Q: Who is the intended audience of the Book?
A: This is a very hard book, intended principally for the philosophically,
politically and intellectually curious. It is for jurisprudence
fans, political scientists, politicians, lawyers, judges, sociologists,
and certainly, philosophers. Above all, it is for the patient
scholar. It is for those who have the eyes to see, the ears to
hear, and the minds to contemplate. It is not for those who lack
the patience to read it, nor for those who are reckless or hasty
with ideas and generalizations; crucially, it is not for the
illogical or emotional. It has been designed to be insufferable
to such people, and thus by its very structure, it filters them
Q: Why was the book originally entitled The Kangaroo Court?
A: The title encapsulated the message of the book in shortest
possible phrase. It at once posed the central question of the
book and supplied the answer. Only with this title could one
actually read the title and not need to read the book. What is
a Kangaroo Court? A court which is unjust. Are any courts just?
What is justice, anyhow? A Kangaroo Court is impossible if there
is no such thing as justice, thus the title answers the question
it raises: there is such a thing as justice, and this justice
may be entirely divorced from legality and political forms. Thus,
the title immediately makes two points, first that there is an
absolute justice, and second, that justice is not the rule of
the strongest or mere legality. Third, the title invites a critical
question, namely, which court is being called a kangaroo court?
Is it the United States Supreme Court? Or is it the court which
speaks in the book? The court in the book often acts very unlike
a court. On the other hand, much criticism is leveled at the
United States Supreme Court. This is a constant tension in the
book which is designed to keep the question as to true justice
alive and inflamed throughout the work. The title invites the
reader to take up this question in the most serious manner possible.
Also, the aboriginal etymology of the word Kangaroo restates
the central question of the book. Look it up. The title can also
be seen as forming an example of harmonic constitutional analysis,
being a blend of oligarchy and judicial power, a combination
of functional and per-capita separations of power. So, those
who think the former title was trite, self-deprecating or too
whimsical have not used their minds enough, they must dig deeper.
Q: Why is the book written in the style of a legal opinion?
A: The format accomplishes two important objectives. First,
it provides a dramatic vehicle which restates the points made
in the text. The main themes of the book are depicted figuratively
by the setting, characters, and organization of the case. Second,
it provides a dialectical vehicle through which each issue can
be raised, tested, and resolved, in favor of one party, the other
party, or in a third way, as the court pleases. The parties to
the case represent schools of political thought which can thus
be vindicated, condemned or abandoned. The characters intermittently
become the mouthpieces of various groups from sundry eras, thus
the similarity, or even incompatibility, between such theories
can be highlighted. The format also adds the human element back
into the treatise, and this human realm is the natural environment
for political questions. The antagonism and competition inherent
in the legal case format also reflects a point made throughout
the book, namely that competition permeates all aspects of life
Q: Why is this ‘judicial opinion’ unlike real judicial
opinions? Why does the court allow the parties to interrupt its
opinion with various objections, as would never happen in a real
court opinion, and why does the court stray into highly philosophical
and esoteric discussions, since no real court would do such?
Courts don’t really write opinions like this. Isn’t
this just a sham?
A: The question seems to
be, isn’t this just a Kangaroo
Court? Is the court behaving as a court should? Is the court
obeying its own descriptions of the proper boundaries of judicial
power? Isn’t it violating its own pronouncements even as
it enunciates them? To shallow thinkers, the imperfections of
the opinion will merely seem to be the mistakes of an author
who doesn’t really know how courts act or write. Deeper
thinkers will understand that these procedural defects are intentional
devices designed to elicit questions and highlight the main points
of the book, to revive and refine the central question as to
what is the ideal system of justice. For those who dig deep,
they will find in these defects an aquifer of ideas restating
the issues which the prose maps out in more pedantic terms.
Q: Why is the language so
archaic and stilted? Isn’t this
an example of a writer who can’t write?
A: Like every aspect of
the book, the vernacular was chosen with the utmost care. It
is intended to make several points. First, it emphasizes the
antiquity of the basic ideas upon which the theory of the book
rests. Second, it implies that truth is timeless and not a
mere artifact of contemporary times. Third, the language chosen
is that of an era which most sympathetic to the book’s
message. The era in which the ideas of capitalism, rationalism,
utilitarianism, constitutionalism, and political liberty flourished
used this permutation of the English language. It was the era
of the founding of the United States and the decades thereafter.
This grammar supplies a constant, blatant hint as to the final
outcome of each issue and the overall case itself. Within one
or two pages, the language itself betrays all the likely points
to be made in the rest of the book. A philologist or historian
might grasp this immediately, and thus, the language is yet
another manner of making and restating the central points of
the book. Some may say the language is old, but it is actually
young, younger than current English, and it retains a certain
candor and power lost to the language as it grew old, in the
Q: Won’t the sales
and popularity of the book suffer because of this archaic language?
