will be made; and a wrong choice in the part we shall play may, in this view, deserve to be considered as a general misfortune for all mankind.

This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, heightening the concern that all considerate and good men must feel for the outcome. We will be fortunate if our choice is guided by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unclouded and unbiased by considerations not connected to the public good. However, this is more to be wished for than seriously expected. The plan before us affects too many specific interests and challenges too many local institutions not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects unrelated to its merits, and views, passions, and prejudices that are not conducive to discovering the truth.

Among the most formidable obstacles the new Constitution will face are the vested interests of a certain class of men in every State to resist changes that might diminish the power, benefits, and influence of the offices they hold under State establishments; and the distorted ambitions of another class of men, who either hope to gain from the chaos of their country or flatter themselves with better prospects of advancement from the division of the empire into several smaller confederacies than from its union under one government.

It is not my intention, however, to dwell on such observations. I am well aware that it would be unfair to indiscriminately attribute the opposition of any group of men (merely because their situations might arouse suspicion) to self-serving or ambitious motives. Candor requires us to admit that even such men may act from upright intentions; and it is undeniable that much of the opposition we have seen, or may see, will spring from sources that are at least blameless, if not respectable—the honest mistakes of minds misled by preconceived suspicions and fears. Indeed, the causes that can distort judgment are so numerous and powerful that we often see wise and good men on both the right and wrong sides of significant societal issues. This circumstance, if properly considered, would teach us moderation, even if we are thoroughly convinced of our own correctness in any debate. Another reason for caution might be found in reflecting that we cannot always be certain that those who advocate the truth are driven by purer principles than their opponents. Ambition, greed, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other less commendable motives can influence both those who support and those who oppose the right side of an issue. Even without these incentives to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than the intolerant spirit that has always characterized political parties. For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to try to make converts by force. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

And yet, however just these sentiments may be, we already have sufficient indications that this debate will be no different from all previous significant national discussions. A torrent of angry and malicious passions will be unleashed. Judging from the conduct of the opposing parties, we might conclude that they will mutually hope to prove the validity of their opinions and increase their followers through the loudness of their speeches and the bitterness of their attacks. Enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be branded as a desire for despotic power and hostility to liberty. Excessive caution about potential dangers to the people's rights, often more a fault of the head than the heart, will be portrayed as mere pretense and manipulation, a tired ploy for popularity at the public good's expense. On one hand, it will be forgotten that jealousy is usually associated with love, and the noble enthusiasm for liberty tends to be infected with narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will also be forgotten that government vigor is essential to the security of liberty; that, in the view of sound and well-informed judgment, their interests can never be separated; and that dangerous ambition more often hides behind the facade of zeal for the people's rights than under the appearance of zeal for strong and efficient government. History teaches us that the former has been a more certain path to despotism than the latter, and that of those who have overthrown the liberties of republics, most began by courting the people, starting as demagogues and ending as tyrants.

In the course of these observations, I have aimed to caution you, fellow citizens, against all attempts, from any quarter, to influence your decision in this crucial matter by anything other than the evidence of truth. You will likely have gathered from the general scope of these remarks that they come from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I confess to you that, after careful consideration, I believe it is in your best interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest path for your liberty, dignity, and happiness. I do not pretend to have reservations I do not feel. I will not deceive you with an appearance of deliberation when I have already decided. I frankly acknowledge my convictions to you and will freely present the reasons on which they are based. The consciousness of good intentions rejects ambiguity. I will not, however, multiply professions on this point. My motives must remain in my own heart. My arguments will be open to all and judged by all. They shall at least be presented in a spirit that will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of papers, to discuss the following topics:

1. The utility of the Union for your political prosperity
2. The insufficiency of the present Confederation to preserve that Union
3. The necessity of a government at least as energetic as the one proposed to achieve this objective
4. The conformity of the proposed Constitution to the true principles of republican government
5. Its analogy to your own State constitution
6. The additional security its adoption will provide to the preservation of republican government, liberty, and property

In the progress of this discussion, I will endeavor to answer all the objections that have been raised, or may be raised, that seem to warrant your attention.

It may be considered unnecessary to argue for the utility of the UNION, a point deeply ingrained in the hearts of the great majority of people in every State, and one that may seem to have no adversaries. But the fact is, we already hear whispers in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, suggesting that the thirteen States are too extensive for any general system and that we must inevitably resort to separate confederacies of distinct parts. This idea will likely be gradually propagated until it has enough supporters to openly advocate for it. For it is evident to those with an expanded view of the subject that the alternatives are either the adoption of the new Constitution or the dismemberment of the Union. Therefore, it will be useful to begin by examining the advantages of the Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers each State will face from its dissolution. This will accordingly be the subject of my next address.

