"History is the version of past events
that people have decided to agree upon."
Napoleon Bonaparte
(1769-1821) French emperor
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
Ive been thinking the very idea of this quote the last year or so and couldnt grasp the words. Simple and Profound
 -- DC, wyandanch, ny     
  • 3
    That may have been the case in the Napoleonic Era, but now history is the version of the past that the government collectivist schools have decided to agree upon.
     -- Johnson, Gainesville, FL     
  • 2
    Johnson, good comment.
     -- jim k, Austin     
  • 1
    Not entirely ... history is that which the publisher and schools say it is. As a student of history, I did not agree with that. When I was growing up, I was frequently told, "Don't believe everything you read." I haven't heard anyone say that in decades...
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
    My comment here is a bit lengthy but, with a thanks to Eric for his years of research and for Archer who (in a nut shell once called me an anarchist; and, I said basically no I'm not, in my typical verbose kind of way - then I researched.)

    There are 3 separate distinctions drawn upon when defining anarchy.

    The first meaning that is used, being used most often - impressing a picture on the minds eye is: the absence of all political government (Blacks Law Dictionary).

    The second distinction and definition, especially when considered in light of the laws of nature and of natures God or Hebrew based natural law is: lawlessness (Blacks Law Dictionary). The occupying statist theocracy infesting this land enforces its dogmas through anti-natural law canons (in consideration of natural law, a tyrannous experience of lawlessness = anarchy) ANARCHISM: A philosophy of a new social order based on liberty unrestricted by man-made laws; the theory that all forms of government rest on violence, and are therefore wrong and harmful, as well as unnecessary (Emma Goldman) Even Lysander Spooner of the previous post, called himself a Christian Anarchist.

    The third distinction and definition is: confusion in government (Blacks Law Dictionary). This last definition is a little harder to identify with any degree of certainty. For example; In consideration that: Government is not reason, it is not eloquence - it is force. Like fire it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master; never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. (attributed to George Washington) Said irresponsible actions can be hidden in events of racial dissonance; are they planned governmental events (such as by Mr. Obamunist Goodwrench the assassin or his sub Czars, George Soros or others) or is there just confusion in government = anarchy?

    Understanding the observations and views of Max Weber - government has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and Leo Tolstoys government is violence gives sense to historys ferocity. The U.S. founders debated how to create an ultimate representative republic. No language had ever developed a word that defines or explains individual sovereigns united with no third party governor of personal / natural law actions. Even democracy, has a governing oligarchy to violently enforce mob rule. Anarchy, especially that non-violent body politic of individual sovereigns united - with hirelings employed to magnify individual inalienable rights is a concept that more closely defines the NON-governing (government by force) body politic that was to ultimately develop. The mental image and historical patterns - that being, government by force once again replaced the Divinely endowed association of peace.

    "History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon" The people's current agreement is; a natural law, lawlessness, in the form of a statist theocracy, violent socialism and other forms of totalitarian enslavement is what the Constitution meant.

     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
    I'm a Responsibilitarian. ;-) I am responsible for the condition and quality of my life. By extension, I hold others responsible for their lives. Our representatives have betrayed us by assuming responsibilities I have not given them. What is the check against the mob of those who do not take responsibility for the condition and quality of their lives? And who has empowered our representatives to 'solve' their problems?

    So, if I understand you correctly, Mike, as far as natural law goes, you are not an anarchist, but in terms of statist theocratic 'statutory' law, you ARE an anarchist. ;-)
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  • 1
    I am an anarchist by statist theocracy measurements (legal positivism's statutes). AND, by natural law, I would call myself a natural law "responsibilitarian" (-; I like that ;-) without a government of violence or force but rather, a sovereign united with others at ordered liberty.
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  • 1
    That would be nice, Mike. What a concept! Don't you wish there was a place somewhere on this green Earth where sovereigns united could settle and form a union based upon the inherent rights of humankind? Oh that's right, that's AMERICA -- not the "U.S." Around the globe, the Independence Movement is starting to spread again. Maybe there is still a chance? Are Americans actually waking up? It sure seems so...
     -- E Archer, NYC     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?

    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2022 Liberty-Tree.ca