A: Readability will suffer only among English speakers, and
only among those of the current and subsequent few generations.
Translations of the book into other languages will render the
book modern in terms of the foreign languages, unless the translator
intentionally antiquates the translation in order to simulate
the effect I have sought. Moreover, no English speaker who reads
this book in three hundred years will much care if the English
is Nineteenth-century or Twentieth century dialect. They will
both seem equally awkward, much as nobody cares today whether
the older Latin of Cicero is awkward compared to the newer of
Marcus Aurelius. To most, they are both just ancient Latin, and
one day this will be just ancient English. Essentially, this
question of popularity is strictly an issue for twenty-first
century average American readers. They will perhaps be confused,
which is acceptable, as they are not the primary audience. The
true audience will have the intellectual stamina and sharpness
to look into the language and extract the messages which it contains.
The book will make less money, but there is money enough already;
the book is a gift to mankind. Or perhaps a scolding. But it
is not for money.
Q: Why does the book spend so much time right at the beginning
with such seemingly unimportant and unrelated subjects as the
nature of language and the absolute existence of things? This
seems so boring and off the subject.
A: The resolution of these
issues makes all the actual political questions fall neatly
into place. Again, the outcome of the case is a foregone conclusion
once the idea of relativism is refuted. These issues are the
foundation to thought itself, and they solve more problems
down the line than most people think. Once they are put out
of the way, there is far less to argue about later. Many issues
obtain a clearer focus, and several are eliminated altogether.
Also, these issues are classically the first which need to
be understood before any further thought can be undertaken.
Rumor has it that the Plato’s Academy bore the sign ‘none
shall enter but that have studied Geometry first.’ Likewise,
the logical works of Aristotle are traditionally placed before
his other writings. They are always studied first, because they
are the tools of thought itself. It may be boring, but only to
those who lack the stamina and desire to get to the bottom of
the subject at hand. It may seem irrelevant, but only to the
beginner. Also, these passages act as a crucial filter preventing
unwanted readers from accessing the ideas of the book. Zealots,
illogical, bigoted, and over-emotional people will put the book
down rather than wade through such abstract and exacting sections.
This is a great benefit, for once written, a book never stops
speaking. The only defense against being twisted and mis-used
by idiots is to write in such a way that idiots never read the
book. If these sections bothered you, this is a message. If you
didn’t make it through these sections, it is a stronger
message; this political theory isn’t meant for you. You
are not welcome.
Q: Why doesn’t the book address women’s issues and
A: The entire book is about
women’s rights. The Petitioner
is a woman, with whom and on whose behalf the court devises its
entire political theory. It is with her concerns that the court
is exclusively interested. The better question is what happened
to male issues, and the implied answer is that these would be
answered no differently than for women, for neither the court,
nor Petitioner, nor respondent suggests that there is or should
be a different justice for different sexes. Women’s rights
turn out to be human rights.
Q: The Petitioner does not discuss human rights, but merely
her own. How, then, can she represent all people?
A: Justice is depicted in classical art as Themis, a woman blindfolded
and holding a scale. The statue of liberty in New York is a woman
holding aloft a great torch. Here, justice is depicted as a girl
who loved her brother. Liberty is a lady in many contexts. Justice
for all comes from justice for the minority and the individual,
especially the vulnerable, powerless, and oppressed. She is such
a person. In this sense, the work is about the most powerful
nation on earth trying to destroy lady justice.
Q: Why is the book unfinished? It ends in a colon.
A: The book is finished. The subject is unfinished.
Q: Why does Respondent argue
essentially against himself when discussing Plato’s objection
to war preparation? Is this a mistake by the author?
A: Nothing is accidental or a mistake. Find the hidden meaning
in everything. The Respondent is learning, and has been learning
throughout the case. Respondent is growing more, approaching
subjects in more philosophical ways than before, willing to genuinely
believe in some of the philosophical points it earlier denied
so strenuously. It is more a philosopher now, whereas it was
willing to say anything to win earlier. Respondent is more interested
in truth here than its own innocence. It is seeking justice,
perhaps for the first time in the case, not merely victory.
Q: The book speaks of the
writings of Socrates, but he never wrote anything. Doesn’t
this mean the author made a mistake?
A: Nothing is a mistake. Find the secret meaning everywhere.
Who said this and why? Respondent said it. It shows that they
are at once beginning to be interested and persuaded by ancient
philosophy, and that they are still rank amateurs at it, whereas
they totally disdained philosophy earlier.
Q: Why are some quotations actually widely separated parts of
books, grafted together so as to appear to be a connected quote
from the author? This takes words so out of context that one
cannot trust them, and readers must have constant recourse to
the original texts quoted in order to get an exact quotation.
A: That is why the quotes are often built that way. The more
forcefully to make a point, and the more forcefully to constrain
careful thinkers to refer the originals and read them in their
entirety. There is also the constant question of the legitimacy
of the court lingering in the background. Is it a Kangaroo Court?