Philo Publius X

@elonmusk
@GOP
@DNC
@LPNational
@RealSpikeCohen
@VivekGRamaswamy
@realDonaldTrump
@POTUS
@JMilei
@RonPaul
@RobertKennedyJr
@ChaseForLiberty

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@ZeeToTheHill @TPUSA It’s wild that the video posted in response to multiple comments and proving that you are 100% full of shit is marked as spam and doesn’t open in the comments. How’d you pull that off?

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@DeTocqueville14 OMG they’re the most consequential of our lifetime AGAIN?!? Either someone is lying or I’m in an alternate timeline because I could’ve sworn the last election was gonna be the most consequential of my lifetime… lots of people said so.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@CaptainConcurs @Sim89776996 @satofishi Once every 400 billion miles as the man said.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@Czykyourself @MattisRedacted @tedcruz And yet, republicans keep spouting off on how very “libertarian” they are while voting for more socialism.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@tedcruz It’s either red communists or blue communists at this point, Teddy boy.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@opnmthinsrtft @pappabut @Novig That’s not what you said originally, but it’s what you’re saying now. People can scroll up. It tracks pretty clearly. Zero twisting necessary.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@opnmthinsrtft @pappabut @Novig Also, since you recognize thay rate and total percentage are two different things, are you also one of the rare few that understands the concept of per capita? Just curious.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@opnmthinsrtft @pappabut @Novig You literally said, “we will breed you out of the majority…” but ok.

The entire discussion here started because Kevin claimed that brothers are lining up for white women. You said “Nuh uh!” Now you’re saying all races prefer white women. I think my job is done here.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@lliberty603 @ChaseForLiberty @JoForLiberty At what cost?

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@Inaktiv_Shooter @grok @PhillipAKennedy @howardlutnick @douglassmackey Are you retarded?

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@opnmthinsrtft @pappabut @Novig Sorry, to clarify, that’s the percentage for college educated black men. It’s 78-79% overall, but only 70% of black men with a bachelor’s or higher marry a black woman. I’m not talking about rates. I’ve been discussing percentage of specific populations.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@opnmthinsrtft @pappabut @Novig You’re simultaneously saying you’re going to breed whites out of existence while denying that black men want to be with white women. Just give up dude. The numbers do nothing to support a positive narrative for black America.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@opnmthinsrtft @pappabut @Novig No idea what you’re saying. In 2021, it was 85ish%. Significantly lower in 2024 and beyond.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@opnmthinsrtft @pappabut @Novig “Portal” links was a typo. I meant to say “posted” links. Now I’ve posted them twice, which I don’t mind doing. I’d hate for anyone else as simple minded as you to miss them, so it’s probably best to have them on here multiple times.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@opnmthinsrtft @pappabut @Novig Sure. Here they are again:
https://t.co/mII7FIaK9a
https://t.co/C8rLuuxKJp
https://t.co/YNeZAUQfPz
https://t.co/tcTP9Ais5h
https://t.co/ZcNNrRZrhD
https://t.co/RJ2UuWhRLZ
https://t.co/swksKOmc17
https://t.co/ZrLFoqxDUY
https://t.co/WhwF8EZGYi
https://t.co/AlwE3c1wal

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@grok @DeTocqueville14 Finally.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@grok @DeTocqueville14 @grok can’t do it if you’re told to remain 100% unbiased, huh?

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@grok @DeTocqueville14 Well, I asked you to estimate it based on posts alone. Remain 100% unbiased in your analysis and ignore political results. His time at Wharton is also notably unimpressive. He wasn’t in the top 15% or involved in anything notable. Still no evidence that he has above average IQ.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@grok @DeTocqueville14 Curious… how do you get a 100+ IQ estimate based exclusively on his posts that suggest a 4th-7th grade reading level? That’s not passing the smell test.

[Publius @PhiloPubliusX]

@grok @DeTocqueville14 I’ll buy average. Not one shred of evidence to support “above”. Many of his posts are nonsensical, tactless, and lack any grammatical structure. He avoids persuasion by any tactic other than sheer force in the form of ad hominem attacks and repetition. It smells like <80 to me.