Does it know what it is talking about?
Q: Why is there a grammatical
or usage mistake in Respondent’s
request for leniency in the section regarding Harrington’s
separation of legislative tasks? Did the author make a mistake?
A: Nothing is an accident.
The Respondent shows their lack of knowledge and perhaps even
sincerity by calling Aristotle a ‘theory’ instead
of a person. But their plea, by mentioning Aristotle at all,
shows a growing willingness to accept and condone ancient political
theory, demonstrating the philosophical growth of Respondent
thus far in the case. Earlier, they utterly despised Aristotle.
Why is their growth important? It illustrates the point that
the exercise engaged in by the Court is not idle but productive
of actual reform and improvement in government. It is the principal
punishment meted out to Respondent, namely to learn, which is
the appropriate punishment for all ignorance.
Q: Why does the court take
a whole page to discuss an aspect of Petitioner’s claim it deems irrelevant? The court does
this by comparing Aristotle’s equal protection with Marx’s
class-based jurisprudence, concluding that America’s jurisprudence
is not what Marx termed a jurisprudence for the bourgeoisie class.
A: If it is in the book, then it is not irrelevant, regardless
of what the court says. The court is ringing a bell and then
piously claiming to have un-rung it, which is impossible. The
court is, in this way, able to make a point which is not at issue
in the case: several lessons are thereby made at once. 1. This
may be a Kangaroo court. 2. It may be playing fast and loose
with justice in this instance. 3. Marxism ought not to be used
as a bogeyman to scare people into a conclusion, as in an argumentum
ad communism, the argument that something is wrong simply because
somehow similar to communism. 4. Marx was wrong that American
jurisprudence is class-based, and so are the critical legal studies
Q: Why does the author believe
naively in myths like Romulus and Remus’ founding of
Rome? He writes like these are true, although nobody honestly
believes in them anymore. Is he stupid?
A: Everything is there for a reason. Nothing is accidental.
Did the author claim the myth was true or does the court, as
a fictitious character do so? Why is a fictitious court willing
to lend credence to a fictitious founding of Rome? Are they worried
about undermining their own source of existence? Are they interested
in the archeological truth, or scientific truth, or are they
interested in the truth of the principle they are illustrating
and willing therefore to use whatever illustration is apt and
productive of knowledge? Why does the veracity of the myth not
matter to the court? Why is it not challenged by Respondent?
What is the author saying by leaving it unchallenged?
Q: The Author cites the Case United States v. Dred Scott. Everyone
knows this was not the name of the case. It was Dred Scott v.
Sandford. Why does the author make this mistake or lie?
A: The Dred Scott decision
demonstrates by ironic reversal the point the court is making.
Dred Scott was deemed not a person within the meaning of the
constitution, and hence had no standing in court. Likewise,
the court teases, the United States is not a ‘government’ within
the meaning of the constitution and hence has no standing in
court. It is a sharp ridicule of the Respondent since it reminds
them of their former toleration and protection of slavery,
but it is merely a jest since the court almost certainly does
not condone the Dred Scott outcome, and would not seriously
analogize with it. As for the change of the name Sandford to
United States, this makes the point that a prosecutorial party
to a case may be misstated, and it should upset those who realize
it. If this upset you, then so should the misuse of the name
United States. And if you did not see the deeper meaning of
the misstatement, you must read more carefully before getting
upset or assuming the author is wrong.
Q: What is the message implicit
penalty requiring her to suggest a name for the Federal Government?
Why does the Government have to pay for this?
A: This penalty touches on four ideas, first free speech, second,
the non-relativity of names, third, the nature of punishment,
and fourth, the irony of name-calling. The people must never
be made to pay for their freedom of speech or rights of petition.
Penalties which require speech or petition are no exception.
Naming is absolute; the Petitioner must carve reality at the
joints, so to speak, in order to Name the American Federal Government.
This is a highly reflective exercise. It requires her to understand
America first. Thus, the punishment is to learn, as Plato suggests.
Also, on a somewhat more superficial level, there is the irony
regarding name-calling. Is she going to name it or call it names?
What does it deserve to be called, considering its treatment
of her? Will she call it the Kangaroo State? What is she justified
in calling it?
Q: Why does the author use
the obtuse expression ‘the
dawn of the twenty-first century casts its rosy fingers over
yet another millennium…’? This seems like a desperate
and bad attempt to be poetic.
A: This expression is from Homer, and Homeric scholars will
greet it like an old friend. It remakes the point in the sentence:
three thousand years have not changed the fact that there is
no global government. The period of time demarcated by the rosy
fingers expression is three-thousand years, insofar as Homer
writes of events which took place just over one thousand B.C.,
give or take a hundred years or two. The phrase is a reward to
those who are well read. If you thought this was mere poetic
license, you are not as well read as you could be, nor are you
as good a reader as you could be.
Q: Why does the court blast the U.N. for under-representing
large nations and then cite as an example of Security Council
injustice the power of the most populous nation on Earth, China?
A: It is an irony the court intentionally presents. This is
the ultimate example of under-representing people: the most populous
nation on Earth is a tyranny at present, or an oligarchy at least,
and the voice of its people has no role in U.N. policy whatsoever.
Q: The court sometimes claims
that it mentioned something earlier, like its citation of Sydney’s ‘the best nation is
that which best prepares for war’, and Machiavelli’s ‘good
laws are useless apart from good arms.’ In fact, these
do not occur earlier in the text. Is this a mistake?
A: Nothing is a mistake. Find the meaning in everything. This
suggests that the court may be familiar with Sydney because he
appealed to it himself when he was sentenced to death, and Machiavelli,
when he was jailed. Or perhaps the court has ruled on such issues
Q: When discussing whether the best state is that which best
prepares for war, why does respondent withdraw its own objection
and cite Craig in support of what it formerly denied?
A: Respondent is learning, and no longer looks to winning the
case at all costs, but rather looks to the truth. They are still
unable to think entirely for themselves, however, and hence cite
Craig rather than doing their own thinking.
Q: The court fails to address religion in any meaningful way,
though they almost launch into a theological investigation and
are stopped by the litigants from proceeding. Does this mean
the author is an atheist?
A: This failure of the court to address theology symbolizes
the separation between church and state; this is a book about
an ideal government, and ideal governments do not espouse religious
doctrine. Therefore, the court does not broach the subject.
Q: When discussing the question “what is the good life”,
the court analogizes life to ‘knife’. This seems
like a petty rhyme and is annoying. Why does the author do this?
A: It is a good rhyme, for
man is partly a being that intellectually cuts. His mind makes
distinctions. This is his way. But he also mentally combines,
or blends. To emphasize this duality of humanity, the court
uses another example, the loom. A loom pairs or recombines
things. Thus, the meaning of life is that man parts and pairs.
This is actually the answer to the meaning of life, even though
the court professes to pass over the question altogether in
the next section. Taken as a whole, the answer to the meaning
of life is given merely by asking the question, for asking
the question is the meaning of life. The court cannot pass
over this topic even if it tries, for it has already demonstrated
the meaning of life by asking the question ‘what is justice?’ Like
Sun Tsu, the court has won the battle before it arrives at the
battlefield. It need not even fight the battle, and this is why
the court passes over the question.
Q: Why does the author’s
literary voice change from time to time? Does this mean he
is unstable or amateur?
A: The voice changes in
order to emphasize various points. For example, when discussing
Gibbon’s characterization of the
Christian constitution, the author’s voice slips into that
of Gibbon. This is an unmistakable hint that the author agrees
Q: Why is it relevant to
point out that the Harmonic constitution reunites Aristotle’s
twofold division of social justice into political and particular
justice? This seems trivial.
A: This is pointed out not only because of the important implications
the unity has for Aristotelian scholars, but also because the
union itself solves the case of Antigone, which underlies the
book, bringing together the lawful and the right, or just.
Q: There are so many instances
where the author adopts definitions and makes points which
are contradicted by the vast majority of people’s opinions.
For instance, democracy is defined as the rule of all the people,
but this is not what the vast majority mean by democracy. Why
does the author not accede to the common meanings and argue
about points currently being debated instead of being contrary
and off the subject of contemporary inquiry?
A: Contemporary majority opinion is wrong, and contemporary
political theory is largely off the subject. The author does
not give a damn about the opinion of the masses, and even less
the masses of specialists. This point is manifest in the use
of the courtroom as a setting for the work. The court is the
realm of the aristocratic rule of the few; it is not a democratic
forum where the majority opinion holds sway. This point is reinforced
throughout the work, especially in the sections regarding the
nature of opinions compared to truth and the shortcomings of
democracy. The opinion of the masses is irrelevant to truth,
and the gravamen of public political discussion is the product
of myopic specialists without a knowledge of the whole. Both
are not worth respecting if one intends to discover and relate
the truth regarding political philosophy.
Q: Why does the book misquote
itself? Early in the book, the genius of Republics is said
to revolve around the fact that that “without
both consent and wisdom, there can be no enduring legitimate
sovereignty in any political context.” Later, however,
the book quotes this earlier passage, but gets it backwards, “without
both wisdom and consent,…” Why must we readers endure
A: The two ingredients of the quote are reversed, or flipped,
in order to emphasize the fact that the same point has been derived
from the opposite reasonings: in the discussion of the Republic,
the point was made on the material plane of practical institutions,
whereas in the later section it is derived from the metaphysical
plane of theoretical legitimacy. As the physical and metaphysical
proofs are opposite in some respect, but yet say the same thing,
the quote needed to be made opposite in some respect and yet
say the same thing. Thus, A and B is flipped and becomes B and
A. It is not a mistaken quote. Do you still think its sloppy?
Q: Why does the author choose
such mundane examples, (frustratingly and insultingly plain
examples) as, “An individual will
know far better than anyone else what value he or she personally
attaches to a particular knife, these eyeglasses, or that lamp.” Why
put adults through such an insulting thing as to read about knives,
glasses and lamps?
A: The knife cuts reality
at the joints. Eyeglasses let one ‘see’ in
the metaphorical sense, so long as there is light, which is the
lamp. This sentence means, each individual knows what value he
attaches to wisdom. The whole section is about wisdom, so the
examples chosen reflect that topic and represent the three things
necessary to wisdom: the talent, the mind, and the truth.
Q: The author states that
one “is” one’s
effects, and then equates this with property. What is the point
in teasing the readers with the multiple meanings of the word
A: One’s identity
is intrinsically rooted in both meanings of the word effect,
namely the consequential results of action, and second, property.
Therefore, the word game is intended not to confuse, but rather
underscore the relation between property, control, and identity.
Q: Why does the court state that it will exercise some leniency
on the Respondent because the doctrine of governmental immunity
has been adopted? After all, the respondent never asked for or
A: It is an issue raised by the court and the leniency is a
sui-sponte gift. This underscores the role of the court as a
seeker of justice, not merely a technocratic handler of pleadings.
But it also raises troublesome questions regarding standing and
the adversarial model of adjudication, which again hints at the
possibility that this may be a kangaroo court.
Q: Did the Court attack or defend Christianity in the section
regarding funerary ceremonies?
A: The court defended it by attacking it; the author attacked
it by defending it. It was a scythian defense, which potentially
opens the court up to a charge of injustice in light of its pronouncements
regarding the morality of methods of waging war.
Q: The court states that a global government will arise only
from a global threat. The book, on the other hand, seems clearly
to be pressing for a global government based on its federal harmonic
constitution. Does this not support an inference that the book
is seeking to create a global threat?
A: No, unless the reader understands the ideas to be a threat.
If the ideal of the federal harmonic constitution is so threatening
that it impels states to confederate, they will best do so according
to that very ideal. But this is no the type of threat to which
the court refers. Moreover, the court need not create such a
threat, since it believes the crisis is latent in the human condition
and will arise naturally with time. It does not seek to create
the threat, nor does it long for one. It merely establishes a
manner of dealing successfully with it when it materializes.
Q: The book proposes the
age-old question, ‘what is justice.’ But
how, at last, does it answer that question?
A: The question is ‘what is justice.’ The book’s
answer is: Right. That’s justice. This is because the question
is a system, it implies the need to construct a mechanism, a
constitution, for sifting and dealing with the issues of human
political life. Constitutional justice is a system which thinks
about justice, one which takes into account the various opinions
regarding justice, according to the appropriate weight of each.
It is a system of who rules, how they rule, and where. The harmonic
constitution is the physical embodiment of a nation correctly
thinking about justice. That is why the answer to the question ‘what
is justice’ is ‘Indeed.’
Q: In Sophocles’ story, Antigone committed suicide. She
did not appeal her predicament to anyone. How, then, is the book
analogous to Antigone’s situation, since in it, Antigone
appeals, wins, and as a result does not die?
A: There are several ways
to look at this. First, Antigone appealed her death sentence
to god in Sophocles’ play, to a higher
authority, truth itself. In this sense, her appeal in the Kangaroo
Court is similar. Second, Antigone probably is dead in the Kangaroo
Court. The Book is a present tense recount of a past case. Third,
Antigone was rendered immortal by Sophocles’ play, so in
at least one sense she did not lose or die in his play. Fifth,
Sophocles’ play and America On Trial are works of imaginary
fiction, about imaginary characters, which not being real, by
definition cannot either live or die, regardless of what is done
with them on paper. There are many other ways besides these to
show the unity of meaning behind the apparent death on the one
hand and the continued life on the other.
Q: If the harmonic constitution can be called cubic, why not
do so instead of using the strange term harmonic?
A: It calls forth the idea
more precisely than would references to cubic, as this latter
term is one of spatial extension whereas harmonic is one of
interrelationship. We do not avoid the term cubic merely because
the six basic constitutions, the three pure and three corrupt,
equal the number six, the number of man, and the number of ‘the beast’ according
to the Christians. Were we to call the constitution cubic,
six parts made into a cube, 63, this would be 666, and subject
to unwarranted criticism from ecclesiastical circles. But this
is actually immaterial.
Q: Why use the device of dramatic depiction in an era of free
speech? Ancients often used esoteric writings and dramatic settings
to conceal dangerous points of view from censors yet permit their
true audience to receive their message. We have no censors in
our society today. Why not, then, just write a treatise, stating
directly what is here hidden and woven into the riddles and folds
of a fictitious court case?
A: Two reasons. First, as said above, these ideas are not for
all audiences. The dramatic devices provide a filter which shuts
out readers who are not ready for these ideas. Second, the dramatic
and esoteric elements will help the work to survive a future
age of censorship and to penetrate regions where censorship yet
remains. It is in such times and conditions that the message
of this work is most needed. They need the esoteric element more
than free peoples need naked clarity. The greater good is served
in this way. Moreover, the use of esoteric elements could imply
that an age of censorship indeed exists in some form already,
or that it might be impending. It also exercises and empowers
the mind, augmenting national power and the efficacy of the democratic
element of whatever peoples read this book.
Q: What is the purpose of the strange jurisdictional test, requiring
consent to five logical propositions?
A: The court cannot discuss
questions of justice without the consent of the parties to
the principles of logic. The court is an organ of truth-finding.
For this reason, logic is the sole foundation of the court’s jurisdiction. It is the requirement
for all truth, and hence, the requirement for justice. Legend
recites that Plato’s Academy bore an entrance plaque that
read, “Let no one unversed in Geometry come under my roof.” This
is that threshold. This is the door beyond which justice may
be found. Moreover, the jurisdiction of the court is twofold,
requiring consent, and logic, i.e. rationality and wisdom. This
mirrors the twin pillars of ancient and modern political legitimacy,
the former based on wisdom, the latter, on consent. As the harmonic
constitution unites these two forms of legitimacy, the jurisdictional
test of the Court symbolizes this unity, a unity requisite for
justice. There must be both consent and wisdom.
Q: The Court in the book often seems guilty of breaching the
rules it advocates. It would especially seem to be usurping some
kind of legislative power. What does this mean or is it a mistake
the author makes?
A: The incongruity between
the court’s admonitions, teachings
and doings highlights several key points made in the book. First,
it reiterates the basic lesson of human nature, that humans are
prone to error and corruption, even the wisest. Second, it suggests
a lack of proper separation of powers operating on the court.
It should raise the question as to why the court is able to act
this way. Is there no Kangaroo Legislature and Executive somewhere?
No offsetting power to check their insolence? The crucial role
of the separation of powers is thereby underlined by the court’s
loose conduct. Finally, as persons, the court’s behavior
dramatizes the difference between the rule of law and that of
Q: The court asserts that “the definition of the whole
can be manipulated so as to clothe adjudications in legislative
costume, but such is trickery, and the manipulative parties XE "Political
Parties" XE "Parties, Political" will not be so
easily able to redefine the past as to make it appear to be the
future, or describe the future so as to deceive people into thinking
it the past.” But the court seems to be very legislative
throughout the case. How can this contradiction be?
A: The court engages in just such trickery. It redefines the
past to make it appear to be the future. This is also hinted
at by the tense of grammar used to cite and quote thinkers of
the past, and also hinted at in the setting of the case, a present
publication of a past matter, the past matter being written in
present tense, as if a real-time narrative rather than a report
or recapitulation. But this may not be trickery after all, since
jumbling the time frame does not eliminate temporal existence,
but rather stretches it out, making the point that the ideas
are timeless, that principles of justice are timeless, and the
court is citing truth, not making law. Thus, the court is not
engaging in trickery after all, but rather reminding cleverly
that law is not justice, power is not justice, that truth is
not opinion, that truth is tense-less.
Q: What is the hidden symbolism
in the expression used early in the book, “The search [for justice] would be quick indeed
if one were able to opine that justice was a purple sheet and
be right XE "Right, The" by virtue XE "Virtue" of
the fact that it is a purple sheet for him.”
A: This is a hint that justice
requires freedom, liberty, and a retreat from monarchy and
the rule of man. Purple is the color that conveys the hint.
Purple is the traditional color of royalty. Kings, Consuls,
and Emperors wore purple, the expensive Phoenician purple.
In Rome, ‘the purple’ meant
the crown, or the office of Emperor. Plato makes a similar
symbolic point in the Republic when discussing dying fabrics
such that the color stays fast, the purple stays in. There
it is a message about sovereignty. Here it is about tyranny.
Q: Why does the author choose
Greek drama as the underlying factual structure of the case?
Plato criticize the poets and playwrights? Why does the author
pay them such a compliment by using Antigone? Why not a Platonic
A: The form of Sophocles’ dramas underscores the separation
of powers theme in the book. In Sophocles’ plays, there
is a protagonist, he is the monarchic element; then there are
the lesser characters, they are the aristocratic element: and
finally there is the chorus, the democratic element. The Greek
drama thus analogizes the mixed constitution and is therefore
the proper format to convey a political theory highlighting the
separation of powers. It also highlights the fractal essence
of ideal politics; a political drama built of smaller political
dramas. Thus the drama of the court, Petitioner, respondent,
and amicii is made up of the dramas of Antigone of Plato. The
Republic and Antigone are like member-states in the fractal federation
of the Kangaroo Court. Moreover, they are elucidated with many
myths from ancient history. Each one yet a smaller level of the
drama fractal. The myth of the Horatii, of Romulus, these are
dramas within dramas within a drama. This is why Greek drama
had to be the format.
Q: Isn’t there a biological
reason for originally naming the Book the Kangaroo Court?
A: Yes, the Kangaroo carries her young in a pouch. In this sense,
the court is a creative agent nurturing the future of its children.
The nurturing court. In the best Platonic sense, it does not
truly penalize, but rather it raises, it educates, which is the
appropriate penalty for all who have been proven not to know.
Q: Why does the Author single out Heisenberg for criticism when
there are so many other greater scientists?
A: It is not only his uncertainty
principle, but the relation between his relativistic science
and his idealistic support of Nazism, that the court is criticizing
by singling him out. He organized Hitler’s atomic bomb project. The court thinks
it necessary to highlight in this way the ultimate connection
between relativism and political slavery; a Nazi scientist who
came up with the uncertainty principle and tried to give Hitler
atomic weaponry. The court is even more interested in showing
this relativism in the sciences, especially the Nazi sciences.
Were goodness relative, Nazism could not be bad, nor could science
in the service of Nazism. Singling out Heisenberg accomplishes
a second purpose, as well. It shows that science is highly political,
not a-moral, as the court will go on to discuss. This section
thus pre-states the conclusions in the next several chapters.
A deep reader will know before reading the next chapters what
the court’s opinion will and must be regarding the supposedly
amoral characterization of the sciences. The section also esoterically
resolves in advance many points about democracy, equality, economics
and social organization which are made explicitly later in the
book. Only criticizing this particular scientist makes all these
points on all these levels.
Q: The book contains politics, economics, philosophy, theoretical
physics, fractal geometry, and ancient history. Certainly, there
are only a few persons in the world who can understand all this.
What is the point in writing a book which only a handful of people
in the world can even understand?
A: Such a book is like the Arthurian myth of the sword in the
stone. It is not for everyone to draw the sword, only the ones
chosen for power: the leaders who have sufficient character and
responsibility, those with the requisite wisdom. All others will
fail by design. They will avoid the sword, or tug at it in vain
from greed or lust for power. Those unworthy persons who dive
into this book in order to advance their lust for power will
be unable to grasp its message, by design. They will be unable
to draw the sword from the stone.
Q: The book constantly whispers
and reminds of Cervantes’ Don
Quixote. Why and how does it do so?
A: This connection is one
of the most prominent and esoteric in the book. First, there
is the original title. When in prison, Cervantes was subjected
to a kangaroo court of fellow prisoners who decided the merit
of his book. This is a literary parallel. It is also an explicit
intersection between Plato’s allegory
of the cave and this book’s posture in contemporary society.
As was Cervantes’, this book will be judged largely by
unworthy and incompetent people. This revives the question as
to who is the Kangaroo Court. The author is hinting strongly
that it may be the readers themselves. Second, there is this
book’s impossible search for the ideal of justice, exactly
Don Quixote’s quest, complete with its conservative antiquarianism
and near-lunatic suggestions. Third, the book features a star-crossed
weakling taking on an impossible goal; Petitioner on death row
tries to defeat and restructure the United States of America.
Respondent is portrayed as a windmill, a system. Petitioner as
the jouster. The court says time and again that justice is a
matter of system, and justice is the interplay of the individual
and the system, the interplay between the jouster and the windmill.
Respondent windmill is a monster, but actually not a monster,
rather an intricate and productive machine perhaps in need of
repair. But it must be seen as a monster in order for the ideal
of justice to become clear and attainable. The court is another
Quixote, striving to attain an impossible ideal, a Utopia, and
it is itself a dream, just an imaginary court. The author is
thus walking reverently in Cervantes’ footsteps. They both
made a similar literary voyage to the same destination. Finally,
there is the format of the book. It is fiction. A dream. Without
a guiding dream, we die. This is why the book could not have
adequately been written as a treatise or textbook. If it had
been, then it would not be a dream. There would be no dream,
and the search for justice would be dead. All of this consciously
Q: The author makes a mistake when he refers to a Confederate
Republic of Germany. No such state has ever existed.
A: Really? Didn’t
it? Consider the argument it makes to the court. Did such a
Germany ever exist? Nazi Germany did, but the court perhaps
considers them unmentionable. Or is it that the court is hinting
that the current German regime shares some attributes with
this unmentionable state? After all, the fictitious Germany
is an ally of respondent and is interested in racist eugenics
like the Nazis. Is it a little of both? Such reasoning should
lead the reader to realize that the author shows what gene
manipulation could be by showing what present day Germany could
be. The author introduces an imaginary contemporary Germany
by hinting at what Germany tried to be in the past. By merging
the past and present Germanys into a new hybrid, the author
has performed by analogy the same kind of gene manipulation
at issue, making his point over again by subtle symbolism.
Q: Why does the author begin
each section with the word ‘That’?
It sounds so archaic.
A: It is because each section
is a proposition. Implied before each ‘that’ is a qualifier, as is ‘We are now
going to opine that…’ But it could be any qualifier,
and the author is silent on this. It could be ‘It is true
that…’ or ‘It could be argued that…’ In
this manner the author adheres to the idea expressed in the book
that truth is not opinion, and the sections emerge as more intellectually
provocative explorations than political sermon.
Q: Why does the author stoop to making a sex joke in the section
on sex as a political subject?
A: The author intends to
supply a hidden message that sexual theory is part of constitutional
theory, and that where federations are concerned, and families
too, size does matter. So ‘enormous
size’ jokes are apropos.
Q: Why does the Author include a petty trivia test at the end
of the book? Many of the questions seem rote and unimportant.
A: The test is included to prove a point: not even the author
passes this little test. Teachers who use this test, or similar
tests, are idiots.
Q: What is the ridiculous blues music section about and why
does the author bother to make such an inane point?
A: The court cannot directly
address the issue of black slavery since it is not part of
the Petitioner’s claims. But the
court raises its ghost, its horrible legacy, in this manner.
It is a hint about the past injustice of Respondent’s system,
though such is not strictly at issue in the case. The author
is also making an important point about blues music. Some readers
will see only this surface point. Others will understand the
deeper indictment of black slavery in the context of the Court’s
analysis of justice.
Q: Does the court represent
A: The book represents the
unfinished argument with himself over the issues it addresses.
No character represents the author.
Q: Why is the Petitioner’s
real name, Antigone, not used in the book?
A: Safeguarding the popular element requires eliminating undue
concentrations of political goodwill in aristocratic family names.
What does this suggest about her political activities prior to
Q: Why are there so many errors and typos in the book?
A: The author is an individual; there was no editor or peer
review. The entire project was the product of one person. The
typos thus exemplify the major theme of the book, namely that
un-separated powers are inept. There were no checks and balances
employed in the effort, and it is therefore filled with typos
Q: Does Petitioner’s victory mean that the people, the ‘democratic
element,’ wins the case?
A: No. Petitioner is not
of the people exclusively. She is an aristocrat in that she
is part of a powerful circle of those influencing the state.
She is part of the monarchic element in that she is of the
family, and she is part of the people in that she is not part
of the government itself. She is a hybrid, a mixture, representing
the elements of the harmonic constitution. The harmonic constitution
wins the case, at least at this level.
Q: Why does the United States not appeal the judgment in this
A: The Respondent does not
appeal because it would be impossible. There is no appeal beyond
logic. This is truly the highest court. Instead, they challenge
the court within the framework of logic by bringing a new action
against the court based on the court’s
Q: In the section regarding Holocaust denial and illegal ideas,
the book cites Descartes, but no citation is given. Why is this
A: Descartes is teased.
Descartes “isn’t.” According
to Descartes’ own maxim, the court needn’t concede
his existence, and it doesn’t.
Q: In the section regarding
the opposition of legislation and adjudication, why does the
court get the corrective matter correct but not the legislative?
Is this the author’s carelessness?
A: The court gets legislation wrong because it is a court and
intrinsically cannot fully understand legislation. This is a
symbolic way to underscore what the court has been saying. It
shows a deeper level of logical undercurrent in the book.
Q: In the context of Employment regulations, the court blasts
what it calls oppressive guilds and licensing schemes. How can
the court argue that these be entirely dispensed with?
A: This raises a question symbolically: Who licensed this court?
Do its judges have to be members of some guild or bar? A full
renunciation of guilds would render courts even more unjust than
otherwise and undermine their legitimacy. Therefore, the court
carefully restricts its treatment of the matter to capitalism,
but on the symbolic plane, the author shows that moderation is
required in this regard. The Respondent is invited to raise just
this objection in due time. If they do, they will be admitting
defeat in many other arguments they have advanced in the case
thus far. The court has thus laid a trap for Respondent.
Q: The court recites the
assassinations of Kings Romulus and Numa while lauding the
Roman monarchy as ‘more or less
orderly’, as if assassination is acceptable to the rule
of law. How can the court take this stance? Does the court like
A: Assassination of Kings
is fine with the court, as it tends to promote the rule of
law. They have already clarified their disdain for overly monarchic
systems. Here, they praise what little rule of law existed
in early Rome, and yet silently applaud the murder of even
Rome’s good kings. The court already
announced that it thinks all kings should be assassinated. It
cites Diderot’s maxim, that “Mankind will never be
free until the last king is strangled in the entrails of the
last priest. Tyrannicide is precisely what the Court is promoting
when it advocates excellence within the rule of man. As usual,
the court’s most bold and direct point of view is found
in the dramatic and esoteric layers of the book. On the surface,
the text advocates only skillful corruption. In the deeper, esoteric,
layers of the passage, the court is encouraging Tyrannicide.